Defense of a Treatise Touching the Suffering and Victory of Christ

A Praeface to the Christian Readers touching our 2. Questions and their Defense following.

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

The Defense of the Treatise of Christ's sufferings against Master Bilsons Conclusion.

HIs Conclusion (for so he thinketh good to call it) beginneth against me in his page 225. Wherein first he doeth change me in general terms that I flee from the state of the Chief question, and overskip his Authorities, in his reasons I forget and dissemble what pleaseth myself, in the defense of my holy cause (as it pleaseth him to mock) I roue as I list neither keeping any order, nor bringing any matter of moment, cōfusedly pouring out the hasty resolutions of mine own brains spiced everywhere with ignorant & absurd positions, proudly despising all authority & antiquity, &c. Al which words are but wind, as I shall make it evident (God willing) whē we come to view his particulars hereafter ensuing. Among w ^ch he beginneh to justify that he mistook not his Text when he preached this doctrine. But I will speak thereof anon, so that first I satisfy him in the most principal point of his challēge against me. Which is this, that I have changed the first questiō, that I set not down the state thereof fully nor truly: & so, I offer to prove that w ^ch he never denied, I confute that which he never affirmed. Let us there fore consider advisedly this questiō: which I will set down again as exactly & as plainly as I can, that we may see how far I erred frō it before. We affirm That Christ in his Soul suffered all God's proper Wrath and vengeance being pains and punishment for sin & no sin, also as touching the essence or nature thereof, and so far as was due Generally for all mankind to suffer. His contrary opinion we conceive thus, That Christ suffered for our sins nothing ells but simply and merely a Bodily death: altogether like as the godly and holy men do often suffer at the hands of persecutors, saving only that God accepted this death of his Son as a ransom for sin, but the death of his servants be doth not.

The Opening of the whole sta • e of this Question.

For the better understanding whereof, we must note these principal things. First that All suffering of Paines in man is frō God: either properly from his Justice, or from his Holy Love: either frō [ 1] him alone, or also from his Instruments and inferior means. Again, Al suffering of Paines is for Sin either inherent, or imputed: either as Correction, or as Punishment: either immediately, or [ 2] mediately: as anon we shall further see. Sec: By the Law of our Creation as we are men having a Soul besides our Body, so our Soul hath in it a 3. fold faculty of Suffering Paines. First, that which is Proper and immediate justly so called: Proper, because it is proper only to reasonable and immortal Spirites: although in [ 1] men (if it grow vehement) it affecteth consequently the Body also. Immediat 2. ways: 1. because it can & doth receive an impression of sorrow and Paines made from God only by and in it self, without any outward bodily means thereunto. 2. It is also an Immediat Punishment, or else Correction of sin: it cometh not for any other cause at all. So that thus we mean, when we speak [ 2] of the Souls Proper and Immediat Suffering. The Souls second faculty of Suffering pains is not Proper, but Common to us with Beasts: namely that which is by Sympathy & Communion with and from the Body. For which cause also it is not Immediat: since it cometh not to the Soul but by external bodily means. A [ 3] third kind of painful Suffering the Soul hath: namely, her vehement & strong Affectiōs are Painful, whether they be good or evil. As Zeal, Love, Cōpassion, Pity, Care, &c. Neither are these immediately for Sin, whether Punishmentes or Corrections: but they come for and by other immediate causes, neither are they Punishments or Corrections at all Properly in them selves: Accidentally they may be, when they grow so strong that they pain and grieve the Soul. These 2. later kinds of the Souls Suffering you acknowledge to have ben in Christ: the 1. kind " you utterly deny. Now I affirm that Christ tasted also the 1 ^st kind. For how could the Proper and principal Human Suffering be not in him, a Man made of God to * Suffer for all our Sins? So this (in a manner) is y ^e point of our Cōtroversie. And verily how you can deny the same by the Scripture, yet acknowledging withal a true and perfect Humaine Soul in Christ, I cannot see. Namely seeing just occasion hereof was given him from God, as afterward shall further appear. You seem to stick at those terms which I use The Souls proper and immediate suffering, & you call them vnsalted and unsettled. But any may see how easy they are to be understood, and also that we must in this question necessarily thus distinguish the same from that which is by sympathy, & is common to us with other creatures. Thirdly we must also note that God [ 3] himself is always and evermore the principal and proper punisher then when the Soul suffereth pains after the first manner, that is in her proper and immediate faculty of suffering. And that is always immediately for sin also, not for any other cause at all. God's own almighty power armed with justice in burning wrath thus punisheth sin sometime more sometime less, when and how it pleaseth him. Fourthly, God himself therefore was thus the principal [ 4] and only proper Punisher of Christ as he sustained the punishment of our sins. The Devils and wicked men his Persecutours did their parts also indeed for other ends, but yet they were all as Instruments only, & used by God unto his own end: namely that Christ might pay hereby a just price and full satisfaction for our sins. It was then the Almighty and most just God himself in his severe wrath against our sin that principally & properly inflicted on Christ the pains and punishments which he as our Surety suffered for the paying of our Ransom. As it is written, The Lord laid upon him the punishment of us all. Whatsoever you have against this afterward, we shall consider it in due place. Fifthly we mean not that in God was, is, or can be any perturbatiō [ 5] at all, and therefore consequently no Wrath nor Hatred as is in us. But because We painfully afflict others with whom commonly we are Angry, and we discern sometime and see pains inflicted on men by God, therefore we say he showeth his anger and wrath upon them whom he punisheth. Nevertheless we must note especially that to suffer (as the Godly do) Chastisements and corrections, is not to suffer or feel God's Wrath nor indeed the pumishment of sin: except it be in a very improper speech. To suffer the true punishment, satisfaction, proper payment, & wages of sin, only that is to suffer properly and truly the Wrath and Curse of God. Now then seeing the pains which Christ for us did feel, were indeed properly the Punishment and Paiment and vengeance for sin, such as the Godly do in no wise suffer, Christ only having wholly suffered that for us all: Therefore indeed his sufferings proceeded from God's proper wrath, and were the true effects of God's mere Justice bent to take recompense on him for out offenses: the Godly never suffering anything at all in such respect. [ 6] Sixt: These pains which Christ suffered as the proper Punishment and Price of sin, and inflicted on him even by God's own hand, did not make smart and anguish only in his flesh, or only in the sensitive part of the Soul by mutual coniuction & sympathy with the body, but of necessity must also be deeply conceived & felt in the understanding and Mind of Christ. Now how deep this was, as we neither do nor can precisely affirm, so we are well assured that the sense of pain was not lessened nor abated in Christ needlessly: He suffered doubtless according as sin deserved in every point, except only in such respects as were flatly impossible. [ 7] For the better understanding whereof we are here to note another principalll distinction: that there are 3. divers and several sortes of suffering pains directly for sin.

• 1. As the wicked and damned do: that is by suffering the proper wrath of God truly punishing in them (that is properly in their Souls as well as in their Bodies) their sins, in whom together with their pains there is also inherent sin abiding and imputed, (the cause of all their punishments) with the the adjuncts and consequents thereof, desperation, induration, blaspheming, rejection, malediction, hatred, and final dereliction, with such like. These are certain proper and right conditions of the reprobate here, & of the damned in Hell, which Christ never tasted.
• 2. The godly in this world do suffer pains for their sins. But these whatsoever they be (yea though death it self) are improperly called Punishments, as was before noted, they are * Chastisements of sin. Yea they are partly remembrances to cause repentance of sin past & presently inherent, partly Chastisements to humble us, and to mortify sin in us more and more hereafter. And thus they are in no sort inflicted on us as very Curses by God's Wrath and Justice (properly so called) but properly by God's Holynes and Love: as after we shall further see. These are the ordinary ways of suffering for sin, but nothing appertaining to Christ neither.
• 3. There is another peculiar and extraordinary way belonging only to Christ, according to which Christ suffered for sin: distinct and greatly differing from both the former, and yet in some special points agreeing with both. 1. Christ suffered for sin being sinles indeed, as the Godly also are sinles by imputation. Again their sufferings are temporary, and in this life only: such also were his. But Christ's sufferings were exceeding much differing from ours, 1 in that his sufferings were for our sins now made his by God's account, and ours are for our own. Also, his were the true and proper Punishment or just vengeance of God for sin, ours only Chastisements and remembrances, which belonged nothing at all to him. His, the true effects of God's severe and just Wrath properly taken, ours are from his justice & wrath improperly so called.

Touching the Reprobats and damned,

• 1. their sufferings are for sins inherent, Christ's were for sins only imputed: So that God's Anger was not against Christ's own person, but against the sins which by his office in his own person he sustained, the sorrow and pains whereof touched his very person.
• 2. Their punishments are partly in this life, and partly eternal in the life to come: but Christ's were temporary and only in this life.
• 3. Their sin being inherent not forgiven and justly punished, they have all the properties and Concomitants of sin inherent, never forgiven, but in wrapped in eternal punishments: as these, Desperation, the stinge of Conscience, Induration, Rejection, Malediction, Dereliction, &c. But in Christ, where no sin was inherent nor eternally punished, there could utterly be none of these.
• 4. They are pumished here, & chiefly in Hell the proper place of the damned hereafter:: but Christ suffered only here in this life.

Lastly their torments though everlasting deserve nothing at God's hands. but Christ though suffering but for a while, deserved infinitely favor and grace for them for whom he suffered. Howbeit as I said the sufferings of the damned are all one with Christ's, as touching the Nature of the punishments and as touching the chiefest causes thereof. First God himself was the proper and principal Ordayner, Author and Executor of his punishment, God's own hand did it to Christ: no less then to the damned. Sec: Christ having most horrible sins imputed to him as the damned have also, therefore he suffered for them from God's hand even as the damned do: namely in these points, which are both possible and reasonable, that is, pains inflicted immediately and properly in the Soul, and not only by outward means in the Body. For it is most reasonable and possible that the Soul of Christ should have our sin imputed to it, yea principally to it, and not to the Body only, even as we commit sin in our wholl manhood, but yet principally in & by our Soul. Which being true that Christ's reasonable Soul had sin imputed principally to it according to that of the Prophet " He made his Soul sin, therefore his Soul principally & peculiarly did suffer for it. Also his Soul by nature being capable of suffering from God's very hand, & an occasion now serving thereunto, because of all our sins wholly imputed to him, lastly God himself standing now disposed to punish and revenge sin in him so far as he was capable thereof, therefore his punishment for that sin was a true, proper, & full punishment as theirs is, namely as touching mere pains, and was the effect of God's proper Wrath, justice, and vengeance as well on his Soul, as on his Body: & thus for the time, it was even like as the sufferings of the damned are. For * continuance of time in pains is not of the nature of Hel pains or of God's Wrath, nor yet to be in Hell " locally, as you wrongly imagine, but mere circumstances there of only. Thus the very nature of punishment for sin being but the feeling of extremist pains from God's hand, whether for a time or forever, whether locally in Hell or ells where, that neither altereth nor lesseneth the present pains, which God's own infinite wrathful power & justice can inflict for satisfaction where and how it pleaseth him. These pains then to this end, and in this very manner inflicted Christ felt: Indeed not being in the local Hell, yet those being as we see the self same pains for their nature which are in Hell, yea which are * sharpest in Hell. And he discerned and received them properly, yea only in his very Soul; as then was manefest when his body was so bruised with sorrows and sufferings (yet none at all then touching him without) that there strayned out from him much sweat of clotted blood, &c.

These things being thus, now let us see wherein you agree with us, and wherein you disagree. We all agree (in terms) That Christ suffered in soul God's Wrath: howbeit touching the sense we disagree in 2. main pointes. I affirm that Christ suffered God's Proper Wrath and vengeance: you mean he suffered only such [ 1] afflictions as other godly men do suffer at the hands of the wicked and cruel world. For you think all Afflictions whatsoever, small or great, & towards whomsoever are the effects of God's Wrath. But that is not so: except in a most improper speech. To the godly their Afflictions both small and great are God's Fatherly and gracious Chastisements and no effects of his proper Wrath, as shall appear further hereafter.

Howbeit you must observe here my 3. limitations which I set down in the Quaestion.

• 1. I mean he suffered only that proper Wrath of God which was merely Punishment for sin, and no sin.
• 2. This also he suffered as touching the Substance and Nature of the Paines, not as touching the Circumstances, either of of Place, or Continuance, &c.
• 3. I mean he suffered not every particular Punishment of sin, nor that which every particular sinner meeteth with all: but the General Curse and Punishment of God for sin, namely that which belongeth in God's Justice to All men in Common and Generally, who abide in sin.

Now after these necessary limitations, the main point wherein [ 2] we further disagree is this; I affirm that Christ Suffered All God's proper Wrath and vengeance for sin, namely so described and limited as is above said. I say All that which the very Damned do suffer, Christ thus did suffer for us: and therefore even a Proper and immediate sense in his Soul of God's Proper & most painful Wrath, his infinite, and intolerable burning Wrath. Which what tongue is it that can express, or heart conceive. Yet Christ's Human Soul was apt and able to feel it, though not to sustain [ 1] it. A just occasion in him was offered thereunto: for then he stood forth as the only and absolute Ransompayer of all our debt.

And God's impartial Justice dispenseth not without necessity: Yea where he cometh to Punish, he layeth it on finding sin unsatisfied, as he doth inherent in the wicked, and as he did imputed in Christ our surety, till he had by Sufferings accomplished & finished perfectly his Redemptiō for us. But this is far greater then as you hold, that He suffered no more but mere Bodily pains, that is, in his Soul by & frō his Body. This is your drift everywhere, but I note these express places: * Sin which should have wrought in us an eternal destruction both of Body and Soul could not farther prevail in him but to the wounding of his flesh and shedding of his blood for the just & full satisfactiō of all our sins, even in the righteous and sincere judgment of God. Likewise your general Title is, The Full redemption of mankind by the death and blood of Christ. So you commend " the force and fruit of his bodily death as most sufficient. And * the bodily death of Christ payeth the price of our Redemption, it removeth all the impediments of our salvation " The joint sufferings of Christ (the Soul feeling what the Body suffered) were most avaylable for our salvation. † The violence was offered to the Body, the sense whereof reached unto the Soul, and these are the sufferings of the Cross and of death which the Scriptures attribute to the Son of God for our salvation. " There is no other sacrifice of Christ's Soul, which can be neither bodily nor bloody. * The justice of God both temporally and eternally punisheth the Soul only by the Body.

Nevertheless contrariwise you seem some where to yield wholly so much as we affirm. As where you say " The same part might indeed suffer in Christ which sinned in man, J mean the Soul. If you mean as you seem and as you ought, that as every part and faculty of the Soul is in us sinful, so in Christ it suffered for our sin, then in his Soul he suffered for sin properly and immediately, that is, in his very Mind from the immediate hand of God, & not only from and by his Body. Again you allow in Christ * All those afflictions and passions of the Soul which naturally and necessarily follow pain. This All reacheth unto mo, and more grievous pains then the mere bodily are: it includeth the Souls porper & immediate pains also. And yet plainer: " Smart, pain and grief of body or mind (be it never so great) will commend his obedience and patience. And * the punishment of sin which proceedeth from the justice of God, and is no sin, that Christ might and did bear: Yea he suffered death " with all painful, but no sinful concomitants and consequents. And * nothing might befall the human nature of Christ which was unfitting for his Divine. Whence we gather (understanding you in the best sense) that whatsoever was fitting for his Divine nature to admit of in his Humanity, that his human nature did feel. Consequently then he felt all the pains of the damned which were no sins, neither indeed perpetual: seeing his Divine nature could admit this in his Manhood as well as any suffering at all for sin. You will say, If he felt not also desperation as the damned do, then he felt not all the pains which the damned do feel: For desperation augmenteth their very pains. I answer, we say not that Christ suffered simply All the pains of the damned; that is, He felt not such as are by their very nature sins as well as pains: as indeed desperation is. But I say Christ suffered none of those pains. All other which are by their nature mere pains and only painful Christ did suffer them as sharply for the time, we doubt not, as the very damned do. So that if your L. will stand to that which before we observed in you, and not clip it, not renounce it, we profess this is all that ever we did or do crave, we need no longer to strive, it is the wholl question which you grant us: viz: That Christ did bear punishment of sin as great as any is proceeding from the Justice of God, yet being no sin. Whence it must needs follow that the pains of Christ's suffering were the same in nature and altogether as sharp and as painful as they are in Hell itself. And this is the whole sum of the matter about Christ's Hellish sorrows and pains, & thus standeth our question with these differences, according to which we hold and profess that Christ suffered the Wrath of God, or Hell pains.

If you set the question otherwise, you go back from that which you found fault withal in your Sermons, & you fully join with the Preachers and Catechisms of England, yea withal other Protestants in the world; and namely with all them, whom at first you reproved and traduced openly for this cause. There is none of them I assure you that ever spake or meant anymore then this issue delivereth. If you agree to this, I beseech you what wisdom shown you in your hot confutations & exclamations, so vehemently to condemn you knew not what and to reprove you knew not whom. Further, if any do teach that Christ suffered the pains of Hell in a gross and local manner, though you most injuriously do invey at us for such a matter, yet verily it is nearer your own assertion then ours, if you be well observed. For seeing you determine simply, that Christ might & did suffer such punishment of sin which proceeds from the justice of God and is no sin, it seemeth by your speech that Christ did suffer Torments even locally in Hell it self: for that had ben a punishment, & that is no sin, & that in deed some learned and godly men did hold, but erroneouslie. As for us somway we avouch your sentence also, that Christ suffered whatsoever punishment of sin which proceeded from the justice of God, & is no sin, but yet with express limitation frō Scripture namely in Circūstances, as I shown, viz. in this world only & not after his cross at all, nor locally among the damned. So that thus we say, it is not true that Christ suffered the pains of Hell, which yet those your fore-noted indefinite words do import. Nay, speaking exactly, we use not this term of Hell, neither delight we to use it often̄ in any regard about our main Quaestion: because we find not this word literally and expressly applied to Christ's sufferings in the Scripture. Howbeit sometimes we speak so, I grant, and I think that we may well do so, when we understand it (by " plain Consequence frō Scripture) for the extreme pains of God's proper wrath & vengeance for sin, from which even Hell it self is not separated; yea God's very wrath is a parte, and the greatest parte of Hell pains. Or else Metaphorically, when we have to set out with an emphasis, the most doleful and incomparable pains of Christ's sufferings, as they appeared only to the sense of men, & not otherwise: Which it seemeth " yourself also liketh well enough. But howe badly then do you urge upon us and persuade men that we do & must say in maintenance of this our Question, * that Christ suffered All the sorrows of Hell, the whole Curse of God, his whole wrath, and All the very Torments of the damned, and that in such sense as you make of those words, that is including in them, the Local Hell, eternal punishment, Diminution of faith, Holines, &c. with Desperation, Rejection, utter darkness, &c? As for " my words which you wrest that way, they are cleared by my Opening this Question both before and after. Wherefore we plainly tell you, that we defy and detest in our hearts (as well as you) all these blasphemous & wicked thoughts of the Son of God, our most glorious and gracious Redeemer. And yet if you had understood those Phrases, the whole C • rse of God, His whole Wrath, All the sorrows of Hell only to • ching the sense of Mere pains, that Christ feeling the proper wrath and Justice of God punishing him for our sins, felt as extreme sharpness of pains which had no mixture of sin, as may in any possibility be endured yea though in Hell it self; and so a kind also of forsaking in them, a kind of Cursing, and hatred, and condemnation, and a sense of burning wrath, which he being our high Priest and Sacrifice was appointed unto, and which payment of ours was by God laid upon him being our Redeemer, and Ransompayer, & Surety; and that all this he sustained and suffered for a time in this life so deeply & woefully as was possible for a man anywhere to suffer which was also weary God. I say if this had ben your meaning, we would not then hold it blasphemous nor erroneous, as you object it unto us, but the very truth indeed, to say He suffered the true pains of Hell, and the wholl wrath of God. Which verily your own words also in some places do imply, yea at least so much, and that manifestly enough, it seemeth, as before I have observed. But to wade further then this, and to particularize, or to specify the parts of God's wrath which Christ felt, as you will us to do; or to show the manner how, or the certain measure how deeply he suffered it, what madness were it in men to attempt, and what folly is it in any to require. This sufficeth, that we know God is able (as well out of the local Hell as in it) to reveal and inflict spiritually this wrath where he findeth sin unsatisfied, and in Christ the union of his Godhead might admit it in his Manhood, & his Soul was capable & apt to discern and feel immediately the impression thereof in it self. Now because also God was here bent to punish all our most horrible sins in Christ, and he was ordained to receive the same upon himself, and God was never to punish them truly anymore, nor anywhere ells, and because of the proportion of God's exact Justice which dispenseth not where there is no necessity for dispensation, because also of Christ's taking our wholl nature for no needful purpose at all without this, and lastly by reason of many pregnant texts of Scripture proving by infallible arguments that thus surely it was in this mystery of Christ's purchasing our redemption (which you in all your writing have no whit defeated) therefore we are undoubtedly persuaded that this is the very truth of God: Namely as before I taught, as touching the sense of pain and vehemency of sorrow that Christ suffered for us All and wholly the wrath of God and his bitter Curse: That is, as I said so far as possibillity would admit, so far as he being also very God and a man not possible to sin, could suffer. Neither is there any piece of reason on your parte for the contrary. And this is much more I trust then to suffer in Soul by Sympathy only from and by and with the Body, which as " before I shown, you plainly do make the only & wholl suffering of Christ for our Redemption: which kind • of suffering all Godly men do suffer also when the wicked in the world do afflict and persecute them. But touching suffering of Marti • s and godly men, it is not intruth, (as † before is shown) of that kind as Christ's suffering was, and therefore this suffering of the Soul only by Sympathy cometh nothing near to the sorrows of the suffering of Christ: which he suffered from the hand of God's offended Justice, and pure Holines, and Wrathfull power, infinitely satisfying it self on him for our sins which by his office he received upon himself, to acquit us from the same. This no Martyr nor godly man doth, who suffer only as from the malice and rage of men, from God there proceedeth nothing but fatherly chastenings to them, his very wrath indeed for their sins appeareth not at all against them, which they know Christ hath once borne and forever dissolved. You have words in some places, as if you h • ld this difference with us of Christ's sufferings compared with the suffering of Martyrs: Namely where you say, " Christ suffered the wrath of God punishing sin, not * in his Body only, but in his Soul also by some proper punishments of the Soul, as by sorrow, and fear in his Agony, &c. Howbeit, though these words seem plain, yet I perceive ambiguity and fallacy in them, yea also I think a great error. First your fallacy is in that you mean sorrow and fear indeed properly in his Soul, but not any proper Punishment of sin nor coming for any pain or smart that he felt inflicted for sin, but it was mere " Devotion to God, & Love, pity, & compassion towards men: Which say you, could not be without some fear, and zeal, and grief. That is true: but this is a notable fallacy. For many think that you mean, Christ suffered such sorrow and pain as was both proper to the Soul, and was the proper punishment of sin also. But then had you herein fully agreed with us. Now that Religious Devotion, and Pity are properly partes of Christ's Holines and righteousness, not of his Sufferings for sin. For these 2. parts of Christ's Mediation I trust, you will distinguish. And surely Christ's Agony, was properly a part of his most bitter Passion, not of his Obedience and Righteousness: albeit even in suffering also he was perfectly obedient. Thus then you are never the nearer to the truth in this point for all your seeming. Again considering what you write of the wrath of God which the Godly generally do suffer, you seem to me to think that every Marti • s death and all the crosses and griefs both of body and mind in the godly are very punishments of sin, and right effects of God's Justice and wrath taking properly vengeance on them for sin in such manner as he doth on the Reprobat, though not in such measure: and that such likewise were Christ's sufferings. But then I deny that therein yow have the truth, or have rightly expressed the sufferings of Christ, or of his Saints. Because the sufferings of the Saints are properly not punishments for sins, nor effects of God's wrath properly, but are indeed fatherly & profitable chastisements purposely inflicted by God for their good, as before is said. But Christ's were altogether of another nature and condition, they were the only true and proper punishment, price, Satisfaction, and Ransom for sins, as hath ben also noted before, & after shall be further shown. If you understand Christ's suffering God's Wrath to be such as the godly feel, viz: improperly and largely (as the Scriptures there do mean) and not as the very price and punishment for sin, but only as Chastisements, then that is likewise manefestly untrue. Also then again for your words you are ambiguous and deceitful in this issue: which kind of vanity you commonly use in all other your handling of controversies since you left writing against the Papists, as who so looketh shall see. For we affirming that Christ felt the wrath of God do mean it properly, as it inflicteth properly the punishment and Wages of sin; and you tell us that he suffered God's wrath as the Saints and Godly men do suffer it: That is, altogether improperly, being sometime so called for a certain seeming that it hath to be so (as you acknowledge) in the sense of flesh and blood. Then what is this to our purpose? What ells do you work herein but deceit & mistaking to the Reader through the ambiguity of this word the Wrath of God. Which palpable fallacy of yours is so plain, that I need not stand to open it any further: and yet I assure myself that this is the very ground and refuge of the error in this Question. Which if a man mark well & distinguish as he ought and may easily do, he shall quickly drive you either to shift into this " corner, or ells to deny much of that which you affirm in your book elsewhere, Therefore lett the wise consider it. Nevertheless if happily you mean otherwise, that is, that Christ's very * outward sufferings and bodily death were in a peculiar sort the effects of God's proper wrath thus truly punishing our sins on him, then in effect you come to us again, of yow will stick but to this. For there is no reason in the world to make Christ's flesh subject to God's Curse for sin, and not his Mind and soul likewise. Also we must note that such outward bodily sufferings being indeed punishments and not chastisements for sin, that is proper effects of God's very wrath and justice coming to take vengeance for sin, they cannot be mere bodily sufferings, nor merely felt by sympathy in the Soul, which is the proper effect of the outward sensitive faculty only, but they must of necessity be conceived, discerned, & applied in the inward feeling of the Mind of Christ, and will make a singular and secret impression of sorrow in the Soul far above all mere bodily griefs, beyond all measure and proportion of things in ordinary experience, & so exceedingly differing from all other sufferings in this life. Which therefore may justly be termed the proper and immediate sufferings of his Soul. And this sense the Lord doubtless revealeth upon men sometime more sometime less in this life, even as it pleaseth him. Which also befell unto Christ. Again, if the Agony and sorrow which " you grant Christ suffered simply in his mind, be meant by you to have ben as it were a " foretaste of such sufferings and a fear or dread of them (as very justly it may be) considering the weak disability of a Creature to stand up against the Creator, namely now shooting or preparing to shoot presently the sharp arrows of his wrath upon him for our sins, in which case and condition Christ now stood for that while: then I say also I see in effect no difference between us, then again this Question is (as it were) at an end. For doubtless he suffered at one time or other the same thing which he so feared. Yea such a kind of fearing cannot be but a mighty suffering thereof. Neither do we contend to express what just measure of God's wrath, nor precisely in what manner it was revealed and executed on Christ. Only we know that whatsoever it were, God's very wrath and proper vengeance for sins though outwardly executed on the Body, yet it could not but sink in deeper, even into the depth of the Soul, and be discerned by Christ and conceived to be such, and so sustained as proceeding from God, and so wound the Soul properly, yea chiefly, though the anguish thereof bruized his body jointly also. Again whatsoever you will call it; All or part of God's proper Wrath and vengeance (as it proceeded from him) was incomprehensible, unspeakable, infinite, and intolerable to any creature, & therefore so it was unto the very Manhood of Christ, namely when the Godhead for a season concealed itself of purpose and with held his wonted supportation and comfort from him, to the end that his bitter Passion ordained of God and most voluntarily undertaken by himself, might be in suffering the sorrows and pains which were due to us, nothing qualified, but in all severity accomplished. As indeed when his Hower was come and gone it was. As touching that term The death of his Soul, which you stumble at, we shall speak thereof hereafter in due place.

Thus far I have proceeded in opening the true state of this Quaestion: which whether you (who have begun to avouch the contrary) will now acknowledge and approve, or not, I know not. Overthrow it, I trust you shall never with all the cunning and strength you have. For undoubtedly it is, and so will appear by the word to be a manefest truth, and therefore will prevail: besides that it is expressly the doctrine taught and established by authority in England as hereafter God willing I shall plainly show, notwithstanding all your strange cōtradicting & traducing thereof. Lastly whether I did set down this very state of the question in full effect in my former Treatise, or whether I changed it (though indeed I grant I was there much shorter then I am here) I pray you look & consider again in that my first book. This being well considered and marked, will yield us an easier passage thorough the rest behind.

To come then to that which he first beginneth with: where he laboreth very much to show that he mistook not his Text whereupon first he grounded his doctrine. This I say, that this Text, whereon he groundeth and setteth down the doctrine of the wholl meritorious contents of Christ's Cross, as likewise of those effects thereof which he in his Treatise handleth, I am persuaded is mistaken, and that this place of Scripture intendeth not these things. It is manefest that the Apostle * here reproveth the false teachers for mingling the pure doctrine of the Gospel because they were loath to ta • t persecution, which then followed the true and sincere professors thereof: And so encourageth the godly to bear all Afflictions for this persecuted truth and for Christ's sake. Thus the Cross of Christ here signifieth I grant Christ crucified, Christ afflicted, Christ persecuted: not in his own person only, but also in his members. He doth here jointly together understand by Christ's Cross, the afflictions of the whole mystical Body of Christ both Head and members, which they commonly have in the world. Which many shunned even with Shipwracke of sincere Religion, but Paul rejoiced therein so much, as in no worldly joy like to it. For so he meaneth when he saith, God forbid that I should rejoice but in the Cross of Christ: not that he makes it a thing detestable to rejoice in anything ells, as " you imagine him to do. It is lawful to rejoice in other things besides the Cross of Christ: but it is not lawful to rejoice in any worldly joy so much, or we are not to rejoice in comparison of our joy which we ought to have in this our shame and afflictions sustained for Christ, for his Servants, and for the purity of the Gospel. Paul had very great cause thus exceedingly to rejoice herein. For

• 1. this was a token to men that he walked in the perfect way, and a means also to himself so to do.
• 2. Because this his doing rebuked the corrupters and minglers of the Religion who would sustain in the world no disgrace which followed the sincere course: & he thus encouraged also the weak professors to suffer willingly for the same.
• 3. This indeed Crucified the world unto him and him unto the world, as still it doth us also.

These causes are both evident in the text and sufficient for Paul so exceedingly to rejoice in suffering for the pure Gospel. Now he cannot here respect the meritorious and propitiatory Contents of Christ's Cross, and so make it detestable to rejoice in anything ells as propitiatory besides this suffering here expressed (which is the sense that you give unto it) I say, this Paul cannot respect in this Word, if he include his own & the Godlies afflictions. But it appeareth by that before, that indeed he doth include them: & all the circumstances immediately following do also declare it. 1. That which I touched before, By suffering in the world for Christ, for his simple truth, & Church sake, the world was C • ucified to him, and he indeed unto the world. Also another reason showeth it: For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avayle anything but a new Creature. That is a sincere & upright conversation being the fruit of a sincere and pure faith and profession: which matter he nameth a little before Faith working by love. So by this Fruit he encourageth men (as I said) though there come shame and trouble therewith. Also in the next place thus, And as many as walk according to this rule (both of pure profession and conversation) peace shall be upon them &c. howsoever in the world they have shame and trouble. Lastly he willeth that no good Christian hereafter should put him to business by seeking resolution of him, whether (for the pretended peace of the Church) unprofitable Caeremonies should be retained with the Gospel: for lo saith he my example showeth you all my mind, J bear about me the marks of the L. Jesus, that is Afflictions for the sincere truths sake, which I could by policy and wisdom avoid as well as those corrupters of Religion, if I had no more care of the sincerity of the Gospel then they have. This being thus, it cannot be possibly that the Apostle should here mind to name the particular kinds and all the meritorious partes or Contents of Christ's suffering in this place: but only he encourageth men (as I said) to endure all afflictions for Christ and his truth sake. Thus you are answered also in that you deny the Cross of Christ in Scriptures to be taken for the Afflictions of the godly. You see the Apostle here calleth the Afflictions of the godly the marks of the Lord Jesus: also the afflictions of Christ in another place. And in another the dying of the Lord Jesus. What are these in truth but the Cross of Christ, unless you imagine some mystery in the divers words, when apparently the matter is all one. Also the very word Cross a little before signifieth the Shame and hatred of Christ slain on the Cross tog • ather with the shame of his Servāts. And thus also your main objection is answered, where you argue that Paul cannot be understood to say that those false teachers would not suffer persecution for the Afflictions of the godly. He may be understood to say, that he would not suffer persecution for commending the Afflictions and shame of good Christians for Christ's sake, which they ought to have done. Then what sense or reason wanteth this exposition? I know the root and original of their Hatred and disdain was against Christ himself, & namely for his ignominious death on the Cross. But this excludeth not, indeed it includeth in the Cross of Christ Christ's members the faithful which are his own Body, and so consequently all their Afflictions for Christ's sake. Which the wicked and corrupt professors, I say, will not commend (as Paul did) by suffering persecution in their own persons, they will not by Suffering win credit and reverence to that way in the world. The Fathers which " you bring hereabout overthrow not this sense but justify it rather. Wherefore you cannot avoid it yet, but that it is still an oversight in you to understand here, by the Cross of Christ, the Contents of his sufferings and to note his wholl and entire Passion in every part thereof as he merited thereby for us, which evidently the Apostle intendeth not, neither is he about that in this place. You say, you drew no reason from these words of your Text, but proposing them for your theme took occasion frō them to lay down, first the Contents, then the Effects of Christ's Cross. Indeed such handling of Texts is to usual in these days, but no good nor commendable use: that is, to take occasion from any text to speak of anything. Which practice in you so great a man as you are, and seem among us to be, is so much the worse, as there are many younger Divines who are led by example more then reason, that will think it a point of learning and wisdom even to do like you. But I for my part do suppose that they are the faithfullest and wisest handlers of Scripture, which make their Text the ground of all they speak, and do conclude even from their text firmly and first of all, whatsoever they teach afterwards further thereupon. Els whereunto serveth the taking of Texts in Sermons? If choice Texts may be used only to take occasion by them to speak of things evidently of another suit, and to another purpose then in the Text is meant, sure it may then be justly charged against us that we do much wrong to the Scriptures, and do make of them such an instrument as they ought not to be. Lastly it is a strong presumption that you have never a good place in all the Scripture for your opinion, seeing even your choice Text affordeth not any the least reason to help it with all; which yourself here confesseth, or else why drew you not this reason (such as it is) from your text to your purpose. But to gratify you a little, suppose if you will that your Text is not mistaken by you, but that the Apostle intended here to note the Cōtents of Christ's Cross. We are to remember then how you expressly grant, that also the proper Sufferings of the mind may rightly be in the Contents of his Cross. But thus can your main opinion be good, that Christ's Bodily Sufferings alone were the full price of our Redemption▪ Which also you would ground generally on all the Fathers: though very untruly as afterward God willing we shall see. And to show the absolute fullness of this only, you say More we cannot ask or expect; and what more can be required, I verily cannot conjecture. Howbeit yourself admitteth more, even the sufferings of the mind simply as I noted: and thus your own self by your very Text overthroweth yourself in the first entrance, as all men may see. And here me thinks also you should not so reprove with contempt as you do, that which I noted, that Christ's Soul in a large sense might be said to be Crucified, & not his Body only; namely if we suppose this your text to signify the Contents of Christ's Cross. For you know that the wholl Contents must be then signified, not any part of them excluded. Finally where you say, the Apostle here maketh it a detestable thing to rejoice in any things else but in the Contents of Christ's Cross, in saying God forbid that I should rejoice but in the Cross of Christ, either this your speech is to lavish, or else you quite overthrow your 2. Question, That Christ after this went down into Hell. For either in Hell Christ hath got us no purchase, nor wrought us any further riddance from Satan then he had don before, which thing you with great and mighty words do proclaim that he did, but altogether without show of reason or likelihood. For if he did, were it a detestable thing for us (think you) to rejoice therein? Or else of necessity you must extend the Contents of Christ's Cross that is his bitter sufferings beyond his death, even unto his being in Hell also among the Devils and Damned spirits, whither he went as you say. But this sequel I think you will not defend. These jars in yourself therefore you must reconcile: in the mean time men will think that you have not handled your Text indeed very rightly.

Then proceeding foreward you still show a bad mind in you towards me, seeking forthwith even in the entrance to draw me without cause into hatred for " disdaining the Fathers, as you suppose. The direct and express occasion to speak of this matter cometh not in place till * long after: but you cannot forbear to procure me ill will so long, as it seemeth. What then is my contempt and disdain of the Fathers, which you often report in sundry places, and as odiously as is possible? What is my insolent dealing against them? Surely I believe you cannot tell. Happily it is, because I follow not their Authorities in some opinions of Religion, nor in divers expositions of Scripture. Indeed so " you call the Fathers judgments many times namely Authorities; that the world might conceive their words to be warrants unto us, & good Authorities to rest on in matters of Religion. If you had not this drift in your mind, why give you them such a title, which to me seemeth somewhat insolent indeed? And why do you so har • fully blame me for leaving their opinions sometimes: which so far as I know is never, but when strong reason out of the very Scripture doth lead me from them. And that which I say of the old, I understand also of the new Writers. Whom indeed I do equally esteem, and do judge them (I mean * many of them) except only in Antiquity, otherwise no way inferior to the best of the Ancients, yea happily in true learning, soundness of Religion, clear interpretations on the text, many times before them. Which I hope is no singularity in me so to think; but I know it to be that, wherein very many learned and godly Christians do concur. Of all therefore that are learned men whether new or old thus I esteem, thus I profess, that they are to be read and reverenced as very good helps to show us some light, and to sharpen our judgments in the understanding of Scripture, but no further. Their opinions either in opening of Texts or in conclusions of Religion we ought not to receive without examining. And wherewith must we examine them, but only with the written word. God's most holy word is All Sufficient in it self for all true Religion, or for any part thereof forever. Thus it was before the writings of men were published, and thus it is now since they are published, and so shall be forever. Even for matter, Abundant, and for giving light to the right conceiving & understanding thereof, All Sufficient. So that men's writings do nothing else but help to give a greater measure of easines to their understanding, which yet nevertheless being used as God hath appointed them to be, are sufficiently easy and lightsome in them selves. I think the H. Ghost much commendeth those men of Berea, who hearing the Apostle Paul teach, though they were not ill affected towards him, yet they would not believe that he spake touching Religion, till they had examined by the Scriptures & seen, whether the truth were so as he uttered. I trust then no advised Christian will challenge more authority to the Fathers then was here given to the Apostle, nor deny indeed to any private men, much less to a minister, to judge and discern in themselves not only of the words of men, but even of the sense & meaning of the Scripture by the Scripture it self, which thing here the Bereans did, and are commended by the H. Ghosh for it. How unjustly then do you charge me that I refuse the Fathers to testify in any cause against my liking. I hope you will not deny me to judge of thē by the Scripture according to that measure of knowledge and diligence which the Lord enableth me with. It is every Christians duty as we have seen, and you take it unto yourself, as we shall see afterwards. Wherefore let others partake with you, I pray, in this common right and Christian liberty. Vnles you think so well of yourself, as to imagine that other men will not be so modest and humble minded in using this their freedom, or not so wise, and circumspect as yourself are. Which conceit if you have you ought to correct it. Neither yet are the Fathers refused, as you complain, to testify in any cause of Religion whatsoever. By uttering their opinions they may witness what was held and esteemed as true or probable by some godly and wise men in those times, but not by all. M ^r Bilson himself elsewhere saith well hereof; If all the ancient Bishops (such were the Fathers, or most of them which we have extant) should hold an opinion, yet it followeth not that all Preachers then were of that mind, nor if the Preachers generally thought so, that all the Christians were so persuaded. Thus it is true, they can witness what was held by some good men then, as I said, yea perhaps what was commonly thought in the Churches of those places where they lived. But in no wise what was the judgment of all no not among themselves, much less everywhere and in all ages. Now if you should mean yet further, that they may testify in causes of Religion, as witnesses do with us in Civil matters, that what they affirm and testify must obtain a verdict, and so have sentence and judgment with it, which in effect you seem to insinuate by calling their Opinions Authorities, so usually as you do; then indeed for my part I cannot agree that they or any men should be such Witnesses, nor their words (nor show of reasons) in any matters of Religion to be taken as Authorities. If you or any think otherwise, we may lawfully deny it. God's word only with us hath indeed Authority. The Fathers, all, or some have none any further, then that their Conclusions, expositions, and reasons, if after examination made by the lively word they be found currant with the Text, then they are the more joyfully to be embraced. If otherwise in our conscience they seem to vary from the text, or from some certain evident Circumstance thereof, then is it not indifferent for us, but our Christian duty in the presence of God, to leave them and not to follow them therein: yet still with reverence and loving regard towards their names for the manifold graces of God otherwise in them. More then this whosoever ascribeth unto them, they verily abuse the Fathers, and not we. For as the Papists do abuse the Saints deceased by Worshipping and praying unto them, not we who love them and think reverently of them as the blessed Servants of God: So in this case, we who use the writings of godly Men as good helps to our knowledge do not despise them, but you who make them Authorities in Religion, by your to much embracing them do indeed notably abuse them.

Nevertheless I well perceive that all this great show of cleaving to the Fathers judgments is but coloured in you; you urge them in some cases so whotly but for advantage. For in other points again we see when they speak not to your liking, the case is altered. It is worth the pains to look a little further in to this your practice, because you pursue me with such cruelty for leaving the Fathers in some things. First your general speeches somwhere of the Scripture and of the expositions of men, are very good. Touching the Scriptures, " Jn God's causes let God's book teach us what to believe and what to profess. * What J read in the word of God that I believe, what I read not that I do not believe. Touching men, " If you want the foundation of true faith and religion (the Scripture) in vain do you seek to make a show of Catholicism &c. * One man with truth is a warrant against all the world. Again, By their patience their expositions must not look to be Canonical in the church of God. If they say anything well, we take it with their praise, if otherwise as men they miss their mark, we refuse it with their leaves. God hath called us unto liberty, not to be servants of men: and to serve erroneous constructions is worse then to bear tyrannous exactions. These are very worthy speeches; but have a care and conscience (Sir) I pray you in this, that you leave this freedom unto us, which you take to yourself. Bind no heavier burdens on the Church of God, then yourself professeth to like of. And because I would have this sound profession of yours to be well noted of all men, in as much as I know how wavering and slippery you are for the most part herein, therefore it is good also that we observe how your own practice concurreth heerewith, and ratifieth your profession when and where you list, though when you will, you check and taunt us for the like Christian liberty. I see in this book where you forsake the ancient and learned Fathers, that is as you speak in my case, where you contemn and despise them.

First you reject Augustine's opinion, that those who rose to life at Christ's [ 1] Resurrection, died again. Sec: You reject his exposition of those [ 2] words of Christ to the Thief This day shalt thou be with me in Paradise. Agustine understandeth Christ as speaking of the Thieves soul, and his own Divine presence in Paradise. But you refuse that, because we have no warrant in the word of God to fasten Christ's Soul unto Hell for the time of his Death, that it might not be in Paradise before he descended to Hell. Third: You renounce Agustine and (as he saith) almost all the Church thinking that Christ loosed Adam and some others whom he thought good out of the pains of Hell, wherein till his going thither they were held. [ 3]

Fourth: Against all the Fathers you affirm it to be more then manefest that Christ did not fetch the Patriarchs out of Limbo [ 4] Patrum, a certain region of rest under the earth, as they generally thought. Fift: You renounce divers Fathers opinion that none do go into Heaven till after the last Judgment. [ 5]

Thus we observe your liberty in leaving the Fathers when you see cause. Why deny you unto us the like? If we bring not as good reason to dissent as you do, whensoever we vary from them, let us hear of it, and bear the blame justly. This only we desire that in any case of Religion the bare custom of times, the opiniō of men, and authority merely Human should never bar us from receiving the simplicity and evidence of the truth concerning us which appeareth in the Scripture. But now, that we may proceed, let us see your special examples, wherein you will make it manefest that " J have despised the Fathers

First, * where you say out of certain Fathers, That Christ in his dying gave up his Spirit " miraculously, * no violence of Death wresting it from him as it doth ours, but when he saw his time he even at an instant laid it down of himself, no pains hastening his death. Contrary to this I alleged the Scripture, " He was like us in all things sin only excepted. To answer this * you reply, Was he like us in his birth? Can we lie in the Grave without corruption, as " he lay? Or raise ourselves from death as he did? Which poor answer I wonder to see coming from you. Aswell you might show further, He was not like us in that he walked upon the water, nor in that he fasted 40. days, nor in that he knew the secrets of men's hearts, nor in that he turned water into wine, and with a word healed all diseases &c. These things don by his Manhood yet were they the proper effects of his Godhead: they were no natural but supernatural things. But this text to the Hebrews saith only of natural Human properties and infirmities, that Christ in them was altogether like us, sin excepted. Also this manner of Dying whereof we speak, that is, by sore wounds and blows, by sharp outrages, and deadly pains to draw nearer and nearer to Death, is a mere natural infirmity, and incident to all men. Therefore surely in this very manner did Christ dy also, like as all men use to do in such case. Again those Divine effects which you mention are justly believed to have been in Christ. Why? Because of the express Scripture that * witnesseth the same. Let me see express words in the text that he Dyed as you say, not naturally, but Miraculously, and then will I believe it also. You cite certain places, by which you would prove it, As " No man taketh my soul from me, but J lay it down of myself, &c. He meaneth here that his Death was mere voluntary, freely undertaken, and willingly of his own accord performed with such natural and ordinary infirmities as belong to a man. As you confess somwhere, * So that to dy even in Christ, was infirmity, though voluntary. Here then Christ denieth that he suffered anything as forced on him by constraint & violence, but he showeth that himself was altogether willing even to Dy for his people: which also you plainly see. How will you hence conclude, Ergo He died miraculously, & not by any failing of the strength of nature in him notwithstanding all his most intolerable sorrows and pains? This is truly a miraculous argument. As for Chrysostom whom you cite hereupon, he hath nothing for this point. Though it were new & not ordinary that Christ a man should have power to lay down his life and power to take it again, yet why may not his manhood dy naturally notwithstanding. But you will conclude this better. If I deny (you say) this that Chrysostom saith, I must remember what God himself saith, O fool this night shall they fetch away thy soul from thee. I remember it well. What then? Ergo Christ saying, None taketh my life from me, &c. meant that he would dy miraculously, and not by the failing of nature in him. If this be the reason, as I take it to be, verily I grant it is marveylous subtle and past my reach. Further you cite, that When Jesus had tasted the vinegar, he said, All is finished, and bowed the head, and gave up the Ghost. What proveth this? Surely that at last after long and sore anguish of mind and bodily torments his natural strength failed him, & therefore he bowed his head and gave up the Ghost. What miracle is there in this? But Barnard saith, this proveth plainly an infinite power. Which doth? His tasting the vinegar, or his saying, it is finished, or his bowing the head, or his giving up the Ghost. For my part I cannot yet see any infinite power in any of these. Wherefore I cannot rest on Barnard here, except you for him do find out some other point in the text to prove plainly an infinite power shown openly in the manner of the Death of Christ, which yet I see not. Give me leave to refuse the Fathers in such a case, which yourself doth, as we saw before. Then you allege that Jesus cried with a loud voice, a little while before he died: to show himself say you, to be free from any touch of death. How are you sure of that? What Scripture saith so? Or is there absolute necessity in reason that it must be so? Questionles none at all. Is it a thing not possible that Christ should cry allowed, saying Father into thy hands J commend my Spirit, and even anon after dy; and yet nature to have ben weaker in him, and so himself nearer to death now at last, then he was before in the beginning of his Passion. Let all wise men judge. If this be not possible I will acknowledge mine error. Add hereunto that experience showeth (as Physicians say) how some diseases in the Body bring Death presently after most strong and violent crying: namely in some excessive torments, as of the Stone, &c. Where in through extreme pains and torments the vital Spirits being dissipated will be utterly extinct sometimes, before they can recover and gather again together. Thus a man having good strength and force in his Body, when such a disease resteth not near the principal partes of nature originally, it seemeth he may notwithstanding by violence of pain only give up the Ghost at a sudden, yet not miraculously, but by the course of nature only. But * Jerome saith, " this was a great wonder, and that thereupon the Centurion confessed, truly this man was the Son of God. I deny not but Christ might show some strang & unusual thing apparantlie to the beholders in uttering his last voice, when he cried Father into thy hands I commend my Spirit. Which might also very much move the beholders and hearers. And yet it shall not follow that Death seized upon him not naturally, or not by the failing of natures strength in him. I say, this may be acknowledged: and yet verily there is no necessity at all to yield even this, for anything that the text noteth. Yet Jerome saith the Centurion was moved with this great wonder. It is strange that you should persist to urge Jerome herein against the plain text in another place: which saith " When the Centurion saw the Earth quake and the things that were don, he said, Truly this was the Son of God. Here it is expressly noted, that the * Earthquake chiefly with other apparent miracles there mentioned, or else the Earthquake with the the injuries of the Persecutours and the innocence and partience of Christ persecuted, compared together, did move the Centurion to confess and say, Truly this was the Son of God. Here it is plain then that not Christ's crying in those torments was such a wonder, or that the Centurion was by reason thereof moved to acknowledge Christ to be the Son of God, as Jerome collecteth I know not from what ground, but those other sights before said. Last of all Austin is " brought to prove this matter, but with no more strength of reason by the Scripture then the former. Neither can his words indeed being granted, necessarily conclude anything for your purpose; which as s • emeth do show nothing but Christ's voluntary dying, and that at his death he • hew • d great power and not infirmity only. Who denieth th • se things.

Th • n he proceedeth to show my disdain to the Fathers further: nam • lie for such insolent rejecting all their opinions touching the causes of Christ's Agony in the Garden, and of his complaint on the Cross. These supposed causes are alleged and amplifi • d in the former parte. For answer, first I d • si • e to know whether you allow of all these causes, or not, you s •• me to •• fuse them here: for herein you shown not your own opinion, but • he judgments of the Fathers. Elswhere, yourself are resolute for some of these causes, and against other some. And yet before, All these interpretations (you say) are sound, and stand well with the rules of Christian piety. Thus variable you are, in that wherein you seem most resolut. Howb • it in my mind, where you deny these to be your opinions, there you are in the best opinion. Neither indeed to tell you plain can I be of opinion that those their judgments are true. The reasons of my dissenting were touched in † my former Treatise, and are maintained further hereafter, as very sufficient and just. How then I pray you do I insolently reject the Fathers if herein I dissent from them justly, which even yourself also doth in sundry of them? But my manner of speech is insolent perhaps, because I say such collections are absurd and unlikely. I answer, these my words are purposely meant of those in these days that delight to vaunt of the Fathers, and chiefly in their errors. For seeing these opinions themselves are untrue, though some of the Fathers inclined after them, yet such in our time as urge them cannot but be absurd and strang teachers. Who having so many helps and means to discern where the Fathers mistook • , which they utterly wanted and we abound with all, yet do so littl • profit by them, that even great Doctors as they desire to be thought, see not so much in the truth of the Gospel as many younger men now pe • c • ave: and in the Fathers they make themselves so cunning that commonly their sound doctrine they little regard, their faults only they admire. Such I meant and took for absurd gatherers from this Scripture. Whom here I noted by the nam • of our Contraryes: The Fathers I call not so. Now that this ind • ed may be also seen even in your expounding here. Consider first, how you wavered and spake cōtrarily in these " supposed Causes, as I noted a little before. Again, these agree not with any Ci • cumstances of the Passion, and so are merely of Human conjecture without all Scripture: also they agree not together among themselves. One of them crosseth another; one overthroweth another. Will you then avouch them, as you do, to be * all sound and to stand well with the rules of Christian piety? Howbeit absolutely " I d • ny not, but that th • se or some of these reasons were in Christ at his Passion, as namely his Care for his Church; his love of his enemies, &c. For these holy affections he never wanted all his life long. But this rather confuteth then proveth these to be the very cause or causes that † in the hour of his dreadful Passion wrought in him such Agonies and consternation of mind. But these things here I omit, being hereafter more fully discussed. Lastly you cast a needles rebuke upon me for " confounding the Causes of the Agony and of the Complaint together. Forsooth that was done not without reason, I think: Every reasonable man, I believe, will say, that the same cause was of them both in Christ. His Agony and his Complaint are not so contrary nor so divers, but that they might, yea verily did proceed from the same cause and ground. Yea Ambrose, one of your Authors doeth * plainly join thē both together. Yea yourself doth also, as by comparing † your cause of the Agony, with your 1. or 2. of the ‡ Complaint, will appear. You have much cause then, have you not, to make such out •• yes upon me, that I am strangely amazed, confounded, and forgetful in my writing? Good words I pray you. I did but join them together whom yourself & others do make all one. But I have stood too long on these tryfles.

Now you will show some examples of my mistaking or perverting your own reasons. For these hitherto were not his, but the Fathers opinions, as before I noted. I marveyle then why he troubleth him self and us with them, if they be not his; specially if he propound them not to be received? Why laboreth he so to distract us with such varieties? And then to tell us they are not his, but other men's. Yet such men's he telleth us they are, as that it must not be for our Credit to refuse them. Thus the poor people are strangely taught: thus the world shall be filled full of ambiguities, doubtfulness, variety of opinion in matters of Religion: and withal forbidden to rest upon any certain and particular reason, as also he dealeth in other cases. But I omit to prosecute this any further. For we shall now see some of his own matters, which I have ignorantly or purposely perverted.

First he telleth us, that In the Effectes of Christ's Cross he noted out of the Apostle to the Hebrews, three properties of the true propitiatory Sacrifice which took away the sin of the world. It was a Bodily, a Bloody, and a Deadly Sacrifice, for so you speak. This is one of your reasons, yea almost the greatest, to prove the Quaestion against us: because Christ's Bodily Sufferings & bloodshed were the true propitiatiō of our sins. But what a reason is this? How diffreth it frō our Assertion? That the true Sacrifice for sin, must be indeed bodily, bloody, & dead we doubt not: we unfeignedly & heartily do embrace it The Patriarchs believed it, the Jews sacrifices of beasts figured it, the New Testament confirmeth it. But how will it follow then, Ergo Christ's Bodily death only & meerlie was the wholl ransom and price of sin. For we must note that this is the very Question in deed; this is the point of our Controversy, as I have shown, if you will deal plainly. If you speak not to this point, your words are Ambiguous and deceitful: and that notable fault is in yourself most true, which you wrongully charge me with: you dally with general and doubtful terms, which according as they are expounded, may either make with you or against you. And most rightly of your wholl book being indeed a huge volume for so little matter, I may say that which you object most unaptly against my small pamphlet Three lines directly to the purpose had ben more worth thē so many leves thus wastefully spent. Wherefore, if you mean these words directly to the purpose in deed, and do intend to conclude that which we plainly deny, and as now at this time we will understand your meaning to be, that the mere Bodily Sufferings of Christ, without any proper sufferings of his Soul, are the intier and whole ransom for sin: then I affirm expressly there is no piece of reason, nor likeness of any argument in th • se words. This will not follow by any means from your text. Again, if the Sacrifice, as it is only Bodily, Bloody, and Deadly, doth wholly purge sin, then although Christ's Bodily death and bloodshed wanted not the sympathy of the Soul, yet it followeth that no action or passion of his Soul, neither this by sympathy nor any other, I say none at all as being in the Soul, was regarded as propiciatory and meritorious. Which if you once affirm plainly, then we will seek no further for your drift, we may know your meaning well enough. Christ's Soul shall have no place, no merit, no respect at all in the matter of Propitiation. Howbeit elsewhere I see in you manifest Contrariety hereunto. For sundry times you teach that Christ did suffer peculiarly and severally some * proper punishments (which I hope were propitiatory & meritorious) in his Soul, besides his Bodily suffering: Yea that this was a part of his Cross & the effect of God's wrath on his Soul as well as the suffering in his Body. Now how can this be true, if our wholl Ransom & propitiation be only Bodily, bloody, and deadly: which is the point that here * you stand on. But you have reasons " you say to confirm your main matter, among many these 2: The Jewish Sacrifices, and the Sacraments of Christians. The 1 ^st . shaddowing and foreshowing, the 2. testifying and confirming that the true sacrifice for sin was Bodily and bloody. Still what trifling is this? Doth any in the World deny it, that the true Sacrifice for sin was the Body, blood, and death of the Redeemer? Wherefore the * Proposition must be as I " did set it in your behalf: The Jewish Sacrifices were shadows or Figures, and our * Sacraments were signs of our wholl and absolute redemption by Christ. I say of the wholl and entire propitiatory Sacrifice, or else you shrink and leave the Question. As for your pains of Hell in such sense as " you understand them, that is including the local punishment among the Damned, Desperation, final retection, and such like, so there was never any that thought Christ Suffered Hell pains, as before is declared. Where you say, that I expound these Figures of our wholl and absolute redemption to be of all the fruits and causes of our redemption, why do you untruly charge me with that which I have not. I have no such word nor meaning as fruits. Indeed I named thē Figures of * Effects in Christ, I mean Acts don by Christ: but I never thought them anywhere fruits of our redemption, but either causes or means or other necessary adioints. This therefore which indeed is the true Proposition, & being set as it ought to be I grant not, as you also untruly charge me; I do still deny it in such manner, as I did before: Generally All the Jews Sacrifices did not Figure and shadow our wholl redemption in Christ. The inward and invisible things they all did not signify. And yet I grant indeed, that they signified what they were apt to teach and signify: namely the outward and Bodily sufferings only. This I say, many of the Jews Sacrifices did represent and signify, yea most of them, but not All. Therefore the Assumption also I may well deny, as I did before: affirming that certain Jewish Sacrifices set forth the sufferings even of the Soul of Christ, and not of his Body only. As 1. that Sacrifice consisting of 2. Goats, a slain & a Scapegoat. You object here against: 1. that I abuse the Text. That were a great fault: but let us view the text. Thus are the very express words which you also recite: Aaron shall take of the people 2. Goats for a Sin-offering. Surely you must bring very good reason to frustrate so plain a speech: That is, you say, to make a Sin-offering of one of them. Nay, the very words are, take 2. Goats for a Sin-offering: it saith not, take 2. Goats that one of them may be a Sin-offering. But this showeth so much, you think, where the text saith, Lottes were cast over the 2: Goats one lot for the Lord, the other for the Scapegoat. And Aaron shall offer the Goat on which the Lord's lot shall fall, and make him a Sin-offering. These words prove not that the Scapegoat was no Sin-offering at all: Unless this were true, that no Sin offering can possibly be but by killing and slaying and sheadding of blood. Although the Scripture say, Without sheadding of blood is no remission, yet it meaneth that Allmost all things are in the Law purged with blood. That is, many Offerings and sacrifices are bloody, but not all. I take now sacrifice and offering in the largest sense, as signifying any consecrated thing given to God to appease him for sin. And such unbloody Sin-offerings very many we shall find in Moses Law. Wherefore the Scapegoat may we yet a Sin-offering, though it were not slain nor bloody. And his utter sending away into the unknown Deserts, may answer to the consuming of some other Sacrifices by fire. Thus then these words of the text which you bring do not prove the Scapegoate to be no Sin-offering at all: they prove it to be no bloody Offering, and therefore not such, but of another kind then the slain Goat was. It might be consecrated and offered to the Lord, and utterly sequestered from men, and bear and take away sin no less then the slain Goat: wherein verily consisteth the nature and being of a Sacrifice or true Sin-offering. And in very deed all this the text following expressly avoucheth of the Scape goat. " The Scapegoat shall be presented alive before the Lord to make reconciliation by him, & to let him go for a Scapegoat. Here is his Consecrating unto the Lord, yea reconciliation also is made by him, though he died not as the other did. Again more plainly, * And Aaron shall put both his hands vpō the head of the live Goat and confess upon him all the iniquities of the Children of Israel & all their trespasses and all their sins putting them upon the head of the Goat, and shall send him away (alive) into the Wildernes. So the Goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities into the Wildernes, being let go thither. Can there be anything in the world more full and strong to prove that the Scapegoat also was a true Sin-offering, or rather a true parte of this wholl and entire Sin-offering consisting and being complete in both these Goats the slain and the Scapegoat together. For as the slain Goat so this Scapegoat, we see, was as well " Consecrated to the Lord, and * here Offered (though not by killing ) and separated from men, & have upon him all the sins of the people and carried them clean away. So we may read of other Sacrifices consisting and being complete wholly " of Sacrifices of sundry divers kinds. The bloody Sacrifice had conjoined together with it, the unbloody Sacrifice of the Meat offering, and another of the Drink offering &c. Which may very likely represent unto us the sundry and divers kinds of Christ's meritorious Sufferings in his life time & at his Death, some bloody, some unbloody: but all concurring together & making the full and persit propitiation for all our sins. And even such a Sacrifice or Sin-offering it seemeth surely these 2. Goats were. Here then your advisednes may be noted by all men, which do reprove me for this assertion, and that with such violent and vncomly terms. Now if it be a Figurative Sin-offering, what signified this Figure? Certainly it signified Christ, and his taking away of our sins by his death. Have you any color of reason to maintain those wide conjectures of the * Ancients, that the Scapegoat signified the Reprobat and castaway people: or ells cursed Barabbas that scaped death when Jesus was slain. Who but you would defend these palpable mistakinges of those men? And why? Because they are Ancient. Yet see you not the express text against thē? Do damned men, or did Barabbas reconcile us to God, & take away our sins, as the Scapegoat did typically? Nay surely: It must needs be then, that it signified Christ, yea doubtless Christ man. For the Godhead could be no Sin-offering neither did it make reconciliation for sin, neither did the Deity bear our sins upon himself properly: all which the Scapegoat did. Further, if it were Christ man, it could not be his Body: for his body was slain bloodily, the Scapegoat was not slain. For the other Goat (a Sacrifice to) being slain, this survived and went away into the land of separation. It must then be of necessity (I think) the Human mortal Soul of Christ which the Scapegoate signified: which was a true Sin-offering and made propitiation for us, as well as the slain Goat, and bare upon him our sins: though his Soul died not bloodily nor by loosing life and sense, as his body and the typical slain Goat did. You say, If this Scapegoat do signify Christ's Soul, then it cannot be that Christ's Soul Suffered, much less died any death. This objection truly you might have spared: seeing myself before brought it & fully answered it: where against you have said never a word. The effect whereof is this: The escaping of the Goat may lively show unto us that Christ's Soul died not as the Body died by loosing life and sense, but surviving went hence into Hades, the land of separation, the invisible world of the Dead. But in that the Scapegoat did bear and sustain our sins, and was indeed a Sin-offering to as well as the slain Goat, so it may well signify that Christ's Soul properly suffered and sustained the burden of our sins in satisfying for them, no less then his body which was bloodily slain therefore. As for the Dying of Christ's Soul we shall answer you for that in due place hereafter. So that, Now where you say, I am more bold then wise in affirming the Scapegoat to signify the Soul of Christ. Surely then I were like you, who affirm as boldly, that among the Jews no Sacrifice at all foreshowed any Suffering of the Soul of Christ: which you can never prove. Howbeit this I acknowledge indeed that the Jewish Figures, though they be appliable unto Christ the substance of those shadows, yet we ought to apply them in the particulars soberly and warily, and not without some plain proportion of the Figure with the thing Figured. Wherefore my meaning is none other in these Jewish figures, which the Scripture doth not anywhere expressly interpret, but to show what I think to be indeed most probable and likely, knowing that yet some such matter, as we aim at, they do signify without question. And this is sufficient to deny your Assertion, which against our saying that the sufferings of Christ's Soul may be signified by the Scapegoat, is but merely conjectural and presumed.

The very like are * your 3. reasons brought to show that the " Holocaust cannot signify the suffering • s of whole Christ, and therefore not of his Soul any way. Your former reason is, because the Holocaust was 1. slain and after burnt: for then if the burning signifieth Christ's pains and sufferings, Christ must seem to suffer after his death. But this is a weak inference. Is there any Figure or similitude concurring in all points and circumstances with the thing signified? Sure there is no man of knowledge so unexpert or so unreasonable as to require it. Many times where they agree only but in one principal respect, that sufficeth to make the similitude. Again many similitudes and Figures there are in the old Law having as great disparagemēt to the things signified by them as this in the Holocaust which you talk of. The Bodies of beasts first " slain, were after carried out of the Host. Now these signified Christ's going out of Jerusalem * to be slain, but being yet alive. Again the beasts carrying out by others after they were slain "is likened to our voluntary and free leaving of the world in this life. Lastly the * burning of the beasts after they were dead, was a sacrifice of a sweet favor unto God. Which in truth is Christ's very " death, and nothing don by him afterward, whereby God's anger is fully pacified toward us. Wherefore your first exception is very vain. The 2. is like to it. The Holocaust was consumed in one & the same sire. But Christ was tormented wholly not with one kind of suffering (as we maintain) but with 2. kinds, that is with bodily & spiritual sorrows. First I say, this also, if it were true, is as weak an exception as the former, and altogether like it. See: Though Christ indeed suffered divers and sundry kinds of sorrows yea even of those which were merely outward and bodily, as also of those that were merely Spiritual and inward, yet we plainly affirm that one & " the same torment afflicted his whole manhood by sympathy. For his Soul also was sore grieved I doubt not even with his proper Bodily torments: likewise his Body, when his trickling sweat was clots of blood, was crushed and broken vnspekeably with his inward and spiritual sorrows, though his flesh then felt outwardly no pain. So your 2. exception is also nothing. The 3. is no better: where you argue from my words, that the Bodies of beasts could not prefigure the immortal & reasonable Soul of Christ. And it is like to that which afterward you cite from my words about the Sacraments, Earthly Elements cannot set out spiritual and invisible effects in Christ. Hence you think that I cannot defend that the firy consuming of the Holocaust may signify the sorrows both of the Soul and Body of Christ. You shall see that I can full easily, and without any trisling. It is evident that I mean in those former places, that bodily things generally and for the most part do-represent the mere bodily & external parts of Christ's sufferings: but not always and altogether. Which you might have easily seen by my answer to the Assumption and by the instances which there I give to this purpose. Again the very instances which I give, viz: the Scapegoat, the Holocaust, & afterward the bread broken in the communion, these I say do not in that respect as they are Bodily things represent the Soul of Christ or any matter pertaining to it. But the peculiar usage and manner of action about them doth lively represent the suffering of his soul and not of his body only. As, not the Goat representeth Christ's soul, unless only in respect of the escaping of it whē the other Goat died, & also in respect of the sustaining and bearing upon himself of our sins. And not the body of the Holocaust, but the utter consuming by fire of the whole, signifieth the sufferings of whole Christ. Lastly the bread may signify the whole Christ who is the entire and perfect bread of life: but the Breaking thereof into pieces representeth more lively the breaking & crushing in pieces (as it were) of the soul rather thē of the body. Which was pierced through, but was not in case of being broken in pieces, so likely as the Soul was. Yet you will say) the Hol: may signify that whole Christ suffered but some bodily afflictions, the Soul feeling the griefs & pains of the Body. For how will it follow that the proper and immediate sufferings of Christ's Soul might be signified by the Holocaust? Surely according to the proportion of the Holocaust so whole Christ, & then his very Soul chiefly, was as it were chopped or broken into pieces, and as it were quite consumed and swallowed up in his firy sorrows: only the assistance of his Godhead sustained his Soul and withal his body, or else he could not have borne it, as a I noted M. Whitaker's to have truly taught. This cannot be but the Souls peculiar suffering of God's very wrath, far beyond all bodily sufferings: and yet not those pains of Hell, as b you grossly utter it. Your other senses that you give hereof, the 1. hindereth not mine, that is c the Acceptation of Christ's death. The 2. that is Christ's fleshes incorruption after death is very hard and far fetched. And Sacrifices had their respect to Christ's death, not to anything further or afterwards. As for another sense out of Austin that it should signify our perfection and burning charity, it cannot be true: for the Holocaust-sacrifice out of question primarily signified the person of Christ, not ours. See: it is untrue that any man besides Christ alone is or can be perfect in this life, that he should be wholly consumed with Heavenly love, according to the proportion of the consuming of the Holocaust. Also you both here do seem double, understanding by the Holocaust both incorruption after death, & a perfect burning Love in us now in this life. Which things are far distant asonder and cannot stand together. But all th • se are so unlikely, that I will leave them to the consideration of the godly wise.

Then d you come to your next reason about the Sacraments, wherein you think to touch me. First you reprove me for saying, e Sacraments are Earthly elements, they cannot set out the spiritual and invisible effects in Christ. This say you is against the definitiō of a Sacrament, which is, Avisible sign of invisible grace. I answer, first you rather overthrow yourself in urging this against me: for your own main assertion is that neither the Jewish Sacrifices nor Christian Sacraments do signify anymore then the bodily and bloody death of Christ. Then it is yourself Sir indeed that denieth the very definition of Sacraments, that they are visible signs of invisible graces. For I hope the Bodily and bloody death of Christ, and the renting of his flesh with whips, nails, and spears were visible and not invisible things. As for me I can easily defend myself although you fail in this. For I hold that Sacraments are indeed visible signs of invisible graces wrought in us by Christ: and yet usually they represent not spiritual and invisible Effects or Acts in Christ himself, but only the external and visible partes of his Passion. Can you not reconcile these two? Any b • ginner in Christianity will easily do it. Next you make me to cross the Justitution of the Lord's Table, because I said the Ceremony of breaking the bread cannot properly belong to Christ's body. But even here do not I say expressly, that it showeth forth how Christ's body was broken for us? Which you say is the Institution and this I plainly acknowledge: where then is mine error, and what is it? Indeed I mean that the breaking of the bread into many pieces doth not set out primarily the breaking of his body, but of his soul first and immediately, and then of his Body jointly and consequently. Again, that it doth not set out properly the piercing or boring through of Christ's body with the spear or nails nor his lashing with the whip: because Klomenon is broken to pieces properly, and Meducca in the Prophet is also Broken to pieces properly, or crushed and broken to powder. As these Scripture do use this word likewise, and also all Lexicons do confirm. Your allegations therefore about the use of Dacha otherwise, show not the proper, but the use thereof altered. Thus then still I say our former places are not to be meant principally of Christ's Body, for it was not properly broken: which also my other place showeth suffficientlie where it is said, Not a bone of him was broken. Seeing it is manefest that none of his flesh was separated from his bones. But of necessity it must have ben so, if his flesh had ben properly broken into pieces, and yet his bones not broken. You say, From a part the whole may and doth properly take denomination. First you must show that some parte of him was properly broken into pieces: which hitherto is proved to the contrary. That fable which you bring of the Nayles being so great that Constantine of them made him a Bridle and a Helmet, will not help to prove that his Body was properly broken. Neither is cutting or tearing, or pearching through which only indeed the Scripture warranteth, that Breaking properly which that word in the Prophet b • fore noted doth properly signify. And I pray is that true, that from a part the whole may and doth properly take denomination. Doth it properly? From a part to the whole is a Figure of speech. Is a Figurative speech a proper speech w ^th you? Vainly you charge me I know not how often against my express words, that I call Hell Heaven, and Descending Ascending. But here it is no wrong to charge you with such an absurdity indeed, who expressly do make that which you say is Figurative to be a proper denomination. I am sure your Grammar was better, before you were as you are. But to proceed if you ask me, whether do I think that a those places, of the Apostle and the Prophet do signify at all the piercing of his body. I answer they may by a general and improper speech, as piercing may be an improper kind of breaking. For seeing the H. Ghost by those words intendeth to show the whole outward violence and destruction of his flesh also, and not only the breaking & bruizing of his Soul, therefore I deny not but herein so much may be signified, yet in no wise not that alone, nor by a proper signification, as I have said. Now where you catch at an advantage in me as you think, in that I said, b The Caeremony of breaking the bread (or that breaking to pieces in I say) cannot belong properly to Christ's body, but to his soul. I grant taking my words at the worst, and thinking me to be a senseless fool (as indeed you do in your whole writing) so you may construe them as if I had said, The Soul might be properly broken to pieces. But other men (not inferior to your L. in learning, none dispraised) who have read this Treatise, have cōceaved me thus. This breaking to pieces cannot be properly said of Christ's body, nor in any sense proportionable to the property of the c words. But his Soul may rather & more truly be said to have ben broken and bruized to pieces in such wise as souls may be broken with sorrows & extraordinary anguish, and so was his Body likewise by sympathy with his Soul. Where I deny not but Broken applied to the Soul is Figurative: yet keeping a just and full proportion with the proper sense of Breaking to pieces, which we cannot keep referring it to his Body. So that thus it is nearer and better applied to the Soul then to the Body of Christ, which was only pierced or bored through.

Then you rehearse another of your reasons tending to the very same effect as that last before. You will prove (d you say) that the blood of our Savior is the true price of our redemption, and that as well of our Souls as of our Bodies. Still you deal fraudulently: for who denieth this as your words run. But we know you mean, e that no more but the shedding of his blood only and merely is the just and full satisfaction of all our sins even in the righteous and sincere judgment of God. Then we absolutely deny your Assertion, as before we have don the like. As for your alleged Scriptures we answer them as we did generally before: that they mean not the mere blood of Christ nor only the body singly and simply considered but, that together with the proper sufferings of his Soul also they were the just and full satisfaction, and redemption. Against which you have nothing anywhere. And likewise our advised and resolut answer is to all the rest of your scriptures which most tediously and vainly you heap up & scatter every wherein your former treatise to this effect, as if they contained somewhat for your purpose, when as indeed there is not one text anywhere that hath any meaning of your strange conceit. So that we shall have no need to trouble ourselves anymore hereafter about any of them. Yet here you urge a reason against us: If our Souls be not redeemed by the blood of Christ our bodies have no benefit of redemption (you mean) from death. But we are redeemed, not we shall be. Ergo it is our Souls which are redeemed, our bodies are not redeemed as yet in this life. Wherein we have to note 3. things. 1. Your Proposition is vain and illogicall having no consequence in it at all. Which maketh me to think that I hit your meaning right and mistook you not in my former book. Howbeit to try this your sentence here, what if our Souls were not at all redeemed by Christ's blood but some other way, or not by his blood merely and only (which indeed is our question) will it follow that therefore our bodies are still mortal, and therefore not redeemed from death? Or what if our Souls be redeemed by his blood, as indeed they are, though not wholly nor only thereby. What followeth then from this? Nay what if our Souls and Bodies were redeemed wholly and only by Christ's blood? Is these any consequence that therefore our bodies should now be redeemed from death, and never dy. Truly I cannot discern, but that your proposition meaneth some such consequence as this, which is to me a vey strang reason. Yet that which you ad afterward is more strang: If our Souls be not redeemed (wholly) by the (mere) blood of Christ, (For thus still I say you must make your words, or ells you ask the very Quaestion) then our bodies have utterly no good, even no good at all by the death of Christ. In which sequel verily I can see neither head nor tail. Chose you now, whether you will that you speak this sophistically, or absurdly. For I cannot discern it: I leave it therefore to yourself to determine. But perhaps you will yet again go back to that you excused yourself withal before. You will mean that our bodies in this life have no benefit of redemption from death, even no more then the bodies of Infidels. And this plainly you avouch for truth. Is this true, Are not our bodies now already freed from the curse & the sting of death, from all the hurt & harm that properly and naturally is in death? Is it not made unto us a quiet sleep and a peaceable rest, an entrance for our Souls into Heaven, a putting off of sin to our bodies, in such wise that Christ taketh from it the a name of Death and calleth it but b a passage? Or have the Jnfidels also thus much benefit in death, as we have in it by our redemption in Christ? I know not therefore how to term this your assertion, I forbear to name it as it deserveth: it is more then strange that Infidels bodies should have as much benefit of nedemption from death, as our bodies have by Christ. Dy I grant, or cease to breath we must and do still even as they do. And this death by the natural property of it is a part of God's Curse: but to the faithful there are great benefits joined even in death by the gracious dealing of God peculiarly towards his children, which also their bodies are partakers of thorough the death of Christ. The natural sting is taken out of it for the godly, yet it remaineth to the Infidels and hurteth them by retaining even their bodies (though dead) in & under God's dreadful Curse. Wherefore it makes many to think that indeed you uttered this matter somewhat otherwise in your Sermons, then here you do now publish it: and it persuadeth me still that c I mistook you not, seeing this your turning & setting of it is so vnhansom. For everyone may see by this your handling of it, that then you said more then here you express: and here you would fain fashion it to somewhat, but you cannot. Yea your own words bewray some alteration frō that which so confidently you preached, where you say, Whatsoever the words were that you might use, which you do not acknowledge to be these that I bring. Lastly, d you grant that you used this reason in handling the power of Christ's death: that is, when you preached it. For now in this Treatise you have clean left it out, for ought that e I can see. which bewrayeth that it was such, as yourself saw was not to be maintained, howsoever here you strive to set some color upon it, though yet still in vain.

Before we depart from this point, That not the blood of Christ nor his flesh merely and only without respect to the merit of his whole Soul was the full price of Redemption, here is fit place to show how sundry of the Ancient Fathers do agree with us sufficiently in this matter: although afterward in your book you seem to bring them against us. But indeed so they seem only: for in truth they are with us as by these following we may see. First Irenaeus, The Lord bought us with his own blood, and gave his soul for our souls, & his flesh for our flesh. Cyril, He bestowed his flesh as a ransom for our flesh, and made his Soul likewise a price of redemption for our Souls, although he lived again, being by nature life it self. Nazianzen maketh every part of man to be sanctified by the like in Christ, our condemned flesh by his flesh, our soul by his soul, our understanding by his understanding. Ambrose saith Maerorem animae nostrae suae animae maerore abolevit: He abolished the sorrow of our Soul by the sorrow of his Soul. And Hoc in se obtulit Christus quod induit &c. Christ offered in sacrifice all that which he assumed: that is all & every whit that was in him besides his Godhead. Fulgentius, He shown in himself the sufferings of a whole man in verity & truth, quicquid fuit infirmitatis animae sine peccato suscepit & pertulit: He took upon him and suffered whatsoever infirmity may be in the soul without sin. It is not possible that we our selves should speak a more effectual sentence for our purpose then this is. Say as Fulgentius here saith, and we ask no more. All that you except, that by these Fathers Christ died only the death of the flesh, is less then here they affirm. And we shall answer to that in due place. Now mark well, how these Fathers do not say that Christ gave his life for a ransom only, (as you would construe it) but even his very Soul to for our Souls. They strive to express an exact proportion so far as was possible between Christ and us. First in the parts of Christ who suffered, & of us who were saved. So that as we are saved not in our bodies only, nor only in the external sensitive parte of our souls (wherein standeth that suffering with and by our bodies) but we are saved redeemed and sanctified in our whole Spirit and Understanding also: even so (by their verdict) Christ suffered for us not the bodily and outward sufferings by Sympathy only, but he suffered for us even in his Mind also. Now this is directly against your present a Assertion which we have in hand. Also here they observe an exact proportion in the Obiects so far as was possible, viz: in that which he suffered for us, & that which we are saved frō thereby. Thus that sorrow of the immortal parte of the Soul & not of body only, which we are saved from, the same he suffered. Yea I say all and every whit of those passions & sorrows whereunto man's nature is b subject and capable of, and from which we are saved, all the same he tasted and suffered for us. Thus it is also that Cyril elsewhere saith, c Omnia perpessus est vt nos ab omnibus liberaret: He suffered all things thoroughly, that he might acquit us from all, which else we should have suffered. And thus I take Barnards meaning to be, d He spared not him self who knoweth how to spare his. Wherevpon you collect well, if you mean so e He suffered and endured All to the uttermost with exact obedience and patience. To which end Tertullian also, f Sic reliquit, dum non parcit. This was God's forsaking of him in his passion, that in nothing he spared him. And thus Ambrose g Minus contulerat mihi nisi meum suscepisset affectum. He had don less for me▪ if he had not ben (altogether) affected as I should have ben. And thus Jerome, h Quod nos pro nostris debebamus sceleribus sustinere, ill pro nobis passus est, pacificans &c, That wich we should have borne for our sins, the same he suffered for us. Wherefore by the Fathers Christ suffered exactly i All & whatsoever sorrows & pains which we should have suffered, as well Spiritual as Corporal as well in all the powers of the Soul subject to suffering, as in that which suffered always with and from the body. Only they except 2. pointes which of simple necessity indeed must be excepted in the Son of God, which before k I have also acknowledged: 1. Sin, and all sinful concomitantes and consequentes as l you speak. And that is it which Cyprian exactly noteth, That in him there was m Similitudo paenae non Culpae, the very like punishment as should have ben in us: only there was no sin nor fault in him as is in us. The 2. point excepted is, that he suffered not eternally, but for a while: for he that was life it self could not but live again, saith n Cyril. Where he seemeth to acknowledge a kind of death even of the soul, from which Christ revived again. But of that in due place hereafter. Now here it is manifest that even the Fathers, of whom you do so exceedingly boast, are clean against you and for us in the 1. and chiefest point of this question: showing that Christ suffered not only bodly, or in the soul by Symphaty only, but in the Mind also distinctly, even as we may suffer in mind distinctly frō our bodily suffering, that is when we suffer somewhat immediately from God. Yea he suffered (say these Fathers) all the pains which else we should have suffered: no material thing excepted but only sin, otherwise he was spared by dispensation in nothing. Against this clear and plain sense of the Fathers you take no exception, neither can you.

Thus having hitherto manefestly defended myself, that I have not abused any way the Fathers nor yet yourself, as you unjustly charge me in your entrance: Now I am to do the like against your insufficient refusing of my Reasons. Where by, I hope, it shall appear that you have not weakened any one of them. And First you begin with rehearsing my words, wherein I briefly noted the very Question between us, That Christ suffered for us the Wrath of God. Which you exclame at without measure, as being not the point which you preached against. Howbeit I suppose these words do rightly and fitly set out the matter, both which then you preached, & which now you write. I have here before truly & fully declared the whole state of this controversy, I trust. Yet because we can never opē this point to much for many good uses that it hath, I will not think it tedious nor labor lost ne to rip up this question a little again in this place, that so we may proceed with more ease.

Your general carriage in your book declareth, that you abuse the Reader exceedingly by the ambiguous and equivocal taking of this term God's Wrath, as before in the entrance I have shown. It is not I that abuse them, as you everywhere very bitterly and unreasonably do charge me. For according to the most usual and common sense of God's wrath, so in my wholl Treatise I take it for God's perfect Holynes, Justice, & Power properly executing vengeance & punishment (whether little or great) due to them on whom sin lieth. But you generally do so carry this phrase, as signifying any punishment of sin whatsoever: and namely the Afflictions which the very Godly do suffer, which is altogether an improper speech. This I observe most specially in one place of your book above others. Where you say, All kinds of troubles, pains, and griefs in our states, bodies, and minds, which shorten or sower this present life are degrees of God's wrath, and chastisements of out transgression & corruption. Which presently you prove by many needeles Scriptures. And from this sense of his Fathers wrath you do not exempt the Lord Christ. You mean that this he suffered indeed, and that this is all in your opinion. It is true All troubles pains & griefs in their first Ordinance a were the effects of God's proper wrath. But in their state and condition now, they are b not: namely, as the Godly do suffer them. Which we must here note and consider well. You say right also: This, † because it seemeth grievous for the present and not joyous is called (sometimes) in the Scriptures the rod and wrath of God. True; it seemeth. But indeed it is not so, or it ought not so to be. For c it seemeth otherwise to the judgment of faith and knowledge. Then God's wrath in this sense is very improperly taken: as I have often said. Wherefore speaking properly & exactly as in this Cōtroversy we ought according to the revealed mind of the Holy Ghost, it is Chasticement & correction: it is not in any wise Wrath, or punishment properly meant. Neither may it be said properly that his Justice leadeth him to inflict it on us (as e you affirm) but it is his Holynes and Love towards his children which chasteneth them. According to the Scripture which saith, f God chasteneth us for our profit, that we might be partakers of his Holynes. And g whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth: he scourgeth every Soune that he receiveth. If we endure chastening, God offereth himself unto us as unto sons: for what son is it whom the Father chasteneth not. Therefore to speak properly not God's Justice, but his Holynes and Fatherly Love doth move him to lay whatsoever Crosses and troubles upon his children. He is not unto them a Judge or Revenger, but a Father: Neither is it Wrath that cometh from him or Vengeance for sin properly, but h amendment in Love towards the godly. Now the case with Christ was clean otherwise. He needed no Amendement, but that which he suffered was right Punishment. He was neither in case as the wicked, nor yet simply as the godly. He differed from them both, and yet in some pointes did partake of both their conditions. He was like the godly, in that he was highly beloved of God, and had no manner of sin of his own laid to his charge. He was like the wicked and differed from the case of the godly greatly, because he was laden & charged with sins, yea with all manner of sins, & sustained their due punishment, there being also none other at all to endure the vengeance of God for them but himself. As we have largely shown before in opening the state of our Question. Thus then whatsoever Christ suffered (and specially at his death) was very wrath and vengeance from God properly taken, true punishment and justice executed against sin & for sin, to the which he was in some sort condemned and appointed, also this was the true Curse of the Law which thus he sustained for us. Nevertheless in all this his Case was extraordinary, his condition in the like punishments utterly unlike to the wicked. For his own nature was still for all this most holy, faithful, steadfast, loving the Lord, and beloved of him, albeit in his office of Redeeming us and suretyship for us he did sustain truly, and not improperly, (as the Godly do) the Lord's very wrath against sin which he took upon him. Here is now the Power of God to be deeply considered, together with his unspeakable Justice, and Love and Holines. Even one of the greatest mysteries of Christian Religion: which to unfold what tongue is able, yea what heart can conceive it? And yet most necessary & most comfortable to be understood of all men. Namely how the Lord hath assigned to his son in the work of Redemptiō 2. persons as it were, or countenances, or conditions. His own naturally, which God ever dearly loved: & our countenance, or person, or condition which he sustained by his office, which condition the Lord truly accursed and punished. Only the sense of the pain of God's Vengeance came indeed unto his most holy nature: the Curse the Hatred, the wrath, and judgment of God being quenched therewith. His own nature felt the sorrow and pain of the Curse and Hatred. But the Hatred & Curse was bent against the load of our sin wherein he stood forth as guilty before God, and appeared as it were clothed therewith. This was Love and mercy to us, this was Justice upon Christ having undertaken for us, this was infinite power and wisdom both ways in God to bring it to pass, which no creature can comprehend: his Holynes and Love still chastening his Redeemed ones, but laying no part of true Punishment or proper Vengeance for sin upon them, which Christ only did for them wholly sustain. Thus also seeing Christ indeed had no sin in him (as the godly have) to be corrected: neither could be correctted & chasticed for nothing: therefore properly he was not chastised nor corrected at all, but his Afflictions everyone both small and great were true and proper punishments, and the effects of God's very wrath for our sin lying vpō him. Som where a you say, Christ might suffer the wrath of God in his body, yea in his soul he might suffer it, and yet not the pains of the Damned, or of Hell. We grant you say true, Christ suffered not the pains of the damned nor of Hell understanding this for the very same condition & state alltogeather b as the Damned are in. We abhor such blasphemy as much as you that Christ so suffered Hell pains. Yea albeit I know you are far from thinking so, yet I say your words do come nearer unto it then ours do, as is c before noted. But I ask, do you grant that Christ suffered God's wrath in Spirit, as the Apostle d somwhere distinguisheth the Spirit & Soul? If you mean not thus, then you again use sophistry deceiving us with the word Soul. For we mean thereby in this Question only the Spirit or Mind, as it is also called in exact and distinct speech. Howbeit speaking vulgarly and ordinarily we call it the Soul: Which yet sometime is understood only for the Sensitive parts quickening the body and depending thereon. But this indeed is not it which we have here in question. If you mean in Soul, to be properly and immediately in his immortal Spirit, as the ordinary phrase intendeth: and that so he suffered directly punishment for sin in his Soul, & not Devotion & Piety & zealous Care only (as I doubt e you mean) then you differ not frō us, but we all agree. And thus my words shall be true, Christ suffered a sense of God's wrath f equal to Hell it self, and all the torments thereof. For as touching God's wrath punishing his Spirit, who can say but that this was as hot and skorching as Hell fire it self? Who can limit or measure the fury of God's severe Justice when he cometh in judgment against sin, as now he did unto Christ? This therefore being well pondered, we may preceave that Christ's sorrow & anguish which he endured for sin, might very well be and was no doubt infinite: yea even in those bodily stripes, wounds, and bloodshed, whose pains otherwise were finite. His soul not only discerning sensitively the bodily pain & smart, but chiefly in the understanding he conceived, and in his faculty of immediate suffering he felt the fury of that hand which principally struck those blows upon his Human nature: not Pilate's, nor the Jews, who were but instruments, but the original and chief employing them, which was God's Justice armed with vengeance for his sin (His I may call it, for he paid for it.) Now this could not but make an unspeakable impression of pain & sorrows, w ^ch stacke in the depth of his soul. Who then can say how little or how small this was? Nay, who can declare or comprehend the infinite greatness of it? Finally yourself doth grant expressly that the Wrath of God is Hell: indeed only it causeth Hell to be cruel. Yea you grant it to be sharper then Hell. So that we see hereby how vainly you say, Out of this proposition, Christ suffered for us the wrath of God for sin, I shall never conclude: Ergo he suffered the true pains of Hell. I have here shown you I trust that this followeth well, seeing the wrath of God which Christ felt in his Spirit was his right and proper wrath, albeit he suffered not all nor the wholl wrath of God, nor Hell locally, nor every part thereof just as the Damned do. Which you without all color of reason or likelihood, would make men imagine to be the question between us.

You would make a Contradition in my words for saying Christ suffered in his wholl manhood, and afterward Christ suffered God's wrath properly and immediately in his Soul. Where I say not as you untruly charge me, that, He suffered all that he suffered in his whole manhood. Wherefore this is a niew contrariety. Again, granting him to suffer all that he suffered in his wholl manhood, yet he must suffer God's wrath (as God wrath) properly and immediately in his Soul, in his Body mediately and by conjunction only with his Soul. And thus my reason there framed is yet still wholly good and sound.

Then I am charged with absurdities, I know not how many, nor how great. 1. Because I say, Christ assumed not our nature, nor any part of it but only to suffer in it properly and immediately. As if I had meant here, that he became man not to reveal to us by his own mouth his Fathers will, not to work righteousness for us, not to quicken and sanctify us, but only to suffer for us, and nothing else. Wherein who would have shown himself so unjust an Adversary, & so unreasonable? Were it not reason and just dealing to consider whereof we dispute, and so weighing the whole matter of our talk not to stretch and rack my words further then that. All men may see it to be manefest, that here I speak only of Christ's suffering for our redemptiō, having not one word about his other benefits which he wrought for us. a And after speaking of Christ's Souls suffering, I show that although there were 2 sortes thereof, one immediate and proper, another by Sympathy from and with the flesh, yet Christ took our Human Soul only to suffer in it properly & immediately: that is, his main end was not that he should suffer in it by Sympathy from and with the body, and only so, which you very strangely affirm. So that my meaning is no more but to exclude that which you affirm, That Christ took his Human Soul to suffer in it only from and by his Body. This here I denied, and nothing else. For I grant that Christ intended that his Human Soul should suffer by Sympathy: but yet also this he intended not directly nor primarily in taking the 2 distinct partes of our Human nature our Soul and our Body. He intended it by consequence, because Natures right state was such in us: therefore determining to be in nature like us, he would also that his Soul should feel the Bodies outward harms, as it doth with us. Howbeit in comparison of the Souls most principal disposition, & of that which is proper to Reasonable Creatures, he did not respect the inferior part, that which is common to us with Beasts, even this sensitive suffering by Sympathy with and from the Body. I say in comparison of the other Christ respected not this, yet he did respect this also, as I said, secondarily & consequently: that is because he intended to have our nature in whole and full perfection, as we have it, only except sin. Now I beseech you would any upright adversary object against me, that in this speech I exclude Christ's doing righteousness in his Soul for us &c. I appeal to all indifferent Readers. Rather hence we are to gather & to conclude, that each part in Christ ought to have the proper and immediate use as is incident to the nature thereof, as well in suffering, as it is clear that it hath in working righteousness. In Christ's working of righteousness and obedience to God, his Soul had a proper and immediate part to do which it executed without the Body: as to conceive & meditate on the will of God revealed to him, to love and wholly to embrace it, and to purpose the full performing of it, &c. His Body also had a proper and external use, not only to follow the holy thoughts and purposes of his mind, but also to minister many outward occasions, & to derive them to the mind, whereby Christ wrought righteousness completely, and in his whole man. That which was by cooperation and mutual cohaerence only of one part with the other, as it was a distinct kind of working in the Soul and in the body also, so it was respected secondarily, and only because the true constitution of our nature requireth so: w ^ch Christ meant wholly and perfectly to take upon him. Whence now we may well argue, As it was with him touching his faculty of doing righteousness and Obedience, so it was and ought to be touching his suffering God's punishments for us. There is no reason in the world, nor likelihood, that the natural faculty in Christ's Soul of proper and immediate suffering for our sins should have no use, and a Suffering of pains only by and from the body should be sufficient, when in his doing of righteousness for us his Souls joint Obedience and mutually knit together in & with his Body was not alone sufficient. But there was further obedience found in the Soul of Christ, even that which was proper and immediate in it, as before I said. Seeing then such a kind of Obedience was necessary for us in Christ's Soul, therefore such a Suffering also even in the same kind was necessary likewise. This must needs be a perfect reason for us against you, except you could by express Scripture disprove this proportion of like necessity between the operation of the proper faculties of Christ's Human Soul, that is between his Doing & Suffering for us: which you shall never be able to do. And thus it appeareth I hope, that you had no cause so cruelly to rage at me for this as you do.

Nor yet for the next: where your charge me that I conclude Christ's flesh to be needles for our redemption. A horrible Haeresie. But how do I say so much? Because I say, His Souls suffering by Sympathy did not make properly to our redemption. Ergo his Flesh was needles. I deny this sequel: how can that follow? Touching the sense of my speech, you may remember how I have largely declared before that the Souls proper suffering is greatly and justly distinguished from the Cōmon suffering that is by sympathy: And that the Souls suffering by Sympathy in Christ was intended by God, by reason that our natural constitution doth require it so to be in every true and perfect man, which Christ also was. And thus it did make to our redemption, even as likewise his Infirmities, and Affections: as his Wearines, Hunger, Sleep, Fear, Love, Joy, &c. These do make to our redemption, not as intended in Christ's incarnation principally and primarily, but secondarily and by consequent; because that Human nature which God ordained unto him, and intended to be perfect in him, could not otherwise be thoroughly perfect as it is in us; but with these common Affections & infirmities w ^ch other mortal Creatures have to, & not Man only. Also in Christ these Infirmities and Affections wrought not immediately for sin: but usually for other particular causes and occasions immediately. Nevertheless they were all even for sin in him consequently, that is because the perfection of Human nature, which he assumed for sin, and was in every point in him, as before I noted, required so. Even thus likewise in Christ: I say his Souls suffering by sympathy wrought in him immediately & properly for some other particular cause stirring that faculty, that is by reason of the Bodily pain & smart, which this sensitive power of the Soul apprehended & felt and caused the flesh also to feel. This suffering then of his Soul only by sympathy was immediately and properly not for our redemption from sin, but for the sensitive apprehending of the smart, wounds, and blows, which the Jews gave his body: & yet as before I said consequently even this was for our sin also, namely because these wounds were given him for our sin. And thus, though it made for our redemption in such manner as it wrought in Christ because of our sin, and as it was intended by Christ in taking both partes of our Nature, the Soul & the Body, yet this was not in a direct or immediate respect, and so not properly but by consequent as I have shown.

After a you charge me sorely, that I falsify your Argument about receiving pollution from Adam. For where b I frame your reason as grounded on that opinion that only our flesh is derived from Adam and not our soul, c you renounce it utterly and say, you grounded no reason upon that difficulty: & so you made no such argument as here I pretend. Which whether it be true or no, I report me to them that heard you. But then, what is your reason now? is it any otherwise grounded? No certainly, if you make any reason at all. Who trifleth then? and why do you upbraid me so much with trifling? Let us see what is your reason now: Christ's flesh is as able to redeem us, as Adams to condemn us. But we inherit pollution from Adams flesh. Ergo. Do we inherit pollution from Adams flesh, and is it not by Generation? How ells do we inherit pollution & cōdemnatiō from him. If there be no otherway, why do you then seem to refuse the difficult question of our Generation, and yet urge the sequel thoreof? For if our souls arise in Generation from Adam as well as our flesh, how can your reason be good by any possiblity? It is best therefore utterly to omit this reason, which you grant hath no ground but a great difficulty & doubtful question. I have shown herefore at large that your argument (which here is your Minor) is nothing true: For pollution, that is, sin & real iniquity is not in our flesh without a Soul. But Ambrose saith, We are defiled before we have life, I pray, omit men's Authorities in this case, & prove by sound reason that which you would. Neither is it clear, as you say it is, that we •• heri •• pollution frō Adams flesh only. (This word only you must add, or else you say nothing against us.) Our parents Souls are in cause as well as their flesh, that sin is derived unto us. But you draw me to talk of these intricat things, which I would in no wise meddle with. I pray, keep your promise better, not to medle with this difficulty, neither to make it any ground of your reason: which yet you do here notwithstanding. Again you with one breath overthrow yourself. For you say, we have pollution before the Soul cometh whence soever it cometh. Yea, whence soever? What if the Soul do come in & by generation? You see how you cross yourself, who do so taunt me for this fault, I hope, altogether unjustly. Then you will disprove my Proposition: which is, whereby Adam first sinned by the same Christ satisfied for sin. You deny this, because the Scripture acknowledgeth no satisfaction but by death: where still we must note that you mean only by the Bodily death. Now how prove you that? Because the judge in prohibiting Adam to transgress, threatened death: Jn the day that thou catest thereof, thou shalt die the death. Which it seemeth you avouch again and again. And are you sure that Death here is but the bodily death only, & no more? Then surely the wicked should satisfy easily for their sins. Far be it from me to utter such a sentence. Nevertheless, you must give me leave to show you also your contradiction in this point. First in that where you acknowledge, the Judges revenge for sin is Death both of body and soul. Again where you agree with Athanasius showing expressly that this text intendeth even both these: Anima dixit, Morte morieris, He said to the Soul, Thou shalt dy the death. But you would prove your matter again by this; a Through death, which was for our redemption, we receive the promise: Yet he saith not, Through his bodily death merely and alone, and by nothing else together therewith, which is your intent. He excludeth not the Souls proper sufferings, as b I have often said: the contrary hereof you never come near to prove. And it must not be forgotten, that c here • ou renounce all satisfaction for sin in respect of merit as from Christ's soul utterly. Therefore that absurd speech and worse which you d unjustly cast on me, proveth in very deed to be your own: that Christ's suffering in Soul by Sympathy makes not to our redemption. Your own place in Barnard maketh Christ's whole Soul that is the Mind, and the part depending on the Body also, to have place and part in the meritorious sacrifice, as well as the Body. e Ut totum hominem salvum fecit, sic de Toto se hostiam fecit salutarem. Which suiteth not with your words, The Soul of Christ which could not die, could not pay the satisfaction: and nothing might satisfy for sin, but death. Yea all your f other places of Contradiction hereunto must be taken in good part. As for your reason, That nothing may satisfy for sin but death, it is not sound. The Scriptures do show in deed that Christ should not satisfy without Death: but they deny not that there are other partes of Christ's Satisfaction, which differ from Death: As his bloodshed, and besides that Christ's Poverty, his hunger, his weariness, his shame, his reproaches, his apprehension, his buffeting, &c. These doubtless, yea all other suffringes of Christ whatsoever, small or great, are satisfactory & meritorious. You will say, you understand all these and such like in the Death of Christ. You may understand what you list: but who will grant in proper speech that these are his Death, or that his death is any or all these. And if you take Christ's death by the Figure Synecdoche, a part of Christ's sufferings for the whole, then why do g you so much abhor that Figure here, and why may not the Souls proper sufferings be admitted also into the work of Christ's Satisfaction, although it cannot properly die? Where you nippe me also for saying that the Soul of Christ in some kind of sense died: I hope in due place you shall have a reasonable answer to that matter. Till then have patience, I pray. And thus h you come to skan my Assumption also, that Adam committed sin most properly in his Soul. Which you grant in one sense is true, but directly repugnant to my Conclusion. How I pray? If I mean that Adams Soul transgressed the Cōmandement with her body and by her body, that is, the Soul as agent, the Body as the Instrument, thē the conclusion will follow in spite of my heart, Ergo in satisfiing for sin Christ's Soul must be punished with her body and by her body: which is the thing I labor to overthrow with all the wits I have. Nay, then the Conclusion will follow that the immortal part the Mind was punished peculiarly, and not by and from the Body only: seeing in all even outward sins the Soul sinneth, both principally, and also in a proper and peculiar manner by it self, yea before the body sinneth. Albeit the Body sinneth also secōdarily, and in a manner proper to it self: even as the Instrument, as you say. Yea further I mean that some sins the Soul acteth in and by it self merely: and therefore it suffereth likewise some punishments merely in it self, which touch not the Body at all, unless by Sympathy only, and that only when they grow vehement. But all this you here deny: teaching that the Soul properly committeth no sin but by and with the body: that is, the Soul in itself & by it self alone sinneth not. And so consequently that God temporally and eternally punnisheth the Soul only by the Body. This is the true effect of your discourse here. For proof of the first you say, God did not say to Adam, thou shalt not like it, or desire it which the Soul of Adam did, but thou shalt not eat thereof, which could not be performed but by the hand and mouth of Adam. And therefore Adam transgressed the Commandment not by his Soul, but by his Body, even as in murder, theft, and adultery: these facts men commit by their Bodies and not by their Souls. And after, All provocations and pleasures of sins the Soul taketh from her 'Body: all acts of sin she committeth by her body. Both which speeches are exceeding untrue and hurtful. For even in these sins the Soul as I said sinneth principally and peculiarly before that the Body sinneth at all. Yea the Desiring and Liking of evell is sin, before the outward Act is cōsummat and finished. This Paul understood at length when he became a Christian, though a long while being a Pharisee, he knew it not. And it seemeth, this was in Christ's time the Haeresie of the Pharisees: against whom he showeth, that not only the outward fact of Bodily sin was sin, but also even the very thoughts and liking towards sin. Wherefore Adam was as well forbidden to desire or like that fruit, as to eat it, which you deny. The Commandment was naturally engraven in Adams heart in his Creation. Which since, Moses maketh distinct and diverse from all the rest, which concern the outward act. Therefore distinctly he saith, Thou shalt not desire or covet. So that to desire the forbidden fruit was sin, even without and before the act of eating. Moreover other foul sins, Haeresies, Turkism, and Atheism are committed and determined simply in the mind, without any necessary employment of any partes of the Body. As touching Haeresies, to hold Two first causes of things a Good and a Bad, God and the Devil with Manichee: also that Christ the Redeemer was not God with Arius: that the Holy Ghost is not God with Eunomius &c: that Christ had no Soul with Apollinaris: that Christ's Manhood was confounded and changed into his Godhead with Eutyches, or divided from his Godhead with Nestorius: or the opinion of Vbiquity or of Transubstantiation. Finally that there never was nor shall be any Christ a Redeemer as the Turks hold, that there is no God as the Atheists. Now are there not many provocations to hatch and to conclude these opinions merely in the mind & soul of man? Are there not many pleasures even in these impieties merely in the mind? Yea it is evident to all that the mere Thoughts, the Understanding & determination of the only Soul of man doth act them & resolveth on them in itself, without any concurrence or cooperation of the body therein. Happily you will say, The Soul takes occasion so to think by some outward bodily things before seen or heard. I deny not but the Soul taketh occasion to think many things by the bodily senses. How be it not all things simply. And so are the Fathers here to be understood. If any will stumble on that of Aristotle, Nihil est in intellectû quod non fuit prius in sensu, it is not absolutely nor universally true. My reason is, because Philosophers thought the mind to be as it were Tabula abrasa when we come into the world first. They knew not the natural Pride, the impiety, and perversity of man's soul, which may yield many and sundry Thoughts and Determinations to sin, yea provocations and pleasures in sin which the Body ministereth not, neither could the Heathen understand them. And to say that this pride, impiety, and perversitie was taken by contagion from the mere flesh originally in Generation, is not to be proved. Bud yet were that so, notwithstanding the Soul afterward can act many sins merely in it self and without the cooperation of the body. Further, as the Angels sinned in the beginning by their mere spiritual conceit against God, so nothing letteth but that man in his Angel-like nature (the reasonable Soul) may sin likewise without any Bodily means thereunto. Also, as we can think well without using our body, God so inspiring us: so may we think ill (which is sin) our own inborne corrupt understanding and reason and will moving us only. Moreover if I grant you this point of Heathē Philosophy, that the Soul taketh occasion to think all things which she thinketh universally from the body & bodily obiectes: yet it followeth not that she taketh occasion to misthinke from thence always. The proper provocations and pleasures of sin are oftentimes not outward at all: but the mere perversitie and malignity of our evil mind is usually the very cause of ill thoughts & ill determinations. I grant also that the occasion is often taken frō the outward senses. But it is merely taken, not given: taken by the corrupt and perverse mind, not given by the senses. Which though they be also otherwise corrupt, yet simply in seeing natural things they sin not, nor yet in hearing, nor in tasting, save as the mind which is properly, and principally, and first sinful, abuseth their operation. And as touching those wretched men & opinions before rehearsed, doubtless their presumptuous and perverse wit only so reasoning and concluding falsely without any other proper inducementes frō without, was the very cause of those spiritual impieties in many imps of Satan. Wherefore for you to affirm that the Soul committeth all acts of sin by the body, & that God did not forbid Adam to like or desire that fruit, is more then strange doctrine. Somewhere most injuriously you reproach purity: I dare say here you have no color of purity in this point. Notwithstanding you resolutly set yourself to prove your opinion, not by Scripture, but by Fathers: who are answered before, saving Tertullian, who you say pointeth to a place of Scripture for it: out of the heart come evil thoughts. But this place being considered will rather prove the contrary. For Christ here meaneth not by Heart any parte of the Body, but merely the Mind or Soul of man, and that with opposition to the body in this case of sinning. For thus in effect he saith, Not the Body sinneth by taking in, but the Soul by sending out. That is to say, The Soul only sinneth properly, & not the body at all no not in gross facts, except as the body is the Instrument, the Soul being the Agent, as yourself do speak. Otherwise the body sinneth not at all, much less in such thoughts as are mere spiritual, unless we mean by society, & for coniunctions sake in one person with the Soul, w ^ch indeed is it that sinneth. And thus some have thought, those places of Tertullian which you cite may be understood. But indeed Tertullian you use not well, and bring these his words against his own meaning, as anon we shall further see. That which you ad of Bodily infirmities letting the operation of the Soul (for so I think you mean) as in Lethargies, Apoplexies, Sleep, Phrensy, &c. Peradventure, then it thinketh and cōsidereth more freely in it self and by it self, then when the body setteth it on work otherwise at other times. Howsoever, it can never be proved that the Soul then utterly ceaseth operation, and can do nothing: for it seemeth that only our memory and sensitive faculties are stopped, whereby it cometh to pass that we know nothing afterwards what the mind contemplateth and thinketh in such cases. It is very rare when we remember something, and by some extraordinary loosing of those obstructions it is, which commonly do possess our senses wholly in such occasions. Yet even those small remnants of such operations of our Soul being in such state, do evidently convince that the Souls operations hang not necessarily on the body, neither is it idle when the body is hindered, though commonly and for the most part we remember little thereof. Lastly, if the Souls operations were so necessarily tied to the faculties and instruments of the body as you do avouch, I greatly doubt howe the Souls immortality will be defended against the effect of your assertion. Surely it bringeth in with it the Haeresie of Pope John the 22. and of certain Anabaptists, that the Soul hath no being till when it shall resume hir body at the last day. And hence also it is that you say, God's justice punisheth the soul (only) by the body, that is, not till the Resurrection. This (only) the effect of you speech containeth plainly and fully. Yea in truth thus you must needs affirm and hold: you cannot avoid it, if you will hold vour main Question. Only except you deny that Christ had a Human Soul perfect in all the powers and facultyes thereof, like ours: or else that God did not properly punish Christ for our sins. Of necessity you must fall into one of these dangerous evils, for ought that I yet see. Wherefore this point is not so easy nor so evident to the simple as you pretend: and I think you had need of better reasons then hitherto I see any you have, before the Godly and Learned will believe you. The rather for that in deed here you commit further 2. grievous faults. 1. Tertullian your own author, & the principal ground which you have for your opinion here, is wonderfully ill used. 2. You are strangely contrary to yourself in your very winding up of the matter. As for Tertullian, he resolveth directly contrary to the words which you cite from him. Saith he, The example of Lazarus in the Gospel proveth that Men's Souls though alone and without their bodies, are punished, and comforted, in the world of the dead. The Soul shall lack the revniting of the flesh with it, not for that it cannot feel anything without the flesh, but for that it must needs hereafter feel also with the flesh. For as much as it sufficeth by it self to do somewhat, so much, or so far also it sufficeth to suffer. It sufficeth indeed to do less by it self. For it is able of it self only, to Think, to Will, to Desire, to Dispose: but to accomplish, it looketh for the use of the body. So therefore it also looketh for the society of the body, that by it the Soul may as well suffer absolutely, as without it she could not do things completely. And therefore for what actions it sufficed by it self, the judgment of the same it receiveth (now) that is, Of the Desire, of the Thoughtes, of the Will, that it had. Thus Tertullian directly answereth to that Conclusion and reasons which you gather out of him, proving contrary to the same that the Soul now without the flesh receiveth judgment for such actions as of it self it was sufficient to do: and it is sufficient to do certain actions of it self, as To think, to Will, to Desire, to Order, and dispose things; but to accomplish, it is not able (namely outward actions) the judgment of which actions indeed the Soul shall tarry for till the revniting again of the flesh therewith. It seemeth that Tertullian cited before the reasons of the Heret • kes, holding that the Souls slept till the last judgment, and received no reward at all in the mean time, for want of the society of their flesh, which till then lieth rotten in the Grave: but here Tertullian answereth and renounceth all this same. And so those were the Heretics words against Tertullian, which you allege out of him in steed of Catholic. Which dealing what it is, I leave to be considered. Next your own contradictory dealing in this place, is also not to be forgotten. For yourself shutteth up with an excellent reason against yourself, almost the same that I observed presently before in Tertullian against your collection. Thus you say, Do I deny then that the Soul hath any sufferings in this life and the next, which come not by the body? By no means. The Soul hath some proper punishments in this life, as sorrow and fear when the body hath no hurt, from which Christ was not free, as appeareth by his Agony: and so in the next the Souls of the wicked have grief & remorse, besides the pain of fire, &c. Yes surely: I suppose you denied before the Souls punishment without the Body. But now you seem to grant it. And seeing you grant also, that nothing is more proportionable to God's justice, thē to retain the same order in punishing which they kept in offending. Therefore it followeth by your own words, that the wicked sometimes sinned merely in and by their Souls, and not only together with and by their Bodies: seeing they are punished simply in and by their souls, and not only with and by their bodies. Also, how sound this is, I wot not where you yield some punishment now to the Damned: how beit none other real and positive punishment but remorse and remembrance of sin only, as it seemeth, Again in saying that Christ was not free from some proper punishments to the soul, as Sorrow and Fear in his agony: if you mean as you speak, that these were proper punishments inflicted on him by God's very Wrath, (and not to be only his holy affections Devotion to God, and compassion to men, which yet I fear is your meaning) then it followeth evidently from your own words, that Christ suffered proper punishment in his Soul from the very wrath of God, more then the Bodily sufferings only on by Sympathy in the Soul which in a word is the graūting of our whole question. All the rest that you add out of the Fathers, touching Hell and Hell pains, is to no purpose. If you cite them to prove that Christ had no natural fear of Death and Hell, you gainsay that yourself further then we do, or then the truth is.

Then you come to my other Reasons which I called Special, not for more excellency in them then in the other, except only that I take these to be not so General as the former, but more nearly to touch our Quaestion. Which you might perceive well enough to have ben my meaning, by the express Opposition that I make of General and Special. But it appeareth you had rather take my words so as that you may make them to serve your unseemly jesting and better inveying humor: which yet in the end will help your cause but little.

Against b my 1. Reason out of I say, that Christ suffered those pains and sorrows for sin which else we should have borne: you except that I express not whether I mean All or Some. I answer, All and every whit I mean so far as possibllity will admit: and namely as touching the very sorrows and pain. Nothing was abated in the nature and vehemency of the pain which he suffered, anymore then is abated in the pain and sorrows of the Damned. This the very text here expresseth with great emphasis, He sustained our very sorrows, or our sorrows themselves. And this we conclude the rather, because the sense of pains and sorrows only was the Ransom ordained and consecrated by God in Christ, that by them his sufferings should be accomplished, & our sins satisfied. Whatsoever therefore in this life might be painful & was due to mankind generally for sin, & in it own nature was no sin, that Christ suffered wholly and alltogeather for us, even the same which else we should. Which is your own plain confession also. I grant indeed it utterly impossible that he who was incapable of sin, yea God himself, should be really separated from God, or Hated, or weakened in faith, or punished externally. Yet it was possible that even he on whom our sin was laid should feel both properly in Soul, and also in Body all the whole vehemency of our due pain, and the sharpness of our smart. Paine, affliction, & sorrow is not sin be it small or great: it is indeed properly and originally the Punishment of sin either in us or in others. Christ suffered Punishment for sin not in himself, as others do, but by God's ordinance he suffered punishment extraordinarily for sin in us. When God smote him, it was possible for him to feel it, yea impossible it was that he should not feel it, and of necessity his Soul peculiarly, properly, & infinitely did feel the stroke of God's wrathful justice. The vehemency whereof may wound and pierce no less even in this life where God will, then in the local Hell it self. All these our due sorrows therefore, and all this our sharpest deserved pain, even God's own immediate hand smiting the Soul for sin, (which far exceedeth and comprehendeth as it were all other pain) Christ without any dispensation or qualification whatsoever, endured for us. This is that which we say: and thus Jerome also expoundeth this very text: Saith he a Quod nos pro nostris debebamus sceleribus sustinere ill pro nobis' passus est. Turn now your vain and frivolous insultation against Jerome for his indefinite speech, to whom it pertaineth in this case as well as to me, if you be not a respecter of persons. Say to him, b You may do well (S ^t Jerome) to go to the University again, whence you came afore you were wise, and there learn to put quantity to your propositions, that we may know when you speak of anything whether you mean All or Some. But Jerome would be wise enough to answer you (if he were alive) that (wheresoever he studied) he knew so much, that in learning and reason an indefinite proposition is to be taken as Universal in a necessary matter, * as the undertaking of a Surety is in his stead whom he is surety for: and yet namely but so far as known possibility admitteth, and indeed no further. Now this is apparent in this case of Christ's suretyship and suffering in our steed: He suffered all the whole punishent of sin due to mankind, whatsoever was possible for him being a sinles man, & also very God, to suffer. And further then this none will imagine or think that any (unless mad men) do affirm. You charge me • c hereafter that I falsify this place of Jerome, because d I did put in e maledictum with his words. Which is a silly devise to turn of Jerome without answer. For by it I express Jerome's meaning: f his words have plain reference to Maledictum in the g Apostle, whō he cited immediately before. This is thē none other but an honest falsifying of mine Author. Now that this place of Isaiah, and the whole doctrine w ^ch I avovch touching these sufferings of Christ for us, may the better be received, let us note that the public doctrine appointed by h Authority to be taught through our England expresseth the very same. Namely Nowells Catechism, where it is thus taught. He paid and suffered the pain due to us, and by this means delivered us from the same. Neither is it vnvsed among mē, • ne to promise, and to be surety, yea sometime to suffer for another. But with Christ as our Surety so suffering for us, God dealt as it were with extremity of law: but to us whose sins, deserved punishments, & due pains he laid on Christ, he used singular lenity, gentleness, clemency, and mercy. Christ therefore suffered, and in suffering overcame death, the pain appointed by the everliving God for men's offense. Again, His will was to suffer All extremity for us, who had deserved all extremity. All these things being taken upon himself he destroyed them all. Where mark also what doctrine the Law of this Realm consonantly publisheth and commandeth in the Homilies of Christ's Passion. See whether it misliketh yours, or no. The Hom: maketh Christ's putting himself between God's deserved Wrath and our sin the extremist part of his Passion. If this were the extremist part of his Passion, then it was a further feeling then the sense of Bodily pain only, it cannot be any other then his feeling of God's proper Wrath spiritually, which our sin deserved. Therefore by the Homily he felt God's proper Wrath spiritually which our sin deserved. Again, he bare All our sins, sores and infirmities upon his own back. No pain did he refuse to suffer in his own body. But as he felt All this in his Body, so he must feel the greatest part primarily and much more deeply in his Soul. Ergo he refused not to suffer All the pains of the Wrath of God both in Body and Soul. He took upon him the reward of our sins, the just reward of sin. But this same Homily saith, The reward of our sin was the just wrath and indignation of God, the death both of Body and Soul. Therefore by the Homily, Christ took on him for us the just wrath & indignation of God, the death both of body & soul. And thus also my text of Scripture is justified, That Christ gave himself the price of redemption for us, which we else should have paid. Where you except against this text in Timoth: that I say, The Scripture speaketh here after the common use & custom of redeeming captives taken in war: whē a captive being not able, some other friend payeth Antilytron the same price for the captive which else he should. You ask, who told me that the Scripture speaketh after the common use of enemies? I answer, The nature of the word Antilytron a Ransom importeth so much, which is properly used in such cases. Where also you seem to infer, that I forsooth do hold with your opinion that a Christ paid the price of our Redemption (properly) to the Devil, and not to God. For this is it that here you mean: & this, though now in print you deliver it nothing so largely and emphatically as you preached it, yet this still in effect you maintain in certain b words out of Ambrose, which is passing strange to hear: But how do I join to your opinion herein? because I urge that the enemy must have a price for his Captive. I pray, who is that enemy which must be satisfied? The Devil? GOD forbid. Though I see that c you over earnestly do thus profess: yet God knoweth it is far from d my heart so to think. God's Justice only is that e offended enemy, to whō our Ransom was paid: it was not paid to the Devil who was but God's slave & executioner. Against which what reason have you? Surely not the shadow of any. As for the names of Ambrose or Austin they are of no weight to warrant such a doctrine as those words pretend. And I am out of doubt that the Fathers in following an Allegory, do but play with the Figure, as there use is oftentimes: they speak not exactly here as meaning indeed to teach such a doctrine. Or if they did, then we are to learn by their good leaves how to speak and think more wholesomly (then they do) out of the Scripture. If they or an Angel from Heaven should teach so in earnest as they pretend, we ought to forsake them. As for the point whether it draw anything near to Manichisme or no, let other judge. Then f you would show that this similitude of a Captives paying his Ransom by his friend, is not like to Christ's Redeeming us: because Captives themselves are appointed to perpetual imprisonment or servitude unless a sufficient Ransom be paid for them, and then the Ransomer is not bound to be prisoner himself for them, but satisfieth the enemy in money or otherwise. Wherein verily you fit this similitude to my desire further then myself at first did express. For thus we may now plainly see how it is possible that Christ our Ransomer might pay that whole price for us which we else should have paid but could never discharge: and yet that he need not in such Redeeming of us enter into our whole condition absolutely & to become a perpetual prisonner in our steed, seeing we see that this is not exacted by enemies for their Captives at the Ransomers hand. Only that *price of money w ^ch the Captive should but cannot pay, the very same is paid by the Rāsomer: and it obtayneth.

Then you let drive at my a Reason out of the Apostle: Christ redeemed us from the Curse of the Law, being made a Curse for us. Because I say, What Curse can this be meant but the Curse of the Law, that is even God's Curse against sin, whereof the Apostle hath altogether spoken here before. Yea therefore indeed I demand again, what reason or likelyhoood is there by the text to take this Curse to be in nature another from the former, both being so closely and jointly mentioned together? You make a very main difference between them, by comparing this Curse laid on Christ w ^th those Curses wherewith God sometimes is said to Curse his senseless Creatures for wicked men's sake. But this is verily far fetched, it is altogether another thing, very incomparable to the Curse w ^ch Christ suffered. This is a most improper curse, not felt at all by the things accursed: yet called a Curse by similitude only, as the image of a man is called a man. There is no color to make the Curse which Christ suffered for our sins like to the Curse which senseless creatures do sometimes bear for man's cause. But you make a reason to prove Moses particular Curse in Deuteron: Cursed is he that is hanged, (which Paul also applieth to his purpose saying, Christ was made a Curse for us to redeem us from the Curse of the Law, ) to be not all one with this Curse of the Law in Paul. Neither yet did I, neither do I say, that it was all one. This I said and say still, that they are both of one & the same nature: that is true and proper Curses of God, not any improper Curse, nor only esteemed a Curse by men. One was the whole, the other a part: but both of them the true & proper Curses of God. To understand this more plainly, Paul saith not as you affirm, that Christ was made that Curse, only, that Judicial Curse whereof only Moses speaketh: Paul doth not understand it in the same measure that Moses mentioneth and no further. But this he doeth; handling before generally God's Curse and the punishment of the Law against sin, and showing that we are redeemed from it by Christ's being made the same for us, he confirmeth it by applying Moses Judicial punishment against certain transgressors ( being it seemeth a Figure of Christ herein,) That all they were accursed, which were hanged: that is they which were hanged by the just sentence of the law, they were herein Accursed, that is they herein sustained the Laws true and deserved punishment. Now by applying this text of Moses in this sense, & in this respect, to Christ's being made the Curse of God for us, it is well confirmed to be in nature and verity the true and proper Curse of the Law which Christ was made for us: for such also indeed was the nature of that Judicial Curse of Moses, though but a part of the whole. And so as before I said the Apostle applying that which was but a parte, he may soundly and well show what was the nature of that Curse in Christ, though in him it were the whole. For a parte and the whole of anything differ not in nature, but in quantity. Now understand a Chrysostom thus, as b before we have distinguished the punishment of Christ and of the Damned, and then we differ not. Where he saith they were divers Curses in Christ & in the Damned, take him to signify divers manners of one and the same Curse in Nature, or Christ's Death and Moses Judicial hanging on the tree, to be only divers degrees, or measures of one & the same Curse in nature, & so he saith the same altogether that we do. For these in their proper nature be all one, that is proper Punishments from God for sin, yet either in the measure & degree, or in the manner & condition of their suffering, they are very divers & exceeding far a sunder. Austin on whom d you triumph, is stretched beyond his meaning. He dealeth against a Manichee who denied that Christ had true Human flesh: w ^ch yet notwithstanding is manefest, because Christ truly died. Now he proveth that Christ truly died, because the Apostle saith, He was made a Curse for us in that he hanged on the tree. And where it is said Cursed is everyone that hangeth on the tree, this was saith he to show that Christ was not exempted, but was like other men truly accursed and truly dead. So that his meaning is not to show that Christ's whole Curse and his bodily death were just all one without any difference, which you urge him for: nay he hath no such meaning. Only he proveth by this that he being made truly a Curse, did also truly Dy, which the Manichee denied. For in saying, Christ was dead, & accursed for us, is the same, he meaneth it is the same for his purpose, the one very well proveth the other: but not that they were simply all one. The rest of e your Fathers are alltogeather idly cited: no man denieth that which they say.

Where f you mislike me for saying, g The Curse laid upon Christ was not only the ignominy of his death, & the shame of the world: you have nothing against it, but much for it. Austin whom you boast of is against you in this, saying: Christ here took on him our punishment without sin. But our punishment, which is without sin, doubtless was a great deal more then only the dishonor and shame of the world. Austin therefore is manifestly against you in this: yea also your own self is in saying likewise. Austin and Chrysostom, and other do say that Christ suffered this ignominy: but that this was all or the whole Curse which he suffered, I see none that affirmeth. Your many Scriptures in this place, what do they? Forsooth they prove that it is light at Midday. For whoever made question, but that shame and reproach in their simple Nature, were a parte of the true Curse of God? Yet all this showeth not that Shame was the whole Curse which Christ endured. You mislike that I said Christ's dying simply, as the godly dy, may in no sort be called a Curse or Accursed: Because as I affirm also, Death to the godly is no Curse properly nor punishment of sin, but a benefit and advantage. Nay, therefore Christ's Death was properly a Curse, because his Death was not like theirs. You say, I am too young a Doctor to control S ^t Austin herein. And I say, you are a Doctor not old enough to prove Austin contrary to me in this point. Death in it own nature and in the original property of it, is a part of the Curse, and so Christ suffered it: but in the Godly it is not properly a Curse, nor the proper punishment or revenge of sin, which Christ once & alone hath wholly sustained and clean freed us of forever. This yourself (as well as I) can tell, saying: The vengeance of the Law once executed on our Surety, can no more in God's justice be executed on us. And this our public doctrine in England set forth by Masster Nowell confirmeth: By Christ's death it is come to pass that to the faith full Death is now not a Destruction, but as it were a removing and changing of life, and a very short and sure passage to heaven. Who also in another place expresseth it thus, Death of the body, which without Christ was the gate to Hell, is now by Christ made to all that believe in him the gate and passage to Heaven: So that death which before was a Punishment, is now by Christ become a vantage. Wherein you are notably contradicted, who do call Death in the godly, the gate of Hell: a strange and most untrue translation. Again, you are gainsaide in this place, where you reprove me for affirming, that Death to the godly and faithful is a benefitt and advantage. Then you say, If I will reason what death is in it self, I must resolve it to be a part of God's Curse. Which is no answer. For our question is not, what death is in it self. Who ever denied it to be in it self, as you say, a part of God's Curse for sin: but my express words are, Death to the godly is no Curse properly, but a vantage. Where a you add, If Death were a gain to the godly, as I would have it, by what means, I pray you, came it so to be? If you know not, why did you not mark better the public Catechism before rehearsed, where all England is taught that it came by means of the death and resurrection of Christ. You say, If by the resurrection of Christ conquering Death and changing the nature of it, then till Christ was rison, Death was a punishment to the faithful themselves. I wonder what meaning there is in this argument. As well you may say, There were none saved til Christ was risen. For salvation also and forgiveness of sins to all men, came only by the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. So that thus, till Christ came in the flesh, none of the holy Patriarchs, Abraham, David, and the rest, obtained eternal life. And what became of them then? But I am persuaded, that Abraham, David, and all the Prophets dying before Christ was exhibited in the flesh, yet by their faith in God's sure ordinance and promise, they had and enjoyed Christ truly incarnate, slain, and risen again: and this to them was as effectual then, as it is now to us since the actual performance of these things. Whereby even as we by faith, so they by the same faith (differing only in the circumstance of time) were truly and thoroughly saved. Likewise to the faithful then, by the efficacy of their holy faith, Death was properly no punishment but a gain, even as to us now it is. Further, b you except against me touching innocents and Martyrs executions, who c I say, are most blessed. You reply, Their Martyrdoms are shameful deaths, and that is a kind of Corporal Curse. A kind of Curse? Who denieth that? We know all shame & affliction to all men is a kind of Curse. But neither shame nor Death to the holy Martyrs are d accounted by God nor by his servauntes as proper and true Curses, but the holy men are in truth most glorious and blessed in them. Again, the Saints and Martyrs cannot be properly Cursed and properly Blessed too, in any measure. Neither their Souls blessed, unless their bodies be blessed also, & free from the true Curse: although you seem to deny this point. Which strange and uncouth assertiō, both here and in many places mo, you do at least insinuate: that is, that the godly in their Souls are blessed, but in their bodies they still retain God's true & proper Curse, till the resurrection. Which I leave to the consideration of the godly. You say, We must call things by those Names which God first allotted them. That I deny, If God since evidently have altered them, and disposed of them otherwise. But he hath so don in this case. The afflictions and death which originally and naturally were punishments for sin, and are so still to the wicked, the same to the godly (as I have often said) are since changed, & now are properly Chastisements of sin, and not Punishmentes nor Curses. Only Christ hath suffered the whole proper punishment, and true Curse or Vengeance of our sins: and therefore on us it is not, it cannot be laid again in any part thereof. You avouch some that deny Christ to have been made a Curse or sin. But you must remember your own place of Austin Maledictum est omne peccatum, sive ipsum quod fit, sive ipsum supplicium: The Curse is all sin, which is twofold, either that which we commit against God's law, or else the very Punishment of that sin. Now your testimonies do mean, Christ was not made a Curse, or sin the first way, that is, he was not in him self sinful nor hated: they deny not the second, that he was made the proper punishment or Sacrifice for our sin.

And thus though you lust not to see it, yet my speech was sound and true, If Christ died simply but as the Godly die, it might in no sort here be called a Curse. The reason is evident; because the text here doeth speak & treat of the Curse of the Law against sin: such therefore was Christ's Curse which he su • layned. To conclude then, his afflictions and death was neither Wages nor Chastisement, nor Curse nor Consequent of any sin in him. Yet as God made him sin for us, so he truly, properly, and in very deed, laid the pain of his Curse upon his body and Soul. Which Curse of God upon Christ (as you say truly) was not in words but in deeds. Wherefore my words you openly pervert, affirming that I say, Death here (that is Christ's death, noted Galat. 3.13.) • ay in no sort be called a Curse, when I expressly even there, and everywhere do say the contrary. But a your greatest exception is, that this Curse laid on Christ cannot be understood of the whole Curse of God or of the Law: and therefore b you spare me not for c saying that Paul here in his application out of Moses nameth a part of the just Curse of the Law for sin, thereby meaning (and inferring to his purpose) the whole. Where you must be so good as to understand me by mine own words in other places. For thus d you know e I limited my speech else where, As touching the vehemency of pain Christ was as sharply touched as the very reprobates. And, Christ's sufferings were equal to the very Hellish torments in vehemency of pain and sharpness. Again, f This price equally in Justice must be kept so far as it is possible. And, Because there was no impossibility, no necessity, no reason, but he might feel the full smart of our sins, (as there was that he should not feel the full continuance thereof) and seeing God's strict justice requireth it to be so, therefore it was so, he suffered all the smart, but not all the continuance of our punishment. Thus then plainly h I signified i those 3 Limitations which now are expressed, that Christ suffered our whole Curse only so far as the possibility of things could admit, wherein nothing was dispensed nor pardoned to him (for there was no cause) as I have often said. Which doctrine how unworthy it is of your strang contempt and outcries against me, I leave it to the godly Wise to consider. Only mark if our k public doctrine be not the same. Vltima omnia pati voluir pro nobis, qui vltima omnia commeriti sumus. Diram execrationē suscepit: cōtumelias etiā omnes, omnia probra, atque supplicia: &c. But you will say, thus we make it not the whole Curse of the Law. Yes: we cal it rightly the whole Curse, for as much as Christ suffered it in his whole manhood, even in l All the powers of his m Spirit, & Soul, & Body. where that Curse in Deutero. being a part, was suffered only in the Body quickened by the Soul. Also in other respects this suffering of Christ may be well called the whole Curse or Punishmēt of sin, as n before is declared. After this o you think it strange that I say, Christ suffered & died justly, and was hanged on the tree by the just sentence of the Law: & that so he was by imputation of our state and condition unto him, sinful, defiled, hateful, and accursed. All the which I avouch, because he undertook by God's ordinance as our Surety to receive our whole condemnation upon himself so far as his own nature and condition could possibly admit, to the ende that he might wholly acquit us. In regard whereof I ask, Is it wrong for the Law to lay the penalty on the surety, when the debtor cannot discharge it? Against this my assertion you say, By no sentence of the Law he hanged on a tree. And a reason you give, because to be hanged on a tree was no necessary part of the general Curse of God upon all sinners. I answer, to Dy for sin was a necessary part of the general Curse upon all sinners. What say you then to his Death? Did he dy justly? Sure if Christ died by the rule of God's justice, then he died justly. If he died not by God's justice, then Woe, and thrice Woe to us. For it cannot be but God's Justice must be executed: it cannot be made void. So that if Christ in God's proper justice died not for us, then in his Justice without mercy we must, and shall dy. Which God forbid. But Christ therefore indeed suffered & died most justly, according to the rule of God's strict Justice in all points possible. Yet you say, His hanging on a tree was no necessary part of the general Curse of God upon all sinners. What if that were no necessary part of the general Curse? It was nevertheless just from God upon him, as well as his Death. No particular Punishments are necessary, but accidental in their own nature. The general Curse Thou shalt dy the Death, comprehending them all not as necessary, but as accidental parts. Yet wheresoever by God's providence they happen, they are just Punishmentes, no less then the General Curse. And thus Christ answering for sin not only Dyed generally, but also was hanged on the tree particularly by the just sentence of the Law. Still I mean justly in respect of God alone: for men used mere violence, wrong, and no Law towards him. For they persecuted him as a malefactor (as they said) yet indeed he being in himself altogether faultles and without blame. You seem to mislike that Christ should suffer justly, because he suffered willingly for us. Which hindereth not at all: for the voluntary surety beareth his penalty justly, when he sustayneth that which the debtor by Law should sustain. You say No Law, you are sure not God's Law, alloweth that when a murderer or such like offender transgresseth he should be spared, and another that is willing hanged in his steed. And therefore you mislike the similitude of a Surety in the work of Christ's Redemption. I answer in God's Law that is not true, which you say. Understanding here by God's revealed Will and his most holy and gracious Ordinance for us. Though indeed this is not his Law properly, but his Gospel, & the most blessed glad tidings of peace and health to our Souls. Now by this Law of God I am sure, that Murderers, Adulterers, Thieves (and worse then these) are spared in God's presence, and another that is their most willing surety executed by the justice of God in their steed. But a no similitude can prove Christ in taking ou • person on him to be sinful, defiled, hateful, and accursed. I deny this saying utterly. b How could he be by God properly and truly punished and Cursed for sin, but that he was sinful and hateful. And it is written, c God sent his Son in the likeness and form of sinful flesh for sin, and condemned sin in d (his) flesh. In which likeness he stood before God indeed: before the world he was reputed so, but falsely. And e God made him sin for us that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. As also he was made f a Curse for us. Wherevpon M ^r Calvin g warily enough saith, h Vt personam nostram suscepit, peccator erat & maledictionis reus. And y ^e i Apostle saith, Ek deuterou The second time he shall appear without sin: meaning that the first time he appeared with sin. Yet this is k not inhaerently, but by imputation: the Lord translating by his ordinance the sin of men upon him, & reckoning them unto him. Even as by God's true and real imputation, not by any inhaesion we now in this life are just holy and blameless before God: so was he sinful and defiled by imputation, not inhraenetly. Thus by this reckoning he suffered at God's hands justly: yet in his own nature, & in respect merely thereof, he suffered both at the Jews hands and before God the just for the unjust. l You say, where the Apostle saith m he was made sin for us, the Fathers have 2 good and approved senses differing frō ours.

• 1 That God made him a sacrifice for sin:
• 2 that he used him as he doth sinners.

What is there in both these that we acknowledge not? Yea what is this later but the very same point which we urge? It is nothing else in all this question that we hold, but that God used Christ our Redeemer and Surety as he doth sinners, so far as possibility admitteth that he could and might be so used. And for this the Fathers are not silent, if I were so ambitious as you in producing multitudes of men. Only Cyprian, and Athanasius, and Austin shall content me in this. The first, n He sustained & suffered himself to be called Sin and a Curse by Moses and the Apostle, because he had the like punishment as we should have had, but not the like fault. Your slight answer that it was like in part, not in all, salveth not the matter. For Cyprian meaneth Christ's punishment for us was so like ours, as was possible: and that sufficeth us. Also by this your weak answer you are contrary to yourself here, in that you acknowledge that God in punishing Christ making him sin for us, he used him as he doth sinners. Athanasius saith, Ipse per se sententiam solvit sub specie condemnati: He himself satis fied and abrogated the sentence of the Law under the appearance of a Damned man. Did not God then use him as he doth sinners in all extremity of punishment so far as was possible? And that it was altogether possible to inflict the sense of his wrath immediately and properly in his Soul, as well as in his Body, no reasonable man candeny. Aust. we saw a little before. Thus also your former good sense of this that Christ was made sin, that is a sacrifice or punishment for sin: how differeth it from your second, as you seem to make them to differ? Or how differ they both from our main Assertion, that Christ in himself sinless, was by God reputed sinful in our steed. Nay this directly and necessarily proveth the same. For as I said, how could he be truly punished for sin by God, but that he must be indeed sinful by imputation? The Jews Sacrifices the express figures of Christ do also most lively set out this thing. When they were brought unto God, the people must lay on their hands upon the heads of the Beasts: showing thereby that their sins were put upon the sacrifice, & that God so accounted them indeed to be. Wherefore what cause have you so to exclame as you do, against this comparison of Christ our Redeemer with a Surety: who among men by the ordinance of Law and justice must and doth pay the debt when the debtor cannot. It is neither a simple similitude as you simply call it: neither is it unclean, nor irreverent, nor irreligious, but a holy & most fit representation of Christ's paying our debt for us, and of our acquitting from the justice of God by him. The very word is used in Scripture it self, He was made a Surety of a better covenant. Which also expressly you grant: That Christ is made a Surety we find it once mentioned in the Scripture. Is not that sufficient then to warrant the goodness and aptness of the similitude against your vndutyfull reproofs of it? But you say he was not as a Surety bound to the Law, but of a better Covenant, even of grace. Verily a Surety to us, of both. Yea this latter implieth necessarily the former, unless you imagine God's Justice needed not exact satisfaction so far as was possible: or that there might be 2 Sureties to bring us into grace and favor with God. For he could not assure us of remission of sins, but by assuring us that he had exactly paid all our debts. Yea none could pay them for us thoroughly & acquit himself also, but only he. Therefore by being a Surety to us of grace, it must needs be also that he, and none other, was our Surety to the Law and to the justice of God. Thus also it is written that a He was made hyponomon subject to the Law, or under the Law. Which b you mightily deny against express Scripture. But by what reason? Because he was a Mediator to God for us. Now Sureties that stand bound & must pay the debt, may not look to be Mediators. Yes forsooth, such a Surety as he was might worthily be a gracious Mediator also. Though he were a Surety, and stood bound, yet he was no ordinary Surety. Though the debt were infinite, yet he was more infinite in grace and power both to pay it, and to overcome it: and by his obedience and righteousness to merit for us, yea even in his suffering. What letteth then that such a person as he, might be a Mediator to purchase also grace and favor, even in and besides his satisfaction for us. c You say, he could not be bound to the Law, because he was above the Law. He was above the Law in his Godhead, but in his Manhood he became for us d under the Law. Again, he was not of himself in his Manhood bound to the Law for us, but freely and voluntarily undertaking, and by God's gracious eternal Decree appointing him, so he became bound to the Law. Wherefore, though e he, who ordinarily redeemeth a prisoner from the enemy, be not bound, but content so to do: yet a Surety being content, becometh bound. And so Christ our Redeemer became bound as a Surety to pay our debt for us by the most steadfast and immutable Decree of God, and yet also by his own most free good will. Yea God's Decree, and his own good will was, that he should satisfy and pay none otherwise for us, then so as he did: Therefore those Sentences of f your Authors Gregory, Augustine and Ambrose, if they be spoken simply, seem very harsh, where they say, That Christ could have saved us other ways, then by suffering and dying for us. For herein they oppose God's absolute Omnipotencie against his express and revealed will. Which how it may be liked in Divinity, I know not. Wherefore still all these similitudes of Mediator, Redeemer, and Surety, may stand very well together in the Office of Christ, though you would persuade us the contrary, yea rather they confirm each other. Certainly, these Similitudes of a Suertie and a Mediator, are very approved & excellent to set out most heavenly his great Grace and Justice, by earthly things. Our public Churches doctrine also avoncheth that he was our Surety. With Christ, as our Surety, so suffering, God dealt as it were in extremity of Law, &c. Also Cyprian, In saying, why hast thou forsaken me, he showeth the sorrows of that his complaing to be the words, Delictorum suorum, or Dilectorum suorum, of his sins: or if you so think rather, of his beloved ones, whose person & case he took upon him. And this he would have us to know that it was for them, or in their steed, who by reason of their sins deserved to be forsaken of God. You answer that these words of Cyprian I neither understand nor like. I pray why so? Because Augustine saith, Illa vox membrorumerat non capitis, That Cry was of his Members, not of the Head. Whatsoever Austin's meaning is herein, yet Cyprians words are plain and cannot bear any other sense then as I make of them, that Christ was a very Surety for his people, and suffered such a forsaking of God touching sense of pain and want of present feeling of comfort in the pains, as the damned do. And touching Austin also, I suppose you mis-understand him: but of his mind touching this speech of Christ on the Cross, we shall see further hereafter. I add unto all this last of all your own grant, where you fully yield and acknowledge that Christ was our very Suertie to the Law, and that he did suffer justly, or in God's justice. The vengeance of the Law (say you) once executed on our Surety, can no more in God's justice be exacted on us. Elswhere also you allow of this Similitude: which yet many times you reject most disdainfully. Yea in that your sentence you overthrow your own chief exception which you make against it, that he was not our Surety to the Law to pay our debts. If the vengeance of the Law lighted on him as on a Surety, then he was our Surety to the Law: and if this vengeance of the Law cā not now in God's justice be exacted on us, then he as our Surety to the Law by suffering it hath cleared us from it. And to conclude, that which he suffered as being our Suertie, the same before God he suffered in justice, as is before proved. And in vain you exclaim, that this is a against the Scriptures, against the faith, against the Fathers, against the Consciences of God's people: seeing it appeareth not to be against, but with all these. b Your Similitude of a Kings son entreating for his Fathers Rebells, is very weak, and overthroweth (if it were good) a confessed point of Christ's Redemption. For by this similitude Christ should not have suffered bodily death for us: seeing no King hath lawful power by any means to lay bodily death on any such Surety, much l • sse to make his Son, or his Son to make him self any such Surety or Redeemer of Rebells: as Christ was made and might be made of God for us. So that also where you would have it to serve, that we might perceive by this how Christ was not defiled, nor hateful, nor guilty by imputation of our treason, it is evidently to weak. For you have not shown, neither can show, that this Kings Son was or ought to have been such a Surety & Redeemer as Christ was, that is unto bodily death. Therefore this Similitude cannot be good. We have other manner of warrant that Christ was by imputation made Sin for us, and the Curse for us: and that this ordinance was holy and right, and above all reproof. Which you cannot bring for your Kings Sōnes Suretyship, nor for the Kings fact: who kept not the order of justice when he spared abominable Rebells without their bloodshed; or when he slew his guiltless Son for them, that they might be spared.

After this c he impugneth another reason of mine with marveylous scorn and detestation. That seeing Christ d on the Cross spoiled principalities and powers, and made a show of them openly triumphing over them. Therefore I collected, that Christ there discerned and felt the Powers of darkness (Satan and his Complices) as very instruments working the effects of God's wrath upon him self. Which as I conceive, is no such foolish nor impious reason as he vainly pretendeth. For doth not the very phrase and manner of speech import some such mighty contention and violent opposition, where yet at length an absolute & glorious triumphant victory was obtained? Surely it doeth. This then must be conceived and felt by Christ: neither could these be other effects but only of God's proper wrath, severity, and indignation against the sin of the world, which was matter of opposition against Christ at that season; it could not be the revealing of any glory or comfort, which such instruments procured unto him & wrought upon him. Against this you bring not a word. Nevertheless your high disdain towards me, breaketh out touching the manner how this might be. But what is that to the purpose? What if no tongue can express the manner, as neither have I once endeavored to express it: shall not therefore the testimony of the H. Ghost be true, that on the Cross Christ obtained such a victory against the Devils, which implieth also such a Conflict first, as I have observed?

Yet because you will needs examine the manner howe possibly this might be, let us see what you make of it. The Devils (say you) have nothing to do with the Souls of men, but either to tempt them or torment them. First, before I answer you directly, this we may consider: Christ might and no doubt he did in his Soul discern, conceive, and apply to him self all the rage, malice, and violence of the Jews tormenting him to death, as set on fire by Satan him self, and by all the powers of Hell: and these also as set on work by the Justice and severe Wrath of God now purposely laying punishment on his Son, thereby to take satisfaction and recompense for all our sins. Now this feeling and suffering in the Soul of Christ, made another kind of impression in him, and was infinitely more grievous and doleful as touching the present sense then otherwise the mere outward stripes and wounds of men were or could be. These conflicts of Christ on the cross with Satan's rage & malice, laboring if he could possibly by these means to have quenched the light of our Salvatio, may well be understood by the Apostle in this place: & yet none of your exceptions do touch this argument. Elswhere in your book you speak directly against y ^e main ground of it: affirming that God himself did nothing to Christ, that is, he did not pperly punish him. Thus you say, God did not anything unto him. And, who did Crucify him, I pray you, God, or the Jews? And, He was indeed condemned by man that gave wrongful sentence of death against him: but he was acquit • ed of God. And Christ was no more a Curse then he was Sin: who indeed and with God was neither: but with men he was reputed both wicked and accursed. Notwithstanding the very truth and God's word it self is flat contrary to you. For it is written: a Hes made him Sin for us which knew no sin, that we should be made the righteousness of God in him. Yea, b he made his Soul sin. Which is nothing else but that c the Lord laid upon him or inflicted upon him the iniquity of us all. Yea, d the Lord delighted to bruise him, and afflicted him or slew him. And the Apostles do acknowledge that e both the counsel and the Hand of God was in Christ's punishment. Finally, f God sending his Son in the similitude of sinful flesh and for sin, condemned sin in (* his) flesh. His Cōdemning of sin in Christ was in deeds, and not in words. God's own hand then did smite Christ, and inflicted on him whatsoever he suffered as the condemnation of sin. Where yet we imagine not that God was moved with any affection or perturbation, but (as f you acknowledge) the punishment or dayned for sin by the Justice of God, and inflicted by the hand of God (whatsoever mean it pleased him to use) is called the wrath of God. And then howe may we think God's infinite Justice & power punished Christ? Surely in all such respects as he was capable of pains and punishments as from God. Wherefore in his spirit certainly he suffered spiritual and incomprehensible punishments being no sins, such as Men's souls are subject unto as from God. In his Body also he felt bodily afflictions, which our bodies can apprehend. Some God himself immediately inflicted, some he inflicted by means and instruments: but still it was his Hand principally which did whatsoever was done unto him. Neither can you say that Christ's punishment was God's mere and bare permission only. Nay his punishment was his revealed and written will, his express and public ordinance, and most holy appointment from the beginning of the world: and now at last effected by his own hand, and by other means, when the fullness of time was come. Wherefore the whole suffering of Christ was God's own and most proper action: The wicked Jews and Devils were only his instruments to do that which he set them on work to do, though they thought not so. Now we come to answer you more directly touching the text in hand. Where you would intimate that Christ on the Cross was not tempted by the powers of Hell, because Christ could not b •• tempted by Satan's inward suggestion, but only by the care receiving an outward voice: This I suppose also is a singular conceit of your own without any title of Scripture to prove it by. Yea what reason can you give that where the mind conceaveth any temptation, there of necessity must be Concupiscence, Original sin, Corruption of the flesh, &c. In us men it is so, you say. I grant in us it is so. But that of necessity in nature it must be so, or that Adam was tempted by voice of necessity, and not accidentally; I see no reason in the world: or that Christ might not be sometime inwardly assaulted & tempted also without heaving any voice. Nay I suppose you have no reason to affirm (as you do) that Christ in the Wildernes was tempted by Satan by outward voice only. It seemeth rather to be manifest that his temptation was merely in cogitation and in the thoughts of his heart so moved by the spiritual suggestion of the Devil. First, because the text saith, that Satan set him upon a pinnacle of the temple in Jerusalem, and moved him to cast him self down. Which was within the time of his fasting, and he fasted but forty days and forty nights: and so long continually he was in the wilderness. Seeing then Christ was in the Wildernes all the while that he was thus tempted, Howe could that be really and actually done? This was therefore in a spiritual Cogitation. But chiefly, when the Devil shown him all the kingdoms of the world and the glory of them, and that in the twinkling of an eye, how could that possibly be done really, actually, and externally? Wherefore I must needs think that as Satan was a subtle Spirit, so he could & did sometime spiritually suggest temptations into Christ's heart, and Christ could in Soul conceive them, and yet utterly without all sin: which we at no hand now can do, because we are all naturally apt and inclining to evil, as Christ was not. Yea the text to the Hebr. seemeth to prove it also, Christ was tempted in all things like us, without sin. Then he was tempted both outwardly and also merely within: (for so are we) and this was merely by conceiving and considering of Satan's wicked spiritual motion in his Spirit, which it was possible that he might do without any yielding to it, though we by reason of our inborne corruptiō cannot possibly do it. Thus then it was possible, and most likely it is also that Christ was assaulted, and wrestled withal by the Devils spiritual suggestions now when in most bitter Agonic he hanged on the Cross. Howbeit to go further, such grievous and bitter assaults of the Devil he might receive outwardly also by his senses other ways: though not by Satan's own voice, yet by Satan's members means. And so you say he was tempted of Satan all the time of his abode on earth. Then so you deny not, but now even on the Cross Christ might be and was tempted and assaulted by Satan, that is by Satan's instruments, moved and enraged by him. And this is none other indeed, but that which in the entrance of this question here I observed: which as I have before shown sufficeth to prove Christ's Combating, as it were, and wrestling with the powers of Hell on the Cross. But you object against this, that Outward temptation by the mouths and hands of the wicked, is no effect of God's wrath. No is? Here you are clean contrary to yourself and the truth. Elswhere you truly acknowdge that all outward crosses and afflictions small or great are in their nature punishments of sin and effects of God's wrath. Now those doubtless are temptations. Then sure these outward temptations by the mouths and hands of the wicked such as Christ endured, are effects of God's wrath, viz. his revilings, his shame, his poverty, his stripes, his wounds, and death it self, &c. You say outward temptation is rather a try all of God's gifts and graces bestowed upon us. And is not inward temptation in the Godly so to? I pray what odds is this, that you make between the inward and outward temptations? It is true, this is one good use of both these fortes in the godly, in whom Christ hath sanctified all afflictions, & death it self. Yet in their very nature they all are none other but partes of God's Curse for sin, very punishments of sin, and true effects of God's wrath: as in Christ they were all. Further Satan might spiritually and extraordinarily work together with these his instruments outwardly afflicting his body, I say, by these bodily occasions thus the rather working an impression of his malice and spiritual fury mixed with subtlety against Christ: and Christ likewise extraordinarily might apprehend the same, that is the rather by the concurrence and cooperation of those outward occasions with these spiritual incursions. And thus might Christ suffer most strange temptations, and incomprehensible sorrows, as very punishments of sin from the furious rage of Satan and malice of wicked men, whatsoever other uses they might have besides in him. Here now we may seed row unjustly you conclude that Satan could no other way assault Christ as an instrument of God's wrath, but only by executing torments on his Soul even in such wise as he tormenth damned souls in Hell: and that cā be, say you, no other way then by Satan's very possessing of those souls. Which gross and infernal speculations of yours (for truths you cannot make them) I utterly leave to your own discussing. For my parte I have spoken no word of them in all my treatise. Notwithstanding this here I avouch, that howsoever the means or manner was of Satan's and his furious bands assaulting of Christ on the Cross, it made certainly an impression of most doleful sorrow and torment in his Soul, as feeling & discerning by that means the very stroke of God's own hand upon him, and receiving the sting of his wrath and indignation therein, which then wrought, and was revealed chiefty then vpō him for all our sins. Neither say you anything whereby you do or can overthrow this assertion. Our authorised doctrine in England agreeth with me, saying, He fought and wrestled as it were hand to hand with the whole army of Hell. Finally here where you skornfully reject and detest this my sense of the Apostle in this place, yet you give no inkling of any other sense at all which these words might seem rather to admit. Wherefore this is more then half a conclusion against you, that my interpretation and application of it is unjustly by you reproved.

Then you come to confute my fourth Reason: but the mainest points thereof you have not so much as touched. 1 I shown that the Godly sometimes in this life do feel a taste of God's infinite Wrath, and even of Hellish sorrows. 2. That Christ our Redeemer suffered for us as deeply, yea deeper then ever any of us here do suffer or can suffer. But all this you can here cleanly pass over without any word to it. Wherevpon it followeth soundly, that Christ indeed suffered in Spirit the true effects of God's wrath, and even the sense of Hellish sorrows. Howbeit in another reason of mine not unlike to that, you think you can pick more advantage against some words. I shown out of the Hebrews that Christ succoreth us not but wherein he had experience of our temptations and infirmities. Now he succoreth us even in the feeling of the terrors of God and sorrows of Hell in our Souls. Therefore he himself had experience of the same: I meaue c always so far as was possible: that is in the extremity of the sorrow & pain thereof, no further: Where note that the words of this Proposition are not any whit more general, neither include they anything less tolerable then the text it self doth, thus: d Wherefore in all things it behooved him (or he ought) to be made like unto his brethren, e like in temptations, infirmities, and f afflictions, only except sin: that he might be a merciful and faithful High priest in things concerning God. For in that which himself suffered and was tempted (in) he is able to succor [ 1] them which are tempted. First, en hó in that which himself suffered, signifieth either the matter wherein Christ is able to succor us, or [ 2] the means whereby he becometh able, that is to say, ready and [ 3] sit to succor us, or else the occasion and reason why he is the readier to succor us: even in that himself suffered and was tempted, he is able to succor them who are tempted. As if he should say, were it not that himself by his own feeling knew the misery of our sufferings and temptations, he had not ben so ready to succor us in all ours, not with such compassion, as now he is. Which way soever of these 3 we take these words, yet they plainly infer that Christ himself felt all the misery and smart of our sufferings and temptations which we at any time do feel, & wherein we are succoured. Thus as I have shown (neither do you gainsay) The godly sometimes feeling an infinite pain of God's * wrath and of Hellish sorrows in this life: Christ therefore felt the same indeed to succor us thereby. Wherevnto serveth our public doctrine, g Diram execrationem quâ scelera nos nostra de vinxerat in se suscepit, vt eâ nos hoc pacto exolveret. Albeit here the first way seemeth to me not the vnlikelyest, that the Apostle should signify All the matter namely that kind of pain wherein he succoreth us, even that which himself also had experience of. And this also those words kata panta in all things do fully import. But indeed all; are but one & the same in effect as I said. Sec: we must note that in these words Christ was like us in All temptations and afflictions, we are to understand h All that are incident to Mankind generally: not which happen to any man particularly. All the particular Crosses in the world, neither could nor can possibly come to any man. Also, that he suffered not only in one or in some partes of our nature, but in All and every parte, even in Spirit, and Soul and Body, like as we are apt & able to suffer. Again, all the particulars which by God's providence he suffered not, were far less in pain & terror then the general pains were, which he did suffer. And thus right well is Christ said to be like us in all our temptations and sufferings: that is, at least like us, indeed beyond us in all the extremity and violence of them, and exceeding much more deeply plunged therein. As well therefore you might have given a good sense of my words (if you had had any mind thereto) as of these general and large words of the Scripture whereupon I ground myself. But very chariritably you can infer vpō my reason, Then Christ had his eyes put out for so had Sampson he was swallowed up by a Whall, for so was Jonah: he was cast into a burning furnace, for so were Sidrac, Mishac, & Abednego he was stoned to death, for so were Naboth and Steven. In deed I had been as foolish and as doltish as you do make me, if I had treamed so. Care us therefore I pray that indifferency which all reason and use of speech permitteth: namely that general terms be understood according to the possibility and propabilitie of the matter. That is, that the Apostle and I both do speak of All the sufferings of Mankind in general, and of each parte of Human Nature apt to suffer but not of every particular in each of them, or which each mā meeteth with all. Then where you examine me, what I m • ane whether Christ be not able or not willing to succor us in other things then he him self did suffer. Mine answer is; Ask the Apostle what he meaneth in saying kata panta, in all things it behooved him to be like his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faith full High priest: and dyna • as he is (thus) able to succor us, as if he should say; He was not any otherway able, then in that him self hath also suffered being tempted in all things kata, homotótet a like unto us. How be it I understand him not to speak here of Christ's absolu: Omnipotency; what he could have done (as God) if he would: But of his ability by dispensation received in his Manhood by the Ordinance and appointment of God. As if he should say, Thus hath God appointed him & enabled him to succor us, and not otherwise. Where we will not stick to grant you your sense, that he might be the better able to have compassion on us. In effect these expositions differ not much. And thus this Scriptured trust is cleared, and my Reason justified, Christ succoreth us not in any extreamer kind of pain them him self had experience of. But he succoreth us in the • feeling of the terrors of God, he releaseth us of the pains and sorrows immeasurable that rise thereof. Therefore him self had experience of them. This same also sundry of the Fathers avouch with us most fully: and even those which yourself brings for a yourself. Cyrills words before touched are most large, Omnia Christus perpessus est, vt nos ab omnibus liberaret: Christ thoroughly suffered all such passions (which men do suffer) that he might deliver us from all. All the passions of † flesh were stirred in Christ yet without sin, and so that unless he had died we had not been delivered from death, unless he had feared and sorrowed we had not ben quitt from fear and sorrow. Here he saith, all our passions were stirred in Christ's human nature, even so far as we are cured, and so far as might be without sin in him. Then I hope by Cyrills judgment the sense of the true curse and proper wrath of God for sin was in Christ's Soul; so fair as it might be painful and not sinful: seeing Men are subject to this suffering as the most sharpest among others. Lastly by Cyril here we see that unless Christ had felt the same sufferings which we feel and are cured of, we had not been delivered of them. This also I am sure fitteth not your opinion, That one drop of Christ's blood was sufficient for our whole redemption. Which was one of your principles in your preaching, but in your book you skip it clean, I know not how. Next we may see that c your place of d Ambrose • is also fully to the same effect. A little after his e former words he saith The joy of the eternal Godhead being parted away from him, Christ was affected with the redio • snes of my infirmity. He took upon him my sorrow, that he might give me his joy, and he abased himself to the sorrow of death in our manner, that by the same means in him he might bring us to life. He ought therefore to take sorrow that he might overcome sorrow, and not exempt himself from it, & that we might learn in Christ to overcome the sorrow of death approaching. Wherefore Christ exempted himself from nothing in his Passion that we have experience of as touching Paines and sorrows. And by the same sufferings in him self for us, he healeth us, whereunto we are subject by reason of sin. So that thus (in his agony) he wrought with a deep effect, that because in his flesh he killed our sins, he might also with the sorrow of his Soul extinguish the sorrow of our Souls. To this very purpose also many others before rehearsed do affirm most fully. Neither is this taking of their sentences any whit to abuse the Fathers, w ^ch you are afraid of. You greatly abuse them which take them otherwise: namely as if they meant that by the flesh and bloodshed of Christ merely & alone without the merit of his Souls and Minds proper suffering, our whole Ransom were paid. As for our comparing the pains of Christ's suffering with the pains even of the Reprobats in this life, I see not that you nor any man living can find fault therewith: only set aside their sinful suffering, which always I testify that Christ was most free from. Yea I doubt not but we may compare Christ's sufferings in his Agonies touching vehemency of pains even with those of the Damned in hell. Only I conceive between Christ's, and theirs this odds: 1 They suffer sinfully, 2 Perpetually, 3 Locally in Hell. All which being excepted▪ otherwise Christ suffered altogether as bitterly & as sharply (yea I may say in nature the very same) as the Damned do: which therefore may well be called the pains of Hell, although yet Hell indeed doeth differ in some great and weighty circumstances, as is aforesaid. If you say, the extremist pains of punishment cannot be where sin is not. That is true: neither in deed can the least pains be where there is no sin: and that no more in the Body then in the Soul, though this please not you. Mark what I say, The extremist pains of all may as possibly be inflicted where no sin is, as the very least, & that as well in the Spirit as in the Body. But in truth neither the one nor the other is possible. Neither the greatest nor the least pains of God's proper vengeance for sin can be inflicted or suffered at all in Soul or in Body, but only where sin is. That is to say, either imputed or inherent. Ordinarily the Reprobat are thus punished, where sin is inherent. Extraordinarily and singularly by God's own special ordinance Christ was even thus punished, yet where sin was but imputed. And thus therefore Christ's Soul for mere pain might suffer the extremist spiritual punishments (altogether as well as his body might suffer any at all) without inherent sin. But you grant his body suffered truly punishments for sin. Therefore his soul might suffer also, even those of the extremist degree. Your self also granteth that Christ both might and did suffer the extremist pains that might be, without his own sin. But it was possible for him to conceive and feel in his a mind far greater sorrows and pains for our sin from God's wrath, then he could feel merely in his body outwardly. And the greatest was no more sin then the least, though both were properly for sin. Therefore by your own grant, Christ might and did feel and endure the greatest sorrows of the mind and soul as well as the lesser in the body, being all the very effects of the wrath of God against sin. b You bring a reason against this, that God spiritually punisheth no man but for his own uncleanness: which is a thing merely untrue. For though no other man was ever punished without his own uncleanness, neither spiritually nor corporally, yet Christ our Savior was: who in this case was not in the ordinary state of men. But I pray show me this mystery how it is that God cannot punish Spiritually where there is no inherent sin, but can and may Corporally where there is none: All the rest of your assertions c here are altogether of this suit. By this one reason I weakened all yours, but you could pass that by, answering unto it not a word. Uiz: d If Christ's body hanging on the Cross, and held by Death in the grave, was punished by God where yet he found no sin, and which he still intierly loved and was never separated frō, then so he might & did punish properly his Soul also, & yet never divide his Godhead nor his love from it. But thus he did to his body: therefore even so he might do, and did to his soul properly also. For the one standeth with God's justice, and with the Nature of man in Christ, as well as the other. So far for this.

Then e you address yourself against another, even one of the chiefest reasons of mine: which I make from the strange and incomparable Ago • ies of Christ in the time of his Passion. These invaded him, as we read, principally at 3. times:

• 1. in the foretaste of his Passion, shown us in the 12. of John.
• 2. In the Garden a little before his apprehension.
• 3. In his very extreme Passion it self on the Cross.

The Scriptures f heretofore I rehearsed at full, & whence these piteous and unspeakable Agonies of his are notified unto us. Whereby to all (that duly consider) it appeareth so clear as the Sun at noon day, that The pains of his Passion • which plainly now he felt, and feared, (because he knew he was to feel them further unto death) were the proper and direct cause of those Agonies. But we assume, that such strange and lamentable things and behavior in Christ were not the effects only and meerelie of his bodily pains and death, or of the fear of them. Therefore Christ felt and endured more then his mere bodily pain and death, by the testimony of the Scriptures, which thing you deny. In your whole discourse you gainsay the Proposition, that the pains of Christ's Passion, or the natural fear of them, was the proper and direct cause of those Agonies: or that these Scriptures do imply so much. The Assumption you grant and acknowledge, that the mere bodily pains and death of Christ or the fear thereof, were not the only, nor the proper and direct Cause of these Agonies in him. For you are resolved that the cause of Christ's Agony could not proceed but from his Submission to God or Compassion to men, or frō both. These you name elsewhere a religious Fear, Devotion and Piety to God, pity to men, &c. And thus you resolutely deny my Proposition. For you mean it seemeth that Christ suffered pains in his Soul by reason of the strength and zeal of these his Holy Affections: and that these were the proper and main Causes of that his most woeful and miraculous Agony & Complaint. Therefore not any extraordinary Paines inflicted upon him by way of proper punishment, as my Proposition intendeth. But this your Assertion I simply deny, that Christ's Holy Affections, his Piety and his Pity were the proper and main Causes of that his most woeful and miraculous Agony & Complaint. And then my Proposition standeth firm, that his Paines inflicted on him by way of proper Punishment and Uengeance for sin were the proper and main Cause thereof. Wherefore let us try your proofs for it, and then mine against it. But before we come to them, you must know that this your Resolution, as you call it, is first most vain, also directly contrary to yourself, and then altogether untrue and presumed by wide conjecture; as God willing presently I shall show. For the first; I heartily entreat the Christian Reader to mark well & to consider, how your L. doth contrive 3. notable Equivocations in these few words, Christ suffered in his Soul the wrath of God: w ^ch you seem to grant, but in truth you do not: and if we ad also the pains of Hell, then he opposeth a fourth fallacy against us. And these 3. or 4. are the only Pillars of his Doctrine. For the 3. former, your first Equivocation is in this word Christ Suffered: and about it we deal in this place now. The common and ordinary phrase of men understandeth herein, His feeling of pains inflicted on him by way of proper punishment and satisfaction for sin, which he undertook for us. Only this in the ordinary and usual manner of speech is signified by Christ's suffering or his Passion: and so do we always understand by it. But you cunninglie take another rare sense of this word, as it signifieth the Affections of the Mind in Christ wholly bent to Holines, Righteousness, & Obedience of God, that so he might exactly & perfectly keep his just Law. Which 2. partes of Christ's Mediation, are greatly differing, and ought not both in truth to be called His Passion or Satisfaction for sin. Therefore speak plainly I beseech you, and deceive us not? call not this His Souls suffering, but his Souls Holines & Righteousness. And seeing you mean, This was the proper & main cause of Christ's Passion & Suffering whē he wrought his satisfactiō for sin now at the last end of his life chiefly, I simply deny it: all Reason reclaimeth against it: and to that which " I alleged for further reproof thereof, you answer nothing. Your next Equivocation is in this, He suffered ^† in Soul: your next in " God's wrath. Both which I have plainly shown before. As also your 4. * Fallacy, which may be called Fallacia Accidentis. But Sit I hope you will not think to bear down all afore you with nothing but with cunning, yet vain deceit, countenanced out with cruel and hateful words. Further, you are in this your Resolution directly contrary to your own self: as " before I have briefly, yet sufficiently shown. Again, where you censure yourself very sharply for your resolutnes in this cause, * It is curiosity to examine, presumption to determine, impossibility to conclude certainly what was the true cause thereof. Thirdly, where you make but 2. causes submission to God, Compassion to men: elsewhere but one Religious fear. But before you very precisely made 6. If you agree no better w ^th yourself, I have small hope that you will agree with us. Last of all, this your resolution, making Christ's Piety & Pity to be the only proper & main Cause of all his woeful Passion, is utterly false and untrue, having no ground but mere conjectures. But before I vn •• my reasons against your Assertion, let us view all your particul •• Causes, & see if any one of the can be good, Your 1. Cause is S •• mission to the Majesty of God sitting in judgment. Against whom 〈◊〉 in what cause sat he now in judgment, when Christ was thus astonished & Agonized therewith? Of necessity it must be one of these three ways. 1. God's Majesty & great justice now at this time might sit in judgment against us, & so consequently yea chiefly against Christ him self as our Ransom-payer and Surety in our steed. If you mean, that thus Christ with Submissiō beholding his Father in judgment at this time was cast into this Agony, it is the very truth, and the same that we maintain. For this denieth not, but that he had real pains inflicted frō the Father as from a just judge against us in him, who were thus acquitted by him. And thus if Aust. and others sentences be understood, that the Compaint on the Cross was not Christ's in respect of him self but in respect of his Church for whom then & there he answered before God coming now to execute judgment for their sin, so they are well & rightly understood: otherwise there is no truth in them, namely as you seem to use them. Second: God might be considered now as judging Satan the prince of this world, and overcoming him for us by the victory of Christ's sufferings which he was now about to undergo: that thus the Devil (as you note out of Austin) might be vanquished in our Cause not by God's absolute and mere power, but also by doing justice, & so we delivered. Thus where you apply, Now (even at hand) is the judgment of this world: Now (evē shortly) shall the prince of this world be cast out. and I, if I were lift up from the earth, will draw all men unto me. If you mean it in this sense (as you seem to do) it serveth well. But that in this respect, as God proceeded against Satan, and for this cause Christ should be cast into these dreadful scates, sorrows, and bloody Agonies, what man of judgment would imagine? What color of likelihood is there in it? Rather this were properly cause of great joy and triumph indeed: as sufficiently I have shown in my former treatise, whereunto you answer not. Your testimonies touching men sinful, whereunto may be adjoined another of the like, somewhat opening those places, make nothing to the purpose at all. For these could not by reason of their Sins induce the very presence of God's Majesty, being in any measure revealed unto them: but Christ in him self being free from all sin, could be in no such case. No better also is that of the Angels (mere Creatures) vayling their faces at the glorious presence of God the Creator of all: but Christ the Mediator was not a mere Creature, but always personally united with a greater power then the Angels were, and always sustained by it: unless only in case of his Judgment and Passion proceeding upon him from God, as is before noted, when purposely the Godhead hid him self as it were, and withdrew his wonted Comfort, that the manhood might be subject • o full Punishment for us, as was appointed by God. Although even now also the Godhead did sustain his manhood thus being overloaden with pains: otherwise it could not but have ben quite overwhelmed. Third: God's Majesty and justice may be considered sitting in judgment merely against sinful men. If you mean here against the sins of the Elect, Christ knew the eternal and sure decree of God which had turned the Cup of vengeance already from them upon himself, as being their Surety: so that this cometh to our Assertion, as is aforesaid. Or touching the Reprobates do you think that Christ here so vehemently wished them better, whom he knew God hated: or that for pity of them he fell into this Agony and sorrowful prayers? First Christ saith a little before, He would not so much as pray for them. Yea it is certain Christ rather would have greatly rejoiced to see the due execution of God's most holy and deserved justice, which is a special part of his high glory. According to that which is written: The righteous shall rejoice when he seeth the vengeance, he shall wash his feet in the blood of the wicked: And men shall say, verily there is fruit for the righteous, doubtless there is a God that judgeth the earth. Again if Christ's mournful prayers were to wish better to the Reprobat, how can that stand where he saith, Let this Cup pass from me: he should have said from them. Neither this also might he say, from them: as knowing perfectly his Fathers and his own will directly to the contrary.

Your next supposed Cause Compassion towards men cōtayneth 3. several causes here:

• 1. for the Rejection of the Jews:
• 2. for the Dispersion of his Church:
• 3. His zealous grief generally for the sins of the world.

All these I grant were always in Christ, and caused no doubt always heaviness in him: yet no more then a godly and heavenly mind could and would cheerfully digest and bear. Wherefore you strangely deceive yourself if you think that these, any, or all of them, did so far exceed in him as to procure his most dreadful and bloody Agony. For the Rejection of the Jews what reasons bring you. Christ wept over their City: Ergo Now at his Passion he was driven into his dreadful Agony for this cause: and that rather now, then when he so wept expressly for them. I deny this argument: how will you do to prove it? I have shown from hence the contrary: whereunto nothing is answered: that seeing when a little before he thoroughly intended & expressed his affection about that matter, yet thereby he fell into no such Agony, but only wept and mourned for them, therefore now in his Passion where he speaketh not a word of them, it is strange to say, that his Pity of his Coūtry men the Jews should drive him to sweat blood, and thrice to pray with tears and strong cries, that this Cup of grief might pass from him, and thrice to yield him self again to God's will, saying: Not my will, but thy will be done. This verily cannot stand with any reason. Again, that his express Compassion towards the Jews a little before he prepared him to his Passion, plainly showeth, that now in the Garden and so still forward, he gave him self wholly to other thoughts & matters, Namely such as cōcerned his great work in hand: that is, to be are the Paines which now chiefly he was to suffer for man's redemption at God's hands. Wherefore this work of Christ at this time performed and wrought by him, is by a proper and peculiar Name justly called his Passion, not not his Compassion. Again you say, For their sakes Moses desired to be wiped out of God's book, and Paul could have wished him self to be separated from Christ for his brethren the Israelites. Ergo Christ at his Passion was cast into that strange Agony for the grief of their rejection. This also hath no shape of any reason in it. It proveth that Christ surely had very great pity and commiseration of them, but nothing else in the world. Besides Christ might have far greater pity of them, then Moses or Paul had, and yet he was able to carry his affection far more patiently and quietly then they were able: which would rather keep him from such an outward distemper as was even in them. Also Christ knew exactly God's Counsel and purpose for their reiectiō, which those holy men were not so particularly sure of. Wherefore Christ might better stay the vehemency & breaking out of this affection, which in such a case must needs tend against the known will of God. In those holy men it might better break forth very strongly, as it did, seeing they knew not particularly God's decree herein, so as Christ knew. Lastly those holy men (it seemeth) having their thoughts wholly defixed on their vehement pity towards the Jews earnestly and " constantly wished, that the Cup of God's eternal wrath might come vpō them selves that the Jews who deserved it, might scape. But Christ in his Passion contrariwise desired that the Cup which he tasted to be too bitter and too violent for him, might pass away from him self. Thus here is no semblance of reason in this for your purpose. But against you here are 4. worthy things to be noted. If we consider this first, that these most servant desires of these rare men, were holy and not sinful. Because their thoughts being wholly & altogether for the time defixed on their love to their Brethren in the flesh that they might be saved, and that God's glory might be infinitely more ample, if he saved so many hundred thousands (which now almost seemed to them as lost) then it would be in their own particular salvation only: and thus for the time not thinking (it seemeth) upon their own immutable Election and Salvation not anything else, saving only that they could desire their brethren's salvation yea though it were with their own damnation for their sakes, if so it might stand with God's will, which no doubt always they implied, though expressed nor: thus I take it plain enough that these sinned not in this their desire, and I suppose you take it so too, in that you allege them & ground your reason of Comparison upon them. Now from hence I observe these 4. notable pointes. 1. That, if God Omuipotent and only Sovereign Lord will, he may inflict Damnation and the pains of Hel upon mere men, not for them selves but for others, not for their own sins but for the imputed Sins of other men: much rather then may he do thus to Christ, whom God sent indeed and ordained for that purpose. Flatly contrary to " your Assertion. That which there you mention is the ordinary & common rule, The Soul that sinneth it shall Dy. But in Christ this was eatraordinary and singular that The just died for the unjust. 2. We see here that there may be possibly a Death of the Soul, a Curse and Separation frō God which is in it self neither Sin, nor conjoined with sin necessarily: but merely a Suffering of Punishment from God for the sins of others imputed. Contrarie to you also: yea generally everywhere. Third: That extraordinarily there is greater love even [ 3] among mere men, then only to dy bodily one for another, though usually and ordinarily a greater cannot be found among men: which is it, that Christ meaneth. But how much more the may the love of Christ towards his Elect be far greater. Contrary to your assertion. Fourth: We see here that these holy men without feeling any pains inflicted by God's wrath, but only [ 4] through an earnest and mighty Compassion of love have their minds drawn so wholly to think on this special thing above their reach, that during the time they turn not themselves to any other cogitation. Even as the eye, being bent intētively to behold anything, for that present discerneth nothing else. Whereby it cometh to pass that these wishes of these holy men ravished with Pity and Zeal, are not reckoned sinful in thē, though they were directly against their own Salvatiō, which otherwise they knew was immutable with God and certainly reserved for them in Heaven. This you acknowledge may be in men, & yet you will not skoffe at them as cast into a trance by it, nor reproach them with infernal confusion. How much less ought you so to deal with Christ: but specially to acknowledge that his marveylous perplexity may well be a means that his suddainwishes against his own constant purpose & God's will, were yet no sins. And that much rather even for this, because Christ had infinitely more cause by his Paines (thē felt and feared to be in his mind both more amuzed and also amazed, then those men had by their affections. Thus far of this. As for the Fathers which you cite, if they mean as they seem to do that now at his Passion among other causes of sorrow there wanted not this, even his great Pity towards his forlorn Coūtrymē, thē we join with them. If they mean (as you would have them) that this was the main and chief cause of his extreme sorrows and amazednes, therein I utterly leave them. Howbeit this here note in them, that these Fathers avouch Christ feared not his (bodily) Death and Passion: for thereof only they speak here questionless. You contrariwise say that Christ feared (bodily) death, for thereof also you discourse, and had more cause (as you think) so to do, then any of his members have.

Third: touching his regard of his Church, generally the same answer serveth, as is given to the last point before. If you urge that these Fathers are so resolute for these Causes as their words here pretend, then yourself abuseth them more thē ever I did or mean to do, where you say, a it is curiosity to examine, presumption to determine, impossibility to conclude (as these do) what was the true cause of Christ's Agony.

Fourth: b you allege his inward sorrow and zealous grief for the sins of the world, to be the main and chief cause of his Agony. Surely even to rehearse these your arguments is refutation of them enough. All these are proper parts of his Holines & Righteousness, as I have said, but no proper partes or causes of his bloody & most dreadful Agony, that is of his Sacrifice satisfying for sin. Only his Paines were, which then he felt and feared. Neither in respect of these your supposed causes could he say, Save me frō this hour, nor Let this Cup pass from me: as in respect of his infinite pains he might. c This hour cannot be referred to his Holy and Righteous affections, which were at all hours and seasons in him without measure Holy, yet now at his death did not so expressly break out & show thenselves, "as they did at divers times before. Therefore this Hower cannot be these his Holy affections: his Paines & afflictions they d may be and must be. Neither thus standeth it with his piety to wish that his strong and vehement affections of Holynes should pass from him, or be weakened in him. For my part I can see no sense nor sap in these assertions. Even so likewise in that, where you ascribe to this his c deep sorrow of zeal for men's sins his sweating blood in his agony above nature after a strange and marvelous manner. I dare say, you deliver strange mervayles in Divinity.

The Fift Cause f you say, might be the Cup of God's wrath tempered & made ready for the sins of men: which you interpret to be g Eternal Malediction. Touching which you say, Christ knowing what our sins deserved might intentively pray to have that Cup pass frō him, which was prepared for us. For us, whom mean you? The Elect, or the Reprobat? What malediction? The whole & absolute Paines thereof only, or the Eternity of the continuance thereof also? For so the Reprobats do suffer it. If you mean the Elect, Christ knew, that he must not only h see & contemplat, but feel & suffer all the whole Paines of that Punishment which our sins deserved: and this was prepared for himself our Ransom-payer and not for us. Wherefore the truth is he could not by any means pray against that nor decline that, only unless he were for the time in some astonishment & perturbation of his senses, which by the infinitnes of that Paine he might well be in, yea he could not but be (in his Human weak nature) and yet still remaining utterly sinless, as is afore shown to have happened in Moses and Paul in a far less perturbation then this was in Christ. Now this is the very point of our Defense: affirm this, and you affirm with us all that we hold & profess. Otherwise if you mean that Christ prayed intentively to have the whole and entire Cup of eternal Malediction and death pass from him, which both the Elect deserve, and the Reprobats sustain, that, as it is passing strange doctrine, so it is also simply impossible. For he could not intentively pray against that, not fear that, which he most perfectly knew concerned him not at all, and by no means could ever possibly come near him. But indeed all this is nothing else in effect then your 1 Cause, His submission to God's majesty sitting in judgment. Wherefore you might have lessened your number, and so your answer to this might have ben the same which is made to your foremost. But here furthermore you knit in with this 4 other several causes of Christ's Agony.

• 1. His taking of our infirmities in his flesh to cure them:
• 2. His breaking the knot betwixt (bodily) death and Hell, which none but he was able to do:
• 3. God's anger which might be executed on his body, but was mitigated by him:
• 4. The desire he had to continue the seeling & enjoining of God's presence with his body.

The of these maketh in my mind much [ 1] for us. For understanding that Christ took all the infirmities and passions whereunto men's nature is subject to the ende that he might cure all and every kind of them in us; then it followeth that he wanted not the proper & immediate sufferings of pains inflicted by God's own hand in his Soul. For these are our Souls subject unto and capable of, yea and tormented with, & finally we are by this apt and proportionable medicine of Christ thoroughly cured of thē. And this is the very same matter w ^ch our 4 Argument before concluded: that Christ had experince of the same infirmities & passions generally whatsoever, whereof he hath cured us. And this your own Authors here do fully affirm, Cyril Ambrose, and others, as before we have observed. It is then most unreasonable which here c you do (if you do as you seem) to understand them of mere Bodily death, & of the infirmities merely of his Flesh. Wherein then you deny our d Assumption also, & are again Contrarie to yourself and to f your own Authors. Cyril nameth flesh here, meaning not Christ's Deity, but his whole Human nature, as the Scripture doeth in a multitude of places: and so not his Body only. Thus then it is that he saith, as you observe, that g Christ as a man abhorred and feared death: not the bodily death only, but as it was conjoined with the sorrows of the 2. death. He would not, he could not so fear and be affrighted, yea and pitiously astonished with such sorrow oppressing him, as to sweat drops of blood only for fear of his bodily death: neither would he pray at all, much less so vehemently and so oftenty mes as he did against that which he perfectly knew was God's will and his own most willing purpose to undergo. Or else Cyril meaneth no more but that he naturally misliked & shunned (evē as all flesh doth) all bodily pain & death. This we always yield, and it maketh nothing against us. For nevertheless he constantly embraced & suffered with joy whatsoever bodily grief he knew did come unto him by his own most free will, and by the holy ordinance of God: yea he could & would bear it with joy far beyond all the joy and constancy of h men in their sufferings. Only he might fail of the outward appearance and use of this constancy and joyful patience (as now he did) without taint of sin, if his Human nature were overwhelmed with other infinite pains, and his mind and senses disturbed with more horror then naturally it could bear. Therefore I conclude he thus feared not his mere bodily death, but it was the Paines of the 2. death which he felt and so feared. But you say i The sorrow and fear of death which it pleased our Savior to feel in our nature, came not for want of strength, but of purpose to quench and abolish those affections in us. I say it came from both: as yourself also do avouch clean contrarily in another place: k To dy even in Christ was infirmity, though voluntary. And generally in another place; l Natural infirmity was common to Christ with all the godly in like cases. Wherefore Austin's sentence will not help you here, m that Christ was troubled not by infirmity, but by (his own) power. For he meaneth, not only by infirmity, but also by his own will and power: or else you confute him yourself. Neither there is this any reproach to Christ, as you most iniustly insinuate. But as it was glorious to him so to debase his Majesty for our sakes to take our true and perfect Nature, yea to be humbled therein to the most shameful death of the Cross, so was it also glorious to him to take all the true weaknesses of our nature together: and so it was his singular good-will towards us to become thoroughly like us, and feelingly subject to all our Calamities, pains and miseries, to heal us of them. Only in him the guilt and corruption of sin it self was excepted. Faine you would wipe away that Argumēt of ours which sticketh nearer to you the you will seem. In Malefactors there is a quiet and contented suffering of most exquisite and extraordinary torments oftentimes, which they endure only by a natural strength and courage of mind. Howe much more likely is it then that Christ the very rock of all strength and fountain of patience, would not thus seem affrighted and astonished and so woefully behaving him self for his mere bodily death, and that before it came unto him. All your answer is, that this is no fit comparison for the Son of God: for they are desperate, not having any fear or care of God till they feel the force of his wrath in Hell fire. What an answer is this? They have no fear nor care of God. What then? Yet naturally they have fear and care of most bitter pains, and namely then when they feel them. If you say, before they feel them they are so desperate and so hardened by Satan, that they care not for any torments: that in deed is commonly true. But what will you or can you allege to hinder their full and most dreadful sense of them, when they are in them? Satan wisheth them not so much good as to benumb them now in their senses, so that the cruel pains of death should not trouble them in the time of their death, which he would rather make more fearful and intolerable unto them. Let them be then in their life time as desperate as they will, yet in death and in the midst of most horrible tortures which oftentimes very quietly they endure, surely they cannot choose but feel as lively and as perfitely as other men do. Only it is a natural boldness and strength of mind (in it self no discommendable property) that sustayneth them in such extreme pains: One instance for all may serve in this kind, even that wretched Murderer of the Prince of Orange in Netherland. What strange quietness did he show in suffering most wonderful and rare torments until death. Now to make our Savior Christ less able or willing to suffer quietly outward torments no greater then that wretch and many other such have suffered, I suppose is a bad endeavor. And it is no unfit matter for you to think more upon, before you skip it over with silence. We compare not the Son of God with them, but are sure that his Human nature had beyond all comparison more commendable courage, boldness, strength of mind, patience, and contentment even in the midst of his extremist pains (were they but mere bodily) then such caytifs had, or possibly could seem to have. This that I say, pertaineth alike to the Thieves that were Crucified with Christ. Of whom the H. Ghost saith, a They were together in one and the same Condemnation with Christ. That is they suffered from men all one and the like torments of death adjudged them by the Magistrate: except happily Christ suffered less then they, because they endured them longer then he did. Yet we find in none of them any such piteous and strange Complaintes and Cries and Tears, as we find in Christ. But to leave these, and to come to the patience of Martyrs in their sufferings. That also is admirable, what joy, what peace, what triumph they show, yea how they sing in the midst of frying flames, in their roasting on gridirons, in their fleaing off their skins, and tearing of their flesh by piece-meals, with a thousand other of most strange and butcherly torments, no less, if no greater in outward show, then the sufferings of our Savior Christ. To this you answer: [ 2] If death be not fearful to the Servants of Christ, they are the more bound to their Lord and Master. Who knoweth not that? But what answer is this to our argument? And you will also give a reason of your saying: Because he was the first that by death disarmed death, and severed Death and Hell. He was surely both the first and the last: both α and ω. For he •• lie, and none with him, nor before nor since him conquered Death and Hell. Yet what is this to our Reason? The effect that Christ wrought is not our question, but " the manner and kind of suffering whereby he wrought it. You tell us of the effect which he performed which we gladly acknowledge: viz. that Christ did this in deed by his death, he made our death since to be no Cursed death, but a blessed death. But how did he this, by suffering nothing but his mere bodily death only, or also a Religious fear of Hell? All which other godly men do also suffer and feel, which they take passing joyfully and quietly. But thus Christ did not seem to do, neither indeed did he in his Agony. Or did Christ suffer some greater sorrow? You say, The death which Christ suffered when it approached came fast clasped with Hell. What mean you by that? mean you, that Death and Hell both alike came jointly upon Christ, and that both jointly were ordained of God to seize upon him? Then it is the same that we affirm. Otherwise how came they clasped together against him? By breaking the knot betwixt Death and Hell, he could not be so woefully affected and afflicted above measure as he was, if he did not suffer by them somewhat extraordinarily. Unto this you have nothing to answer. Only you say, he severed them, and none ells but only the Son of God could dissolve them. Which we deny not. Neither can we see how Death by God's ordinance might seize upon Christ, and not the pains of Hel: seeing neither of them is in themselves sin, but both alike are the due vengeance of sin which he was ordained to suffer so far as was possible. Why then did he suffer the one, and not touch the other. Neither yet do you show that w ^ch you take in hand here, how bodily death is contemptible to the Godly which was not contemptible to God himself by your assertiō. It was not therefore that only, but some other death far more dreadful and intolerable, which made Christ man (being also God) in such wise to tremble and quake. In deed Christ had far greater cause (as you say) to fear even his bodily death, then any of his Members have. For it was therefore because death approached unto him clasped fast with Hell, so that he could not by the ordinance of God meddle with one but he must feel the other. And thus he did not contemplate and look on them a far of, nor had to do with one more then the other, but by suffering one, he felt both: and by enduring one, he endured both. And thus in deed Christ was left by God to the full natural sense of his bodily torments. But the Godly and the Martyrs deal only with bodily Death; the pains of Hell, or of God's wrath they fear not, because they know by Christ's suffering the same they are abolished, & removed far from them. Sin standeth not threatening thē in the prefence of God, as it stood now at this time against Christ our Suertie and Ransom-payer. Nay, they deal not with Bodily death wholly and naturally: for they have God's comfort with them to mitigate it, which Christ now felt not. Yea they mind not their pains very much for their great hope and joy presenly following: but this was all overclowded in Christ at this instant. Therefore he had exceeding great cause to be affrighted and terrified & to cry out with bitter tears, though the godly have cause to triumph & sing in Death. Thus also you forget * my argument: that Christ always charged his Disciples not to take their bodily Death heavily for righteousness sake: Ergo, He him self would never be so dismayed with the fear of it. Here you have a notable saying in the margen, which must not be forgotten: we must prefer Christ's suffering before all Martyrs * not for his pains, but for his patience. Not for his pains, but for his patience? A rare distinction: If you could make us believe that the greatest patience is tried and discerned where the smallest pains are, then you said somewhat. I know Christ's patience was perfect in all his pains both small & great: and so is not the patience of his servants in their pains neither small nor great. But what is this to our purpose? We speak not of his inward habit of patience which our faith believeth to be in him: but of the outward trial and discerning thereof by natural means & signs whereunto it pleased him now to submit his patience after the very course and operation of Nature. Wherefore as Christ had in him indeed far more patience then we have, so it is out of doubt when he came to the chiefest trial thereof in his Passion he would not in any wise (as he did) show less in use then many men do, unless the trial & encoūtring thereof in him were infinitely greater.

[ 3] By this also we may see how vain your next conjecture is, that he feared in his Agony " Corporal castigation above his strength. For why may not Martyrs and others fear as much cruelty & extraordinary torments at the hands of men, as Christ had cause to do? Again, why should the fear of any whatsoever mere bodily pains so overcome his patience, as outwardly it seemed at this time? Why should he not be able to bear it quietly? And principally seeing he knew well enough before what his death should be, and that God had unchangeably appointed it for him. Wherefore in no wise ought he so to shun and shrink from his mere bodily pains, if they were no greater, which he suffered. If you mean that he felt greater concurring in and with his bodily punishment inflicted by the wrathful hand of God, armed with infinite vengeance, then you say well, and we acknowledge it.

Your other Cause is, for that by death his body should want a [ 4] while the feeling of God's presence. But did not Christ perfectly know that this was God's decree and certain appointment; yea his own most free will & purpose? And shall we imagine that Christ would expressly pray against that known will of his Father, yea against his own? Call you this greater perfection in him then was in other men? Again, could this thing in any reason be such a horrible grief unto him, to have his flesh lie dead without pain for a day and a few hours, yet his Soul continually living and enjoining the comfort of God: and that for such an occasion as to procure thereby the Salvation of mankind, would the thought of this make him sweat blood for grief, and to need an Angel from, heaven to comfort him, and to pray 3. times vehemently that this Cup might pass from him? verily it is unreasonable to think so. Which Cause also, if it were true, is flatly contrary to your own resolution. But of all these I wonder where you have found any inkling, that any of these may be believed to be the true and effectual cause of Christ's most dreadful Agony. You say excellent well, but by your practice in all matters so far as I see, you never mean to observe it: in God's cause let God's book teach us what to believe and what to profess: I love to follow and not to lead the holy Ghost. In matters of so great depth I dare not wade without or before my guide. Again what I read in God's word, that I believe: what J read not, that I do not believe. Show me then where you read in God's word any or all these to be effectual Causes of this strange Agony, or some sure ground whence evidently we may gather so much: or else for my part I shall never bever believe you.

Your Sixt and last main Cause is, that Christ by this his bloody sweat and vehement prayers did nothing but voluntarily perform that true bloody Offering and Priesthood prefigured in the Law. This we simply grant: it hindereth not our Assertion. Except you mean voluntarily in such sense that he was not also urged thereunto by any violence of pains or fear procuring it in him naturally. Wherein you seem to labor by bringing some Fathers, and misapplying some Scriptures, and do say that a you are content to admit also (this) exposition, and of this, with all the rest you pronounce that b they are sound and well agreeing with Christian piety. Yet is it contrary to c your resolution also: yea it is contrary to the Scripture, expressing his d fear and vehement sorrows and e discomfort to have caused his Agony. Again if you mean that all this was voluntary in him and not felt indeed according to the outward semblance and as men beholding him would judge • , then belike you make him to have counterfeited. Which thought God for bid should ever come into any Christians heart. For no cause you say f I jest and iybe with the Apostles words: but I fear this is to jest and iybe in deed with the most dreadful and bitter sorrows of our Savior in working for us our Salvation. And here why say you not as well that his Death and bloodshed on the Cross shown in him no pains nor infirmity, but only that voluntarily he made him self there the true Priest, and pe formed the prefigured bloody and deadly Sacrifice for the sins of the world. As good reason altogether you have to say so, as to affirm it of his Agony. As for the Scriptures which g you cite, they prove in deed that Christ now executed his office of Priesthoode: but will you "divide & exempt his Death on the Cross frō his Priesthood? The sanctifying of himself doeth it not as well intend and comprehend that Sacrifice on the Cross, as that of his Prayers in the Garden? To think otherwife is without all show of truth or reason, yet I see not why you should cite these texts, unless you meant so: neither can I see what else you mean, where you conclude, saying, Christ's Agony being alleged by the Apostle to demonstrate Christ's Priesthood, must not rise frō the terror of his own death. And yet h a little before you openly do confess and grant, that his Agony did rise from the fear of his death, and that Christ had far greater cause then any of his members to fear it. Also it is contrary to your citing of Cyril pag. 25. And here why should i Hilary deny that Christ's bloody sweat came of infirmity? Or k Austin, that his fear and perturbatiō was of infirmity? Surely there is no cause. For though it be against the common course of our Nature, for any pains or fear to sweat blood: yet the Divine power with and through pains and fears might wring out of his body that trickling bloody sweat. As it is plain that it did by the words next before in the text, An Angel came to give him some comfort, that is, least he should have been overwhelmed quite in his sorrow and discomfort: but still he was in his Agony, and sweet like drops of blood trickling to the ground: and presently saith, My Soul is full of sorrows even to death, and thrice he prayed that this Cup, and this Hower might pass from him. It cannot be therefore but that by Sorrowes and Paines this sweat came: though also God's power caused it by laying upon his Soul and body invisible, supernatural, & unspeakable sorrows and horrors, and by making his flesh visibly to express in some sort this spiritual and extraordinary torment of pain and fear which he suffered. And in deed where they say, Nec infirmitas, quod potestas gessit, that proveth the clean contrary: For Jdeo & infirmitas, quia potestas gessit. For the working of his Power in him argueth the suffering of his Infirmitie: The power of God is pe • fited in infirmítie. And because it was above the course of nature, therefore nature was herein oppressed, not exempted from pains. Thus these speak fully for us and against you, that here appeared, not Christ's infirmity only in suffering, but his Divine power also in punishing. And this I judge in deed to be their very meaning. But those other mystical and figurative sayings of Austin, Bede, & Bernard, howe shall we admit them without better warrant? That Christ's bloudshead was to signify that Martyrs should shed their blood, what reason have we so to think? Or that his blood head should signify the purging of his Disciples hearts frō sin, yea or of all his Church in the whole world? It did not signify this, but it did it in deed. Lastly, if it had th • se significations in it, yet withal his Agony might rise from his very Paines & Fear coming from the present sense of God's justice and wrath now reveal • d and working upon him.

Hitherto we have made it manifest that in truth you have nothing in all these words against our doctrine, that Paines and sorrows were the true and proper cause of Christ's dreadful Agony: nor to prove that his mere bodily pains or death was the whole Cause. Now we are to show the like in his most we full Complaint on the Cross: where he saith My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? You will ask me here, what kind of Forsaking may this be? I shown you plainly before, if you had regard • d it. Namely, that Christ being also now (yea specially) in the feeling of infinite Paines inflicted on him sundry ways, and that directly frō God's proper Wrath for our sins, he felt his whole Human nature for the time left all comfortless and alone without any joyous assistance of his Deity. I say not, that he wanted now all assistanc of his Deity: for it surely would then have quite overwhelmed him with this intolerable burdē. But his Godhead, as it were withdrawing and hiding it self from him for that season of his Passion, gave him no sense nor feeling of ease, comfort, or joy, but all the sense of sorrows and pains as well in spirit, as in soul and body, that might be: all the sense of his joy and comfort for the while being clean gone and wholly swallowed up in that huge & bottomless gulf of sorrows and pains issuing upon him out from the fierce Wrath of God. Howbeit yet even now he wanted not sufficient assistance of the Deity to sustain him in life herein, as I said. This was that extreme humiliation and " exinanition of nature, wherein † God spared not his Son, and wherein also Christ spared not him self. For he undertook all this most willingly: and yet being in it naturally grieved and sorrowed for it, & at some moments being astonished with it, suddenly and naturally desired ease and release from it. This forsaking or dereliction beseemeth the time, place, person, and case of Christ our Ransompayer, and Purchaser of salvation with the price of his own most direful pains. Not any other far fet, or hardly applied, or strangely devised by the brains of men. As in truth all those other senses hereof are, which " you rather embrace. They are 6. [ 1] in number. The 1. is, that when Christ on the Cross cried out, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me, by this word me, he should mean His Church. For the which you have no reason in the world, but the bare names of Austin, Leo, Athanasius. Shew me their reasons, press not their authorities. Which " yourself also rejecteth, when you list: though when you list again they must be your best, yea your only reason. But even these Fathers if they be understood, as * before I have shown Cyprians meaning to be: that Christ spake these words, as doing now the part of the Surety of his Church, and as standing in the case of his Children whom now by his suffering pains he saved: then they agree just with our mind herein. For then doubtless it was for the infinite pains which now he felt in our steed, that he so cried out, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? Otherwise if you think they meant that Christ spake this by some strange Metonimy, naming him self but meaning his Church: that can have no good sense. For how can it be that we were forsaken of God when Christ was on the Cross. Nay, even there and then were we purchased unto God, not forsaken by God. Again your own rule is, which I like well, that no Figure is to be admitted in Scripture where there is no ill nor hurtful sense following literally. But I have shown a little before a plain, easy, and Christian sense hereof, taking it literally: that me signifieth Christ's own person namely his Manhood bearing now, as our Surety, intolerable pains inflicted by God's wrath upon him: and so he may mourn & sorrow that he was forsaken, that is left in immeasurable pains without feeling of any comfort or succor for the time. Wherefore neither you nor any of the Fathers ought to conceive that me here should signify not Christ properly, but the Church Figurativelie. What other construction you can make hereof, I cannot discern. Finally, this 1. sense is contrary to your 2. and 3. following: also to your 5. and 6. senses. If either of these be taken as the true meaning of this place, it cannot possibly stand with the rest: although you allow them all, as by and by we shall manifestly see. Now then your sense, what is it? Even this, that Christ's human [ 2] nature was left helpless to the rage of the Jews; which is a kind of forsaking. This seemeth to come nearest indeed to your liking, by that which I observe in you. But as I said, this is directly contrary to your 1. sense, & to the rest following. Also before we saw how greatly Christ's sufferings specially on the Cross differed from such, as the godly do also suffer. Yea there is surely no reason nor show of reason, that Christ here should so mournfully and so uncomfortably complain that God had forsaken him, if it were only but for such distresses as the godly also do equally suffer at the hands of evil men. Seeing most of thē at the hour of their martyrdoms do never utter any such show (as Christ here did) of a mind vncomforted. Where also note this well, that no godly man not Martyr did ever ascribe this forsaking of themselves to God in the time of their martyrdoms. For though then they are oppressed with greater violence of bodily enemies, yet they are assisted with far greater abundance of heavenly comfort, even in the midst of the pains of death. So that they never mourn nor complain at such extreme dealing, as Christ now did, when he said my God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me. Wherefore it is a great shame to imagine that Christ was less able to endure such a dereliction, or that he would thus complain and mourn for it only. The bare names again of c Austin, Ambrose, Jerome do here likewise no good. This is but a weak kind of reasoning for so learned a Divine as you are. Although also these very sentences of the Fathers I can easily admit, if they import no more then they seem: namely that these outward afflictions on the Cross were some cause (and that not small) of his complaint, always remembering that some greater cause also did concur & was conjoined [ 3] with them. Your 3. sense if I conceive it a right is, that his being l • ft to bodily death caused him thus to mourn which is but as the last before. And yet you seem to mean not only that, but also because his d flesh now should want all feeling of his heavenly comfort for that while, that it should remain dead. A marvelous exquisite & far fet cause. Yet me thinks, as this crosseth your other expositions here, so it is flat contrary to the Scripture also: which giveth after a sort to Christ's dead Flesh this lively affection, e my flesh shall rest in hope, because thou wilt not leave my soul to remain as all other flesh dying doth, in the unseen world of the dead, neither wilt suffer thy holy one to see corruptiō. Is it likely is it possible that he should so dolefully mourn that either he should bodily dy, or that his body should want the sense of his divine presence so little a while, when as in his mind he speaketh so triumphantly of his constant and continual joy in God: yea not excluding even his body though dead from participating in some sort therein: as we read in the former place at large. I beheld the Lord always before me, for he is at my right hand that I should not be shaken. Therefore did my heart rejoice & my tongue was glad, & moreover my Flesh shallrest in hope, &c. Now can a man in this exceeding general and constant joy so uncomfortably mourn, in that sense as you urge, My God my God, why forsakest thou my flesh? It cannot be. Many things more may be strongly alleged against this opiniō. As first: seeing he perfectly knew thath as his flesh now should quietly rest, and have a present ende of all his most bitter sorrows, so even all that while & continually after, his soul (which was his best part) should enjoy perfect glory and comfort more then before it did: Also seeing this senseless rest of his flesh was to be but for a very little while, & then presently to receive a most glorious and eternal felicity jointly with his Soul and with his Deity, who can imagine that Christ would (now ready to dy) so extremely mourn and complain only for this cause, as your fancy importeth? Further he knew perfectly that this was the very appointment of God, and for the fulfilling of Prophesies, for the obtaining of his most desired purchase of our health, for the more advancing of God's glory, yea and for the more advancing of his very manhood also after so low humiliation. Finally it was his own most free and fore determined will. Would he then so mournfully grieve and complain thereat? It hath no reason, nor likelihood in it. Lazarus when he was returned from the joys of heaven to take again his rotten carcase ofter it stank having lain 4. days dead in the grave, yet he grieved not at it, neither ought he so to have don. Much less ought Christ so to grieve and mourn, for a lesser want and for a shorter season (as we may think) then that was to Lazarus. But this matter is not worth the speaking of any further. Neither do your Fathers prove any such improbable, yea unlawful mourning & complaing in Christ. If they prove anything towards your meaning, it is this, that he complained because of his bodily dying. Howbeit they say not that he thus complained only and merely for that: neither I think will you plainly hold this, neither do we deny the other. The truth is they mean he suffered in his whole Human nature: & namely that he suffered not as God. They strove here with Haeretikes, whose controversies were far from this our question Hilary and Epiphanius wrote against Arius, to prove that Christ in this complaint shown rightly a human infirmity, and that this was not the voice of a Deity inferior to the Father, as Arius blasphemed. These Fathers then had no purpose here to exclude the sufferings of Christ's Soul, but only to deny that his Godhead suffered & complained as being left to punishment by his Father, when the sorrows of death began to prevail against him. The very same doth Hilary also where he saith that this in Christ was Corporis vox, the outcry of his body. He plainly meaneth it of his whole manhood, the opposition being between it and his Godhead: as the Scripture † often doth. And where he saith, he was morte peragendus, to be cōsummated by death: he meaneth that death ended all his suffering, not that he suffered nothing else but merely death. And if their words do anywhere come near to our question, as it is very likely that h Tertullian and the one place of i Hilary doth, then surely they are plainly for us and against you. Tertullian pointeth in this place at certain Haeresies maintained in his time wherwth it seemeth Praxeas was infected.

• 1 That the Father suffered as well as the Son when Christ suffered:
• 2 That the Deity suffered:
• 3 That Christ was no true nor perfect man.

All these pointes Tertullian overthroweth here, Quid de isto quaeris, &c. What inquire you of Christ? You here him crying out in his Passion, My God my God why hast thou forsaken me? The Son therefore suffered, being forsaken of his Father: but this is meant of the Flesh and of the Soul, that is of the Man, not of the Word nor of the Spirit. Here it is plain that Tertullian showeth besides the rest, this point exactly, that Christ was a very man, in that he had a proper Body and a Soul, and that this his suffering on the Cross was in both these partes, and so in his whole & entire manhood. Also that he suffered in both these parts even frō his Father. But he could not suffer in his Soul frō † God, if he felt only and merely but a bodily death, as you hold. And to suffer the stroke of God's hand in his Soul as the proper vengeance of sin, is far more then to feel in Soul by sympathy only the bodies smart. Neither had Tertull. overthrow̄ but confirmed that Haeresie of Christ's being no true natural man, if he had said, that in this case he suffered in Soul only by symphathy with and from the Body. But this is absurd to think in Tertullian. Therefore in this place he is flatly against you. And this Derelictiō of his Father which he speaketh of, is Death indeed to the Son. But what death? Forsooth more then the separation of the Soul and Body. Even the separation of the Deity from the whole manhood: which is the death of the Soul. I speak here nothing but the Fathers words, yea the Scriptures. Your own place of Epiphanius saith that now his Deity departed from his manhood. So saith your own Hilary also, Corporis vox contestata recedentis a se Dei dissidium. So saith Ambrose, Clamavit Homo Divinitatis separatione moriturus: The man Christ did cry being about to dy by the separation of his Godhead. Again Sequestrata delectation Divinitatis aternae taedio meae infirmitatis afficitur. The joy of his eternal Godhead being parted away, he was afflicted with the tediousnis of my infirmity. Here the Fathers do show in deed that Christ died, but more then a mere bodily death: even the death of the Soul also. For what is the Separation of the Deity from his Soul else, but the death of the Soul. Howbeit note, I pray, that neither the Fathers, nor I do mean any Separating 1 of the union of both natures in Christ, nor the Separating 2 of any Holynes or habitual grace of God from his Soul, 3 nor the Separating of God's love from him, but the Separatiō of all comfortable feeling & assistance of the Godhead, in that he felt not any supporting of his Soul and Body now pierced thorough with the Paines which he felt inflicted by God. This Separatiō is meant, and it may be called the Death of the Soul. For as it is life to the Soul to feel and to enjoy the glory of God: So it is death to feel the want and absence thereof utterly, and the rather being also then overwhelmed with incomparable pains. That heavenly life Christ tasted a little while in his Transfiguratiō: this Hellish Death he felt besides his bodily death upon the Cross. And thus Tertull. meaneth here that not Christ's bodily death only made him now thus to cry out, but that death also which was the Separation of his Godhead from both his body & Soul; which is the death of the Soul. And so he saith true: the Dereliction of the Father, is Death to the Son. Your 4. Exposition [ 4] for anything I see may be granted: for it seemeth to be the same in effect that we hold. Your place of Cyril seemeth also to concur: that Christ's words of complaint were the removing of the dereliction which had fallen on us. Was it removed from us? then surely it was laid upon somebody else. Now that must needs be upon him self. Where you object Athanasius, that He could not be forsaken of his Father, who was always in his Father. It is merely wrested: Athanasius speaketh against Arius also, that Christ's Deity could not be forsaken of his Father, seeing it is always in his Father: and so was not inferior to the Father, which was Arius heresy. Touching his humanity he denieth not but God might forsake it: For the Scripture saith so. And in deed he forsook it by causing in it the feeling of all Paines for sin, and by leaving it therein for a while all comfortless. Your 5. Exposition [ 5] is Leos conceit without warrant, far fetched, hardly applied: tha • here Christ putteth us in mind why God doth often not hear our prayers, but provideth better for us then if our wills were satisfied: & that this is a mystical sense. a Origen also is here as weak: that Christ meaneth nothing ells but that he was abased lower then his divine majesty. [ 6] Also these senses be contrary to all the rest here observed. Your 6. and last also is likewise as contrary to the rest, and as improbable in itself (or more) then the former. That Christ here should cite the beginning of that b Psalm, only to show the Jews that their wrongs towards him were Prophesied of before. This already I fully answered, which you refute not. Likewise where you say, He sung the whole Psalm: it is d answered. Whe • in moreover this is to be noted, that surely he now uttered no more of this Psalm but the 1. verse, Eli, Eli, Lamma sabachtham, For hereby the standers by imagined that he called for Elias. Therefore he sung not the Psalm. Your authorities are bare arguments. Jerome bringeth no reason but his own word. Chrysostom, I see not what he saith to your purpose at all. Finally those kinds of Dereliction which you mention c besides, are nothing fitter then the former. Thus far I have waded in examing your sundry and variable expositions of one poor little plain sentence of Scripture. At least 6. or 7. divers, yea contrary senses you have brought of a few words: & of them all you say, They are f all godly expositions, and † All these interpretations are sound, and stand well with the rules of Christian piety. How sound and fit they are, it hath ben seen. But verily you have a good head if you can reconcile all these: and make them stand together: and a very bad opinion of the holy Scriptures you seem to have, if you think they may be handled by interpretations and expositions thus, that a man may take them in 6. or 7. divers senses and all justifiable. Your saying therefore, that g you have spoken before as much (to this matter) as may content any man that is not fastened to his fancies more then to to the truth, I omit as vain and frivolous.

Now it resteth that I gather some reasons from the express Scripture, to show you that indeed very pains and the vehemency of sorrows, namely which he now sustained by way of yielding. Satisfaction and Sacrifice for sin, were the principal and only proper Cause of his most dreadful Agonies & Complaint. Which truly though it need no reason for proof of it, (the matter being so clear in it self) yet your vnreasonablenes is such that it draweth somewhat from me about it. First, No Christian doubteth (I [ 1] suppose) much less denieth that Christ's most woeful Agonies & Complaining belonged properly and directly to his Passion and Sacrifice: and that they expressed a parte thereof, yea as I think not the least parte. But his whole Sacrifice consisted in Afflictions, The Prince of our Salvation was consecrated through Afflictions. Therefore Afflictions Sorrowes and Paines were the Cause of his Agonies and Complaint: not his religious fear, not his Piety or Pity. If you say, These were Afflictions unto him. I answer, they properly belonged to his Holynes as partes thereof, and were not immediately directly nor properly in him as the Wages & Price of sin: as his whole Passion was, and every part thereof. Again that these should, or could afflict Christ so much above his strength and patience, it is more then strange. Yea also it were no vertu • but sin in any, to give way to our Affections (though about good things) immoderately beyond our patience & strength of nature. Lastly though they somewhat molest the mind, yet in truth they are most pleasing and delightful to good men, not tedious, much less painful unto death. Therefore you do very ill to make these partes of Christ's Holines to be proper partes of his satisfaction, and the main Causes of his Agony and Complaint. And worse you do if you ascribe them not to any Paines in him at all. Secondly, The sum of these forenoted Texts must be [ 2] considered: namely that Christ expressly wished sundry times in his dreadful astonishment suddenly even against God's known will in one respect, though always after his known will in another respect, as afterward we shall see. And here are expressed (with his strange Astonishment ) his mighty Sorrowes, and Fear of them, partly felt and partly further to come. You skip this Fear when you reckon but 4. kinds: For this was neither a religious care, nor doubtful fear, nor desperate nor damned fear, but a right Natural fear in Christ. Which was as I said for the infinitnes of his sorrows partly now revealed, and partly further to be laid upon him afterward. Whence also his sweating drops of blood trickling down from him, and his intolerable Agony, and his comfort received by an Angel from heaven that now in this his woeful discomfort ministered unto him: and his complaying on the Cross that his Father had forsaken him: finally all his prayers and supplications with tears and strong cries against that death which he feared. Now all these things we see in Christ, came because of his sorrows and Paines in his Passion, not for his zealous Holines and Sanctification. David wanted sometime the present feeling of God's comfortable spirit, and mourned dolefully for the want of it, albeit yet he were not destitute of his spirit indeed: which also himself knew well enough. And thus did Christ even in his greatest plunge of woe: for then he called God his God resolutly. Nevertheless, he being infinitely more punished then David, nature could not but suddenly cast out that affection (which yet was merely natural in him) to wish ease, and release of his immeasurable and [ 3] intolerable pains. Third: Add here unto, Christ's own express words, when in this season he prayeth, that a this Hower and This Cup may pass from him. That which This Hower and This Cup do signify, the same is the proper & principal cause of his Agony. But what can be meant by This Hower, unless the Paines of his suffering set and appointed by God for him to bear at this determined time from God's Justice for sin? What is this Cup, but the bitter taste of the same Paines aforesaid? This I hope was not his Holines and sanctification which so troubled and molested him: [ 4] not his Piety nor his Pity. Nay, finally he himself expresseth the true Cause, even his excessive Paines, his overabounding Sorrowes and anguish: saying, My Soul is full of pains or full of sorrows even unto death. Here he nameth the Cause. For which Cause also, even of intolerable and unsupportable sorrows and pains it must needs be that he cried at his end, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? This then manefestly was the only proper and principal cause of Christ's most dreadful Agonies and perplexity in his Passion, even excessive Paines, and the entire want of feeling of God's comfort, and nothing else. How hard soever b you make it (I c know not why) to show the proper & principal cause thereof. And here we will remember again what is taught by Authority in England. The rather for that you take on as a man impatient, because I do affirm that our doctrine, (not yours) hath the public Authorie for it. You d call it an egregiously, an insolent and impudent speech, well becoming an alehouse. &c. And yet in the very next page in plain terms you grant the same to be taught in our Homily of Christ's Passion: for you say thus the Hom: teacheth, The Justice of God pursued Christ with most painful smart and anguish even unto death: and forced the weakness of his human flesh to cry, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me. Here I am sure you think not that our Homelie maketh Christ's Piety or Pitie, nor yet his mere Bodily pain to force him thus far. Nor in those words next following there, O that Mankind should put the everlasting Son of God in such pains for the grievousnes of our sins. And in truth that the Homily is far from both these your meanings, I have plainly shown before. Add hereunto the full and large declaration hereof in the authorised Catechism: Christ suffered not only a common death in sight of men, but àlso was thoroughly touched with the horror of eternal death: he fought and wrestled as it were hand to hand with the whole army of Hell: before God's judgment seat he put him self under the heavy and grievous severity of God's punishment: he was driven to most hard straights: he suffered for us and went through horrible fears, and moct bitter sorrows of the mind that he might in all things satisfy the just judgment of God & appease his wrath. For to sinners whose person Christ did here bear, not only the sorrows and torments of present death are due, but also of death to come and everlasting: So when he did take upon him and bear both the guiltiness and just pain of Mankind damned and lost, he was affected with so grievous fear, trouble and sorrow of the mind or soul, that he cried out, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me. Finally the Annotation of our great Bible authorized and appointed to be read in our Churches, iustifyeth all this saying, Christ here felt the horror of God's wrath and judgment against sin. I pray, who is that Egregious liar now? I hope for my part I have spoken the truth in avouching my doctrine & that forenoted Proposition & Assumption also, by you denied, to be our public doctrine and fully authorized in England. Wherefore you may mean some other to be a giddy Spirit lately buzzing in the people's ears the contrary: I hope I am clear from it. And thus it remaineth that we conclude even our whole Reason to be firm & true, which is before delivered. The pains of Christ's Passion which now he felt and feared, were the principal and proper cause of those his Agonies. But his mere Bodily Paines and death, or the fear of them, caused no such things and lamentable effects in Christ: much less did his Piety and Pitie. Therefore Christ felt and feared Paines more, and infinitely greater, then mere Bodily pain and death: which were the principal and proper Cause of this strange plight in him. Which consequently can be none other by necessary reason, then the Paines and sense of God's wrath in his spirit properly. Therefore Christ suffered that also: and not only in Body, as you hold.

Howbeit you have yet here and there some exceptions against this our doctrine which are not to be clean neglected. First, you say, a I extend Ch • istes Agony too far: because I will have it proceed from b the intolerable sorrows and horrors of God's fiery wrath equal to Hell. I show not there the Cause of Christ's Agony and Fear: I shown it of purpose in the c beginning. Why did you not refuse that? You ought to have dealt directly against that which I expressly mention to have ben the cause. Thus I said, His Sorrowes and sufferings for the redemptiō of sins, The Cup of Affliction and sorrow which now he felt and was to feel yet further, Caused him to mourn and fear. Say then plainly, that this Cause is mistaken, and too far extended: or else you say nothing to us, but by indirect and p • aeposterous collectiō. Now if this Cause which we gave and do give, be true and right, (as I hope it is before proved more then sufficiently) then I doubt not it is as true also by invincible reason, that Christ suffered the intolerable sorrows & horrors of God's fiery wrath equal to Hell. Which I hope also is as fully proved: being the effect of our d Assumption before. Seeing it could not be his mere Bodily pains (much less his Holy Affections, as you hold) that brought him to this miraculous misery and distress, wherein we see by the Text he was. Therefore they were the intolerable and incomprehensible dolours of his Spirit (questionless) which wrought the same. There is no other sorrow in the world to be found which can be imagined to be the Cause possibly. And then my other words also which e here you cruelly condemn, shall stand well enough, * That Christ as touching the vehemency of pain was as sharply touched as the Reprobats themselves, yea if it may be more extraordinarily. Though you labor with might and main to make them amount to Haeresie & open blasphemy. But why do you not bend your odious outcries and accusations against that Authority before truly cited, which maintayneth the same so fully and amply as I deliver it? You do wisely to dissemble your enmity to all them, and yet nevertheless by me to smite and wound them. Howbeit what reason have you against our Assertion? Verily only this you oppose, because all the sorrows of the Reprobat are but sinful guiltiness of conscience or fears of judgment for seen, which is executed only in the next life: you mean only in the definite and local Hell. Which yet is no refutation of my assertiō, that Christ was as sharply touched with pain as the very Reprobats. For though the wicked in this world did never suffer any real effect of God burning wrath working actual vengeance on their Souls for sin, but only some guilty remorse or fear and nothing else, yet this letteth not but that Christ whom God ordained extraordinarily, & alone, to be in this life a whole and absolute burnt Sacrifice for all sin, did feel and suffer the same truly, properly, and perfectly. Sec: How I have always expressly excluded from Christ all sinful adherēts or consequents in pains and fears, which are in the wicked: and do resemble his to theirs only and merely in sharpness and vehemency of pain, I have often declared before. Thirdly, the case is clear enough that the Reprobat many times in this life do not only fear the judgment to come, but also do feel some real and actual impression of God's burning wrath, and even of Hell torments, though not being yet in the local Hell. For proof whereof, that which before I alleged out of Job, and others, that even the godly here want not experience of the sorrows of Hell sometimes, you pass over answering nothing thereunto. Which yet being so in the godly, it must needs be in Cain, Judas, and the Reprobats, far more direful & intolerable sometimes. As also their own confession, and behavior do sundry times testify in this life: Again the Devils are many times out of the local Hell, as when they are in this world. But the Devils are never released of Hell sorrows. Therefore the true sorrows of Hell are even in this world: and then possibly may be inflicted on wicked men as they are on the Devils which are sometime out of the local Hell. Lastly the true joys of Heaven may be out of the local Heaven: as when the glorious Angels have ben and tarried some while here on earth with men. Yet did they never for a moment want the joys and glory of Heaven. And if Angels may enjoy Heaven really being in this world, then is it possible by God's goodness to communicate some real foretaste thereof even unto some blessed men also. Further that God doth thus indeed i reveal some real taste of his Heavenly joys to his chirdren even in this life, I have k shown already, but am not answered. Yea the Transfiguration of Christ on the Mount declareth that some real part of Heavenly glory may be here on earth, which yourself l somewhere confesseth clean m against yourself. Only this n you have to object touching men, that we here do but hope and joyfully believe. Now faith and hope is the o evidence of things not seen: neither are our greatest joys the same nor equal to them which we shall possess in the next world. I answer, our Reasons before do prove more then only Hope in the faithful sometimes. Sec: It is true the Apostle saith that here we walk by faith and live by hope. This is the general state of the godly in this life: also it is spoken in Cōparison of the life to come, which in truth infinitely exceedeth, & lasteth. Yet some rare exceptions do not overthrow the general course: and here may be notwithstanding some particular instant times when some real sense may be revealed to the godly. As there was unto Christ in the mount, which was to him not only a joyful hope, but a real taste of his very Heavenly joys. Likewise the godly sometime may taste of it in their measure, & yet they may generally in the course of their whole life walk by faith, without that actual sense which I speak of, saving still a most joyful remembrance of it. Again, though we are not to doubt but that the real sense of Heavenly joys here and hereafter are the very same in nature (as in the examples before we have seen) yet I say hereafter we • shall receive unspeakable increase farther and above this that we taste here.

• 1. When we shall have all darkness & corruption taken from us, wherewith now we are compassed and clogged all this life long.
• 2 When the fullness of God's appointed time shall come for it, then will he of purpose reveal himself and his glory unto us as it were with open face, which here is don but under a veil: and specally then when our bodies also in the Resurrection shall be conjoined with our souls in glory.
• 3 When we shall eternally enjoy and possess the same, which here in this life is but now and then revealed unto us, in such persons, times, manner, and measure as the Lord shall think good.

Thus we grant the joys of Heaven here, are nothing equal to those hereafter: only we say the very same in nature may be and are by the effectual working of God's gracious spirit in his elect revealed in some measure, & sometime, evē in this world. Neither is this (as your charity speaketh) any lewd or wicked error. Now then if more then Hope only, evē Heavenly joys may be on earth, surely it followeth; that like wise more then Fear, even Hellish pains them selves may be in men on earth also, and not in the local Hell only. And if Hell pains in this world may be in any, much rather may they have been in Christ: whom God purposely sent through pains and afflictions (the extremist that might be) to be consecrated the Prince of our salvation. If you say, yet thus it will follow that the extremist pains of Hell are not to be found in this world, as the highest joys of Heaven are not likewise, by my confession. Wherefore Christ could not be so extremely punished (anything near) as the damned be in Hell, no not for any moment: which yet my, conceit (as you call it) doeth reach unto. I answer, I know not, neither mean I to determine the measure and depth of sorrows which Christ in his Passion suffered: as also it is not possible to define that glory which he tasted of (for the time) in the mount. Only grant this plainly, that Christ suffered in his soul the true effects of God's proper Justice or wrath: and we seek no more. Grant this I say, and then we will see further (if you will make it a question) whether the sense of pain in Christ was lesser for the time, then that which is eternal in the damned: and whether the true and proper wrath of God taking full vengeance of sin here in this world, might not be as sharp and violent as the sharpest torment in Hell, yea the very shame which is in Hell the sharpest. Truly, though Christ suffered all (which he did suffer) here in this world, yet for anything I can see, there is cause why Christ should be an Extraordinarie person in the case of Suffering for sin in this life: and that therefore, as touching sorrow and pain, he might feel more then ever any else hath or could feel for the time. You seem to grant unto Christ all natural sorrow and fear. Neither do we seek anymore. But you trust the pain of the Damned is more then a natural oppressing and afflicting of the heart with human fear & sorrow. Forsooth it is not. It is no more then a very natural human sorrow & fear. It proceedeth immediately and principally from God him self: who is the Nature of natures. Also Human nature is apt to receive such sorrow & fear from him. Thus the very pains of the Damnedare merely natural. Yet supernatural I grant they are, if we mean this, that they are above our natures state to bear or to comprehend them. This therefore hitherto is a very slight exception against our doctrine before delivered.

The next is as vain, where a you think it not tolerable that I say, Christ b in plain words prayed contrary to God's known will. I pray have patience: I say no harm, nor mean no ill. Did not Christ in plain words pray, c That, if it were possible this Hower might pass from him: and before, d Father; save me frō this hour. By this Hower he meaneth this his pain & punishment appointed him by God for to suffer at that time. And this Christ knew well, seeing he saith presently, But therefore I came into this hour. Doeth he not then pray in plain words contrary to God's known will? Therefore never skoffe at it, nor reproach it, nor wrest it. We ought not to be ashamed to acknowledge that weakness of Human nature in Christ, which Christ was not ashamed of for our sakes to undergo. If this could not be possibly in Christ's Manhood without sin, then I were a wretch to affirm so much of him; especially still to affirm it. But if it be possible by any means, thorough the mere instinct of man's Nature, (as it is God's creature and free from all sin) thus to speak and to wish suddenly, and suddenly to control it again, as Christ did: then what mind bear you, and how may we judge of this your striving, which is not to clear Christ from all sin in his Agony. For that we do all, and Nature it self witnesseth with us that in such a case as he now was in, this was nothing strang to be thus perplexed, & moved. But your striving seemeth to be altogether to exempt Christman from our mere natural affections and infirmities: and to give him Human flesh indeed, but not such as ours is in all and every point, except only sin. You will say, If he knew it to be God's will and prayed against it, how could he want sin? I answer, He knew it; but at this instant he considered it not, he thought not on it: and so his sudden desire may be clear from sin. But why thought he not on it? or how could he choose but think on that which he well knew, and did so greatly concern him? I answer, His Paines and sorrows being so great and so infinite as they were, not in his Body only but chiefly in his very Spirit and Mind, and these more extremely revealed upon him now at these instant times, then they were otherwise or continually, as by the effects of them in him we may perceive. I say, these things acknowledged & well wayghed as they ought to be, then it is easy to show why, & how Christ came thus affected, & yet without sin. First, he was now astonished as the text saith: and you acknowledge that he might be. Sec: these incomprehensible sorrows & incomparable pains astonished him: yea impossible it was but his mere human nature must be astonished with them. And it is utterly untrue which you say, Many things might astonish our Savior for the time besides such pains. In these instant times of his Passion, nothing could astonish him but Paines and Sorrowes. W ^ch before I have proved, or at least that Paines & Sorrowes now did chiefly: & that nothing could possibly without such Sorrowes and Paines as these, which I speak of: even spiritual, and infinite, and incomprehensible pains, proceeding from God's Justice upon him for our sins. Thirdly, Add hereunto that which you rightly grant, It is true that a mighty fear may so affect a man for the time, that it shall hinder the senses from recovering themselves, and stop the faculties from informing one the other. But this must be some sudden object astonishing the heart, and so terrible, that it suffereth us not presently to gather our wits together, and to consider of it. Likewise very fully afterward, Astonishment draweth the mind so wholly to think on some special thing above our reach, that during the time we turn not ourselves to any other cogitation. Even as the eye, if it be bent intentively to behold anything, for that present it discerneth nothing else: So fareth it with the Soul, if she wholly addict her self to think on any matter, she is amused; if it be more them she conceaveth, or more fearful then she well endureth, she is amazed or astonished: but not of necessity so, that she looseth either sense or memory: only for that time she converteth neither to any other object. Now thus Christ being astonished with sorrows and fear lost not either sense, memory, or understanding, much less his virtues and graces, being cast into an infernal confusion, as you untruly charge me that I say. But I say, as you say, He now on the sudden might turn neither sense nor memory to any other object, and so not think on anything ells, but only on this terrible and mighty sorrow & fear, which now smote him & bruized him to pieces. And thus for the very sudden he might not think at all upon God's will, and his own certain purpose to suffer this very same, or that he was to suffer it longer: but only on the intolerablenes of the pains and woe, which instantly he felt. Now Natures very instinct is, in such dolours to wish and desire ease, and the more vehemently it is pinched, the more earnestly it desireth: and this is God's own gift and workmanship in nature, and simply thus to desire, is in this respect truly to be reckoned God's own express will. And thus for the sudden not remembering, nor thinking on God's particular will otherwise, but feeling the instinct of nature in such a case only wishing ease to itself, he prayeth rightly That this Hower & This Cup might pass frō him. Wherein yet I say he prayeth in one respect against God's known will, but in another respect even according to his will. According to his will which now he had sense of, even to wish release & ease frō such deadly sorrows and fear: contrary to his particular will being this that he must yet further suffer them. Which (as I said) suddenly being astonished he remembered not, he thought not upon it. Lastly it was contrary in the outward words, & in the particular affection of his mind now wanting this remembrance: but it was fully and wholly according to God's will in the general disposition of his mind and whole man. As appeared by his present applying himself with all readiness even to this most dolorous obedience of God's will, forthwith so soon as he recollected himself: saying Not my will, but thy will be don. Where even this also showeth, that before God's will and his in some respect were contrary, but absolutely now they agree. If you abhor this in me, yet see what Chrysostom taught, a These words (Not as I will, but as thou wilt) do signify 2. Wills, (saith he) one of the Father another of the Son, contrary the one to the other. Igraunt M. Beza useth some terms differing from ours, yet his sense is the selfsame with ours. He said b Christ corrected not his speech as if he had before spoken amiss. I say, He did correct his speech: not mending it as being any whit amiss, but making it being good to be better. That is by showing his general conformity to God's will now more particularly, and distinctly. Which sentenses in effect and indeed do not differ: and this latter, I think, may well be called a correcting, no less then the former. Also he saith, The Human and Divine will are not Contrary, but Divers. I understand even Differing from God's will, to be Contrary. Namely in that particular respect wherein the difference is. For otherwise now there may be a general perfect conformity to God's will, as is before said. Neither is this particular contrariety to God's will any sin, namely when by God's own ordinance we know not what God's special will is, so that we always remain apt & ready thereunto when we know it. So did David desire the life of his Child. It was contrary to God's will one way: as the event shown, for the Child died. Yet he prayed well and rightly according to God will in natures affection, seeing he knew not God's secret will to the contrary, neither was to have known it before the event. And thus likewise stood the case with Christ at this season. His sudden Not remembering God's particular will (by reason of his fearful astonishment) was all one as if he had not known it at all (yea thus also he ought not to have known it) for that instant. Namely, seeing this Not remembering and not thinking thereon came not of any negligence or default in him, but only and merely by Natures infirmity (God's own ordinance) which could not possibly but fail under such infinite violence of pains. This M. Beza calleth Divers rather then Contrarie to God's will: but in effect it is the same, and he plainly meaneth even there all one with us. You say I am captious against Christ in not supplying one Evangelist with another. For so Christ's desire will appear to be but Conditional, therefore not Contrary to God's will. Yes, nevertheless; as touching the desire it self and his particular present inclination compared to God's particular determination herein. And so was also David's forenoted desire for his child's life: yea Balaam's bad desire was such in this point. These were all Conditional, yet contrary to God's particular will. Herein stood the difference: Balaam then knew God's will was otherwise, at that time when he inclined after his own mind. David simply knew not, Christ also knew not (that is, he remembered not) at that instant the contrary. Therefore Balaam's desire though Conditional and with reservation (as it seemed) of God will, was nevertheless wicked and against God: his conditional words excused not the opposition of his Will against God's Will. Yea, in this case when we perfectly know and remember God's certain will, every light affection and sudden wishing to the contrary, (howsoever conditionally ) is no less then manefest sin against God. But in David and Christ here the case is not so, as before I noted. Their desires indeed were, & ought to have ben conditional: for who knoweth not, that all good prayers and desires for temporal things must be conditional, that is with reservation of God's will always implied, though not always expressed? And albeit they were conditional yet they might be and were contrary, as also I have shown. Yea the very nature of all Cōditional desires is such, that it includeth evermore a possibility (at least) of being contrary to his will, whom we desire. And therefore we use sometime expressly to qualify our desire, saying, If thou wilt, and If it please thee, &c. Now thus was David's and Christ's: yea not only possible to be contrary, but contrary indeed, as the sequel shown. Howbeit both their desires were nevertheless holy, † made in faith, assured to receive, (as cōdicional desires may be) directed aright, prepared sufficiently: yet only for this cause, seeing David simply knew not God's contrary will: Christ knew it not at that instant. Howbeit the truth is, Christ could not but now know and remember it very well, if he were not at this instant grievously astonished. Neither could he be so astonished and woefully distressed in his Soul, without that intolerable and infinite weight of sorrows before spoken of. Therefore briefly, so it was doubtless with him at that season. All in vain then you charge me that I " streth the Scriptures beyond their words and the truth, when in my discourse I show that Christ in the garden was astonished & grievously perplexed: the text having only, He began to be astonished and grievously perplexed. I grant the text is so. But think you, that phrase in Scripture signifieth a begging only, & no further proceeding at all? It is written, a He began to teach them many things. Also, b And Jesus answered them and began to say, Take heed least any man deceive you, &c. And c He began to cast out them that sold in the Temple, &c. And d All that which Jesus began to do and teach. And, e Tertullus began to accuse Paul, saying, &c. It were very simple to say that the Scripture meaneth these things were only begun, and no more. Nay verily, they were here don to the full. Again, as Christ was indeed astonished & grievouslie perplexed, so he did at the first but begin to be thus, and then afterwards grew to the full. Now these degrees and proceedings of Christ in his sorrorwes, & that they were not at the highest at once, this word here he began may very well signify. For the text following doth invincibly show that he did fully come to the extremity of astonishment, & began not only. For did he but begin when he sweet clotted blood trickling from his body to the ground? Also when an Angel was sent from Heaven to refresh and comfort him: did he then but begin to be heavy? Again when most moornfully he complained that his Soul abounded with sorrows even unto death: Finally when he 3. several times prayed to his Father with strong crying, tears, and fear, that the Cup of God's punishments now given him to drink, might pass from him if it were possible, which at other times he most perfectly knew that it neither could nor should escape him: whereunto may be added that at last when he so dolefully complained that his God had forsaken him; was he now all this while but beginning to be troubled and sad? You would have mademe ashamed of it, if I had had any such thought in my mind. Wherefore the text is no way abused as you pretend in that after he began, I show frō these places that he grew to be mightily astonished & grievously perplexed. As for Jerome, if he deny this, I must crave leave to dissent from him. I bring (you say) a fardell of phrases to express his Agony, he was amazed, astonished, forgetful, distempered, overwhelmed, and all confounded in the powers of his soul, and senses of his body? Yea, and I think all to little sufficiently to express our Lord's sufferings for us. All those words w ^ch I used and many mo cannot show all that unspeakable vehemēcy of Sorrow, which now cast him into such a plight. So far of it is, that I do the Lord of glory wrong: when I labor but to show how he loved us, and to what baseness of our nature he submitted himself for our sake. For all these are but mere effects of natures infirmity, if it be oppressed with any infinite sorrow & fear. Seeing then Christ might be and was now thus infinitely afflicted (as we have shown) why should we fear to acknowledge extreme Effectes in him, where we have extreme Causes. Nay, God forbid that we should rejoice in anything so much, neither can we praise & magnify him for anything so highly, as we may & ought for this extreme " abasing of Christ for us. Remember your own words out of Austin: that there is in some men Insipiens honorisicentia, a fond intent of honoring Christ. If there be any such, surely this is one point thereof which you maintain. M ^r Calvin, a worthy Minister of Christ, and a pillar of the Church, is bold and saith: Fatemur certe hanc esse crucis stultitiam quae scandaloest superbis hominibus. We confess indeed such is the baseness and folly of Christ's Cross, that proud men cannot away with it. In another place where I shown from the more to the less, howe Christ might have (for the sudden) the powers of his mind astonished, and yet no decay in him of faith, nor of obedience, nor of patience, nor of love; like as there is not in a man benumbed & bound in his senses more then Christ was; namely in a man a sleep or amazed with a violent blow on the head. For thus any reasonable man would have conceived me: seeing who would imagine that I thought Christ now to be altogether so without sense as one that sleepeth or that lieth in a swoon? Heerevpon you ask me skoffingly, a was Christ a sleep, or in a swoon? b cast into a trance, or c in a fit of a Lethargy. But what I do think of Christ's Agony I have said before. Indeed, as d you grant that Amazedness and Astonishment cometh naturally from sorrows and fears: and that, both in these causes and effects there be divers degrees: so I think in Christ both the one and the other was in the extremist and most violent degree that might be. And therefore no marvel though his Astonishmēt were far greater, then is to be seen in any man ells that ever was or shall be. The Lord made Solomon to excel all others in e wisdom, and riches, and treasures, and honor, so, that there hath not ben the like among the Kings which were before him, neither after him shall there be the like. Of Christ (I judge) we may altogether as truly and as fully say, that the Lord made him so subject to infirmities & to suffering of sorrows that there hath not ben the like among mē which were before him, neither after him shall there be the like. And yet none of those your former imputations are true. But f for my life I cannot answer this that followeth, All that Christ suffered was and must be meritorious with God. The suffering of Hell pains which astonish and confound all the powers of the Soul and senses of the Body, neither was, nor could be meritorious with God. Therefore Christ suffered not such pains as did astonish and confound his bodily senses, and powers of his Soul. I deny your Assumption. Not only all Christ's pains were meritorious, but even all his very infirmities also: his weariness, his hunger, his sleep, and so his astonishment & amazednes (being in him but a mere natural weakness and infirmity) was exceeding meritorious in him and highly accepted with God. Man hath his mere infirmities all agreeable to God's will: but Christ directly and properly glorified God in and by them more then can be uttered, I say, in every point whatsoever of his Human infirmity and baseness, whereunto he humbled himself. If it seem a hard phrase which in my former Treatise I used, saying Christ at this instant became forgetful of that which before he knew: my meaning is (and so still I speak now) he remembered not, he considered not. Which many times we use to name forgetting: but indeed strictly and properly it is rather not remembering. Where you would wring out a contrariety in my words, as if I had said: That Christ being in the depth of his astonishment did then perfectly know that the dominion of death should not hold him: you do me wrong, I say not so. In that place I argue from your suppositiō, that if Christ were now not astonished, but in his perfect memory and full considering of such things (as you seem to affirm, but I deny) which otherwise he knew well, then it could not be the Dominion of death that he thus feared, since in his firm estate he knew perfectly that it should not prevail over him. To conclude this matter: thus we may see how without color of reason you wrest a plain text, which otherwise taken (as it lieth) maketh strongly against you. They are our Savior's Christ's own words, Now is my soul troubled: & what shall I say? Father save me from this hour: but therefore came J unto this hour. You say these words do import a Deliberation of 2. partes. But you speak against all reason, considering the nature and frame of the very words. A Deliberation must needs be set interrogatively in both clauses, thus: What shall I say? Father, save me from this hour? Now the text is not so: it pretendeth a plain resolution, or at least a great inclining toward resolution, thus: Father, save me frō this hour. It cannot be a Deliberation. Chrysostom and Epiphanius do descant about it, trying how the text may bear such a meaning: but it cannot stand being so evidently against the course of the text. You say, S. John beer speaketh of another time and place. What then? Yet he may speak of the same matter, namely of his Passion, or of a Foretast thereof. Which indeed the text it self m showeth that he did speak of. Wherefore neither can we deny, but this place of Scripture (even as the other about his Praying in the Garden) doth surely confirm that his Passion was more then mere bodily, which did so miraculously terrify him. It could be no less then the pains of the infinite wrath of God upon his Soul. Hence also I reasoned effectually n before, but nowhere you answer it; If Christ's such sufferings in his Soul were ordained of God for him, then most certainly indeed he did suffer the same. Now we see such sufferings were ordained for him: seeing he saith, but therefore came I unto this hour. Therefore most certainly indeed he did suffer them, at one time or other.

Yet further you except, where you avouch that this was a Fear of Eternal death and Euerlasting damnation which caused in Christ this Agony: and from his fear he was delivered. Ergo, he suffered not that which he feared. First I grant indeed this was the 2. Death, the death of the soul, or Hell torments which Christ here b feared: neither can this by any means be denied, as anon we shall see. Howbeit to say (as you do) that it was Eternal death and Euerlasting malediction which here Christ thus woefully & distresfully feared, is the strangest speech in Divinity that ever I heard. See: you cannot help youe self in making Christ's fear of this Death to be only a c religious fear, & d a fear for others. These imaginations I have removed e before. Every Reader will easily see in his own judgment that these affections so vehement were not likely at this season, nor likely in him at all, much less likely to be Causes of such Effectes. Again these are not Fear properly: they ought rather to be called (as they are) a religious Care, Commiseraetion and pity. Which differ greatly from the nature of Fear properly taken, such as we ought to cōceave in this place. You think the f nature of eulabia will not admit any proper Fear, & namely no perplexed Fear, as I take it here to signify: but a careful & diligent regard to beware and decline that which we mislike or doubt. What say you? Did Christ doubt Eternal Damnation, and therefore Feared it? you speak so darklie, that I know not how to take you. But it may be you mean he him self misliked it only, and was sorry for others who ran headlong into it. But all this still is nothing else save Piety in him properly: yea and so you say this cometh nearest to the signification of the Greek word. I grant it doeth touching Eulabia: but in Mark the word doth import properly Fear, and that in extremity. Again touching Eulabia; my reason that here it signifieth Fear properly, yea a perplexed fear, and not not only a religious devotion as you say, is grounded not so much on the nature of the word, as on the Circumstances and the other words of this Text: Christ in the days of his flesh offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from Death, and was heard in that which he feared. Here these other words do show that this Fear was more then a careful regard to beware that which he misliked: it was no less in deed then a perplexed and troubled fear woefully dreading that which he was to suffer. Which also the strange and wonderful signs thereof in the Garden do more then cōfirm: as I have shown often. Thus my meaning is that the nature of eulabia admitting the sense some time of Fear properly, admitteth here this sense, yea of necessity it must admit it for the reason noted above. Howbeit I grant the Apostle may intend this also by the nature of this word, that Christ notwithstanding all this dreadful fear, yet (being merely natural in him) it declined not a jot from Piety nor from a most reverend regard of obedience to God, which still in all this his perplexity he kept firm and safe. This he may withal (I grant) insinuate: yet the other proper fear & grievous dread must needs be admitted. To like effect this word signifieth in that place of the Acts: as the Circūstances there also will cōfirm. Now then this being in Christ a proper and most vehement fear: where you argue Christ was delivered from his fear of Hell torments or the Death of the Soul. Ergo he suffered them not. I deny your sequel. This proveth directly the contrary. He feared the Death of the Soul; specially he thus feared it. Ergo he did suffer it. For Fear being of that which is to come, as you well observe. Ergo seeing Christ feared (yea in such manner) the Death of the Soul, it surely came unto him: namely either now, or before he died in the flesh, or both now & then also. For he might well suffer it evē now, and yet fear it more ensuing. Yea such a manner & measure of Fear, as this manifestly was, could not be but a very Suffering of these spiritual sorrows. Which also that showeth where he saith, My Soul is full of (actual) sorrows even unto death, &c. Neither is there in this any a doubt full word, which is your manner of writing: nor b device unfit for Divinity, but your Cōparisons of c fearing Captivitie, loosing a purse, &c. are very unfit to be matched with this fear in Christ. You think this was but a d jest, if God be said to have heard Christ and delivered him from that he feared, and yet to let him suffer it. Forsooth no jest: for he doubtless suffered it as before we have seen. Now nevertheless GOD might well hear him 2. ways: 1. by sufficient sustaining him in it: 2. by delivering him out of it in due time: In one place you seem to observe a point both strange, and very contrary to yourself, in saying, e Fear is more intolerable in Christ thē doubting. Is fear so intolerable a thing for him, when as you have so often and so earnestly affirmed that he feared, and for f fear became thus astonished? Where * you seek a weak advantage in that I said eisakoustheis may seem to show that Christ was heard being in that which he was saved from: you see I challenge no certain but a seeming reason from that word. But yourself maketh a stranger conclusion. Ergo the Active referred to God importeth that God being in the same Paines did hear him. Lastly you say, g Indeed but in the Garden Christ never prayed with strong cries & tears to be saved frō Death, that we read in the Scriptures. I hope neither do you read expressly in the Scriptures at all, that thus he prayed in the Garden. You may soundly gather it from the Scriptures, I grant, and so you may, that his praying h before was of the self same nature and manner, also after in that most doleful complaint on the Cross, when he cried My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me. Where the very like request is plainly implied, as he made in the Garden when he said; Let this Cup pass from. So that the i Apostle in all reason may be understood to have respect to all these times and woeful cries of our Savior Christ. And thus it is without all reason that you say k his Agony ended in the Garden: and that on the Cross he had l always persistance in joy without obscuration or intermission. Likewise also that otherwise his astonishment must continue 18. hours from his entering into the Garden after supper to the ending of his life the next day at 3. of the clock after noon. Howe vain is this consequence? how false are these sayings, and contrary to Scripture in all the circumstances. But you say, the cause continuing, the effect could not cease. The Cause was, God's leaving his weak nature in these sorrows at sometimes more, at sometimes less: also he is to be thought to reveal and inflict the very sorrows not always in one tenor, but sometime more sometime less: finally his Manhood apprehended these arrows of God's wrath sometime more suddenly, then at other times. These were the true causes of his Astonishment: but these continued not 18. hours together, therefore the effect was not to continue still in that manner on him. Then you say, in the uttering of these words the Cup did pass from him, by my own confession. I confess it not. But I confess his extreme astonishment did even quickly pass from him: yet the sense and taste of that Cup might continue longer, in such a manner and measure, as he was better enabled by his Deity to sustain it. Now what ill is there in these conceits, I pray you. What folly is there in them? Against us herein you do nothing else almost in your large Treatise, but heap up many and most false imputarions: That we think Christ was in doubt and fear of God's favor, destitute of faith, hope, love, joy, forsaken of God's favor, grace, Spirit: that he continued 18. hours together amazed as it were in a trance: that he vehemently and often struggled and strived in his prayers against the known will of God, & sought by all means to decline the work for which he came into the world: His flesh feared death, though his Spirit submitted itself to the will of his heavenly Father: We put Christ besides him self when it pleaseth us, that he knew not what he prayed, nor prayed in faith. Your L. if you had reasons but anything probable, wanteth not outward means enough to commend your cause: you need not to devise against us such gross and base untruths. But it bewrayeth how desperate your matter is, which cannot come forth nor make any show to the world, without such props to lean on. Besides that which here in several places we have declared to the contrary, in our former Treatise we shown our mind though briefly, yet sufficiently against these injurious speeches. How you seem to avouch that Christ was by God forsaken in a Body, but not in b Soul, let them declare that can. For my part I know not your secret therein. I am sure no man can in truth maintain it. As for c Ambrose • , you wrest him as you did Hilary, &c d before. After this you are bold, and ask if e any dare doubt of your doctrine? Yea surely, I dare not but doubt of it. Also we have seen that the public f authorised doctrine in England dareth to doubt of it. Which maketh Christ's putting him self between God's Wrath and our sins a parte divers from his bodily death on the Cross, yet the extremist part of his Passion. See also other g authorised testimonies hereof. But why may not any dare doubt of your doctrine? Because the Scripture saith, h Christ suffered for us. leaving us an example that we should follow his steppes, &c. And this is very true also: the godly do follow his steppes herein (many times) as I i shown you before. Some are conformable in some measure with Christ even in these his sufferings. Then k you say, we ought to be glad and rejoice thereof. I answer, we ought to turn them to joy & gladness, though not properly to be glad of them. Nay we ought most instantly to pray against them. No affliction at all is good in it own nature: and the greatest of all is good to God's children by his grace. So that touching this use of them, therein we are to rejoice: even when we are most bruized and pierced in our souls with the terrors of God. Lastly, l you frame an objection against yourself, which you neither do nor can answer: Christ's soul might feel the torments of Hell for the time without any distrust or doubting of his salvation, or our redemption. You pretend thïs answer: The essential torments of Hell are the absolute loss of God's kingdom everlastingly, and that m Eternal continuance is of the nature and substance of Hell. But we show you, although the damned are in Hell torments everlastingly, and of necessity so must be: yet eternal continuance in them, and to feel them but for a time, are indeed but Circumstances, not of the essence or nature of Hell torments. God's proper and extreme wrath only and his sharpest vengeance for sin is the essence or nature of Hell pains. Which (against the Damned indeed is eternal, and vnsatisfyable: but lighting on Christ it was not eternal, because it was satisfyable. Wherefore it is plain that you have answered in effect nothing to your own obiectiō.

Thus far we have gone, showing that we neither extend the cause of Christ's Agony to far in affirming it to have come of most bitter & extreme Paines which he suffered properly for our sins: neither that we continue it to long in affirming that he felt the same most extremely on the Cross. Contrariwise that you curtaile it to short, when you say it was no more but Devotion to God and Compassion to men: also that Christ's Agony touched him not at all on the Cross. So that our Maine argument which you would have frustrated, standeth firm and good still: that seeing his Agonies, Paines, and Feares were such & so great (as the Scripture by the effects & signs showeth that they were) both before his death and at his death, therefore they were more then mere bodily pains and more then mere bodily death: much less were his Holy and Religious affections the proper and special Cause thereof. But (of necessity) they were the Paines proceeding from the infinite and sharp Justice of God which Christ truly suffered in his Spirit, and Soul and Body.

After this you set vehemently against my last argument, That Christ suffered in some sort the death of the Soul. First if we should speak strictly after the manner of Death in the Body, then no man is so mad or foolish as to say that any man's Soul can die at all: that is, want life and sense, as a dead body doth. Thus the very damned souls in Hell suffer not death. But such a death as immortal souls are subject subject unto, is God's separation frō them. And this is 2. fold. The 1. death and the 2. death, as the Scripture speaketh. The 1. is the separation of them from God's grace, which is in this life by sin reigning in them. The 2. death is God's leaving them in the feeling of the most sharp and most vehement pains inflicted by God's justice for sin. This last kind of death is so called and named in many places of Scripture. It hath also a double consideration. First, ordinarily and commonly it belongeth only to the Damned for their own inherent sin, where withal are the ordinary Accidents and cōcomitants together, Desperation, induration, blaspheming, utter darkness, &c. with Perpetuitie of punishment, and that locally in Hell. In this sense the Fathers generally do take it, where they deny that Christ suffered the death of the Soul: and so likewise do we. Secondly, The death of the soul, or the 2. death may be extraordinarily and singularly considered, namely to imply no more but simply the very nature and essense of it. That is, the feeling of most deadly infinite pains inflicted by God himself in his proper justice for sin, all sense also of his comfortable presence being taken away. This is a Death to the Soul, as * before we have shown: according to this sense the " Scriptures & † Fathers before noted may rightly be understood not to deny it in Christ: so that this kind of Death in the soul (but none other) we may safely say, Christ did suffer for our sin imputed to him. Moreover, let it be observed: that if we had no proofs at all in Scripture for this point, yet our Question is fully proved & confirmed notwithstanding by those other sufficient & pregnant proofs alleged & justified before. For it is be to noted, that no man setteth the questiō in these terms, That Christ died in his soul, neither do we at all use them very much in speaking of this matter. We do, only when some special occasion draweth it from us: neither then do we utter it in those terms but with using some further declaration of our mind. The reason of this warynes is, because we are not ignorant how ambiguous the phrase is, and how apt to be mistaken, specially where men list to cavil. Also people untaught and unsettled in construing the scriptures sense do quickly take offense at things, which they ought better to digest. So that you do very injuriously to grate still one this phrase of speech and to strain it to the worst, as you do: as if by no means it could bear any good sense, and as if we built our main Assertion only hereupon. Which in truth is nothing so. The same also do we affirm touching our using (in this matter) the phrase of Christ's suffering Hell pains. Both these phrases are but seldom and respectively used by us. Howbeit we deny not, but that both these phrases may be well and rightly applied unto Christ on occasion, as * before is observed: & may both serve truly and most emphatically to express the infinitnes of the pains and sorrows of his suffering for us. Yea this very phrase of death extended in Christ further then to his mere bodily dying, hath (I doubt not) express ground in the Scripture: and therefore may the better be used soberly, & admitted charitably. You will ask where is there any scripture, that Christ suffered any other death [ 1] then that merely of his body? I answer, First, consider well that to the c Hebr. He offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying & tears to him that was able to save him from death. It is not possible that this Death here should be his mere bodily Death, which he so woefully and impotently feared: as I have before sufficiently confirmed. Therefore it was the death of the soul, the 2. Death which here is understood to have thus mightily afflicted Christ. Which also your own self do fully grant and affirm with me. Yea you affirm further then we do, or then the truth is, or possibly can be. You say Christ here thus feared Eternal death and Everlasting damnation. What a speech is this? Christ could not possibly fear in such woeful manner that, which he perfectly knew should never come near him. But he perfectly knew that eternal Death, and the Cup of God's everlasting malediction should never touch him. He knew and saw that this by God's almighty and unchangeable Decree was set further from him then the East is from the West, yea then Hell is from Heavē. Therefore he could not by any means possibly fear eternal death, nor pray in such sort against it. Again, that which he feared, and so pitifully prayed against was that, which he knew was by God ordained for him. Yea Fear always is of that which is to come. But Eternal death was not by God ordained for him: that was not to come unto him. Therefore it was not Eternal death which he so feared. Finally when in the Garden he prayed against that Cup which he feared, that it might pass from him, there he yieldeth and submitteth himself presently to the undergoing of it. But it were, I know not what, to say, that Christ did ever yield and submit himself to undergo Eternal death, or to taste the Cup of God's everlasting malediction. Therefore it was not this, that he feared & here prayed against. And yet it was I grant the Death of the Soul, or the 2. Death: that is simply the essense thereof, God's withdrawing himself from him in the Paines and torments thereof. This only it was, not the eternity thereof nor sinful concomitants, which he thus feared. And this (for the infinitnes of it) naturally he could not but fear, yea and that so extremely: also he feared for him self, as knowing it to be ordained for him. So that hence it followeth invincibly, that Christ in deed suffered (since he thus feared) more then the mere bodily Death, even the Death of the soul. For he could not (I say) thus fear, but he must needs know that it was to come or might come unto him: if he but knew that it might come, then it * certainly did come unto him, at one time or other in his Passion before he • [ 2] left the world. See: to the Hebr. g Christ abolished through death him that had the power of death that is the Devil, and so delivered all them which for fear of death were all their life time subject to bondage. Here I see no reason in the world but that the Apostle by • his often repeating of death, and by mutual referring of it in one place (as it were) to the other, doth understand & signify one and the same death altogether. But it is the death of the Soul which the Devil hath the power and execution of, also the death of the soul chiefly sinful men were held in fear of all their life long. It followeth then (I suppose) that even through this death of the Soul Christ abolished the Devil, and deliveted his children. Specially seeing there is no enormity nor impossibility herein. Against this you have no reason at all but words and wrestings, and vain ostentation of Fathers; none of them all denying [ 3] our sense. Third: it seemeth also, that Peter teacheth this same, saying, k Christ in his suffering was don to death in the Flesh, but made alive by the Spirit. Where Death may be very well referred both to the Soul and Body of Christ. Because the text here speaketh (as I judge) of the whole and entire sufferings of Christ. And it is manifest by that before, that Christ did suffer not in his body only but properly and immediately also in his Soul: we have seen also that the * phrase of Death, or Dying, may in a good sense be applied even to Christ's Soul. Again, this word Flesh (it seemeth) cannot here in this place be understood to signify only the Body of Christ, but even both partes of his Human nature, thar is the reasonable Soul and the body. My reason is, because wheresoever in scripture the Flesh and the Spirit are noted oppositly together in Christ, there the i Flesh signifieth always his whole Humanity, even both partes thereof, the Soul also & not the Body only: the Spirit signifieth his Deity, or Divine power. Now what have you against this? Nothing of weight but floutes and mocks, that k this observation is made out of the hinder part • of my head, &c. But what pretend you against it? Some Scripture palpably abused. First " Matthew, where Christ speaketh of his Disciples that their Spirit (their inward regenerate man) was ready to watch, but their Flesh (their corrupt nature) was weak & sluggish. What is this to Christ's Flesh and Spirit. Think you that Christ's Soul was willing to suffer as God had appointed, but that his Flesh resisted? Verily so you seem here to understand: and it is as likely, as your applying of Flesh and Spirit to Christ in your pag. 104. Then Luke; where both Spirit and Flesh are not intended of Christ (as our observation before requireth) but only the Flesh. Then the Romans: where I affirm that Flesh signifieth the whole Manhood of Christ according to the which he came from David even as well as Salomō or Nathan did, who were David's sons in their entire and perfect nature. So likewise Christ was kin to the Jews according to his whole Humanity, as well as Paul was. And here Paul meaneth him self to be kin to them according to Nature wholly, & that only by Regeneration in the Gospel he was differing from them. Now Nature opposed to Grace and regeneration, hath reference both to Soul and Body in a man. Howsoever the Soul cometh in Generation, that is not here considered; neither is it necessarily to the purpose. Which difficulty also yourself have utterly renounced before, to make it any argument for you in this matter. Thus yet the Flesh and the Spirit thus opposed here in Christ, shall signify the whole Manhood and Godhead in him. Further, that which you bring out of the Corinthians compared with this in Peter, doeth most fitly and clearly open and confirm the same: He was crucified touching his infirmity, but liveth by the power of God. His infirmity the text here nameth Metonimically understanding in Christ that, in which his infirmities were. Now his Soul had infirmities of suffering in it, as well as his body. Therefore his Soul also is understood here that it was Crucifyed and died, that is according to the condition thereof, as likewise his body according to the condition thereof. And thus that which Paul calleth infirmity, Peter calleth Flesh; and that which Paul calleth the power of God, Peter calleth the Spirit. That is, his Deity is set oppositly in both these places to his whole Humanity, even to body and soul. To which purpose that place also to the Romans doth serve, where the like opposition is found (as I have shown) between the Flesh and the Spirit in Christ, that is his Manhood and Godhead. Other reasons also I have noted serving well hereunto (as the 4, 5, and 6.) but I omit to rehearse them again. For it seemeth yourself agreeth with us in them: holding a expressly that the Spirit here in Peter is the Deity of Christ according to Austin's judgment. Now this being granted and acknowledged, that the Spirit here signifieth Christ's Godhead, how can it be likely but that the other opposit part the Flesh, must needs import his whole and entire Manhood. Verily thus it seemeth most plain that Peter here distributeth the whole and absolute person (both God and Man) into these Natures, the Flesh and the Spirit. Wherefore I cannot think, but that the Apostle here understandeth by Flesh the whole and entire Manhood of Christ, even his Soul and his body. Now this being so, then it followeth by the text that Christ in his Passion was don to death both in Soul, & body. Here " you object, that thus I make all the attributes of the body common to the Soul. Nay forsooth, that I do not. Nor yet this attribute of Dying understood in such sort and manner, as the Body properly dieth: that is to become without life and sense. I ascribe Death to both, but yet according to the divers condition and state of both. And thus you might understand my b meaning to be, where I say it is absurd & false that Christ was made alive in his Human Soul: that is, it neither lost nor recovered life and sense, so as his body did. Howbeit as Death is oftentimes attributed to men's souls in the c Scripture, that is the feeling of the extreme wrath of God and the punishment for sin, so d I make Death commō both to Christ's Soul and body, even to his whole and entire human Nature. Which if you do not acknowledge, the shame of ab surditirie and cōtrarietie which in your fancy e you accuse me of, that Christ's Soul died and died not, will sit nearer to you thē to me. Also in such a sense I deny not but Christ may be said, that he was quickened in the Spirit, that is refreshed and comforted again in his Soul, and restored from that bottomless gulf of sorrows to the lively feeling of heavenly joys and glory, which for a season he had no sense of at all. Howbeit though this sense be a true quickening in his Soul, yet I deny that here in this place of Peter it can be translated quickened in the Spirit meaning the Soul, because Spirit here in this opposition is set indeed for the Deity of Christ, * as before I have shown. Thus the matter I hope is clear to reasonable men, that Christ's Soul even according to the Scripture phrase may be said in some sort to have tasted and suffered Death, that is the extremist feelings of God's wrath for sin, and the most vehement pains of the damned, though not as the damned do in respect of the Accidents and concomitants of their ordinary damnation, but in a singular manner and extraordinary way as became the son of God and a sinles man (yet a very mā being our Redeemer. Now besides the matter you gird at me in divers places: as where I say, The Death of the Soul is such Paines and sufferings of God's wrath, as always accompany them that are separated from the grace and love of God. Forfooth it is true, they are always wicked whom these Paines do accompany ordinarily. They came upon Christ extraordinarilie: as in this place I expressly noted. That was therefore my meaning here, if you would have seen it. In another place also you know that I say, Hell as I take it (that is such pains of God's wrath) is sometime found in this life. Thus then you might have understood my former words: and not that the torments of Hell do always accompany the wicked in this life. I pray conceive not my meaning, against my express words. Again you pretend to have much against me where I say, The feeling of the sorrows of God's wrath due to sin in a broken and contrite heart, is indeed the only true and perfectly accepted sacrifice to God. True, so I said, and again I say it. What see you amiss in it? Then unhappy men are the godly which are at any time free from the pains of the damned. To what purpose is this? I speak of Christ's Sacrifice. I pray, is any other Sacrifice perfectly accepted? or a Sacrifice at all, but Secondarily, that is in and by Christ's Sacrifice? They are not. His Sacrifice then is the only true Sacrifice, and perfectly accepted to God. All others are imperfit, and accepted not in them selves but only in and by Christ. Thus your triumphs before the victory, come to nothing but blasts of vanity. But Augustine doth flatly deny that this text can be thus understood, or that Christ's Soul might dy. Austin denieth that Christ suffied any pains of damnation locally in Hell after his death, as it seemeth some held about his time whō here he laboreth to confute. So that he meaneth to reprove only the 1 ^st sense of the Death of the Soul in him, viz. that he suffered it not Ordinarily after the manner of other men, nor any way locally. H • hath no n • cessarie cause to speak of the 2. sense thereof how the Soul may be said to suffer death Extraordinarily for sin imputed only, neither doeth he speak against that in Christ. Nay according to Austin's own Definition of the Souls Dying it will easily appear that Christ's Soul may be said to have suffered some kind of Death. Saith he a Moritur anima si recedit Deus: and b Mors est spiritûs deseri à Deo. The Death of the Soul is God's Forsaking of it. But the Scripture saith God did leave him, or forsake him for a season: yea the Fathers also c agree fully thereunto: the manner how d I have shown before. Therefore by Austin's definition largely and rightly taken, Christ may be said in some sense to have died in Soul. Howbeit though the Fathers do grant the thing in effect (as I have shown) yet I acknowledge they do deny this phrase generally, and so doeth Austin in this place. But thereabout we never made question: this is no parte of our matter. It may be even for the same cause they shunned it, for which we also do use it very rarely and warily, as " before I observed. And let this be the Answer touching all your Fathers and Councils, which you bring aboundantlie (here and there) about this point of the Souls death. Though peradventure some of them may seem to insinuate even this very phrase touching Christ sometime, as in some I touched before.

Where you say, † Ask the simplest child that is Catechized in my charge if I have any, what death Christ died for us, and he will answer me out of his Creed, Christ was Crucified, Dead, & Buried. It is true: But our authorized Catechism published by M. Nowel, and the Homily i showeth the meaning hereof to be, that Christ suffered far more sharply thē mere bodily Death, even the infinite pains of God's wrath in his soul. W ^ch I pointed you unto k before, but you fairly leap it over, as also the Archb. special allowance (with others) of M. Now. Catechism as being fully grounded on the word of God & containing the very doctrine of the Church of England. Now to this effect the youths in my charge being asked would have answered surely. For indeed such a charge in London I had I thank God, wherein I hope I was faithful according to my power, & might have continued, had not your il seasoned teaching so contrary to the established doctrine in England burst forth.

a You say, I should have don well to have laid that down for a show, which is written in Isaiah, b He c laid down his Soul unto death; verily if I had, it would have made some show. Considering that you earnestly affirm that this word signifieth Soul (or Spirit ) in a proper sense. Also how resolute you are forbidding to divert from the native & proper significations of words, but when the letter impugneth the grounds of Christian faith and charity. This considered, surely that in Isaiah maketh some show indeed, that Christ submitted, and humbled, and afflicted, even his Soul to Death. The rather if we note that which followeth: He was counted with the sinners, and bare the sin of many. That is, he was punished by God as the sinners are punished, and was not by the Jews only counted among Thieves. But chiefly considering withal that also before, He made his soul a sin offering. Here you must remember, we shall leave nothing sound & sure in God's word, if we may avoid all things by figures, that please not our humors. Therefore you must needs grant that God's word here maketh Christ's Soul to be † sacrificed for our sin. And we desire no other death of the Soul. We deny not but this phrase Animā p • nere is to lay down the life, and in divers places signifieth no more then simply to Dy, both concerning Christ and other men: as you observe pag. 70. Yet this is no necessary reason, that here in J say the Soul should be taken figuratively, for the Life only: the rather seeing here the text precisely setteth down the great & perfect work of our Redemptiō. And to take it as we do literally, impugneth no ground at all of faith or Charity. The like peradventure may be affirmed also of that in Matthew, The son of man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his soul a ransom for many: although the translators commonly turn it, his life. But I will not strive about these phrases. Aust. hath not a word against us in that great place which you cite: his whole argument there being to another purpose. The Jews slew only the flesh of Christ: and yet it is true that they slew Christ. Who doubteth this? Also, where you think those words to be so plain and express as may be spoken, so effectual as Paul's heart could invent or his tongue utter, that Christ reconciled us to God in the body of his flesh through death, we have answered you before. As for all your other discourse here against me, it is as everywhere almost nothing but revilings, and reproaches, and bitter skoffes. Yet you say, you have not learned, nor used to give reviling speeches. Have you not learned it? Is it then natural unto you? Nay you mean these are Fatherly Warnings and admonitions. If your Fatherly admonitions are such, what are your Lordly rebukes? If these be your Bishoply blessings, what are your Cursings? But I am to blame, herein standeth not the trial of our question. As for all th • se hogepots (as n you call them) which you make of my words, they are nothing but your own either willful writhings, or uncharitable surmises: as by every particular in then places may be seen. Finally that is not true where you say, Flesh doth often signify the soul in us. It signifieth often the whole Manhood together in us, and so it may and doth in Christ as well. Also it signifieth in us many times our whole and entire corrupt nature both in body and soul: so it never signifieth in Christ. And here I desire the reader to change a word or two in my former Treatise: for p always to set usually, and for q a man to set Christ. Because since I find that Flesh and Spirit together applied unto men do r once signify merely the Body and Soul: which then I thought everywhere did signify in us our corrupt and regenerate man. Which oversight the Bishop spyeth not, but in this place confirmeth indeed.

Finally to make an ende with your Fathers and Councils: it is strang that you thus vainly boast of them, saying they are a all wholly for you for this 1400. years space. I have shown before that your large claim proveth a very short gain. For in substance and full effect they are evidently and generally against you, and for us. As for their denying that Christ Dyed in his Soul, I b have answered to that before. Further where you bring them in many places saying, by his blood only he redeemed us, and he suffered only in his Body: they are abused by you wonderfully. Not in their words, but in their meaning. For they striving against Arians and such other Haeretikes who would have Christ's Deity to take part in his sufferings for our redemption, & so consequently would prove it inferior to the Father, " the godly Ancient Writers do hereupon say, he suffered & satisfied for us only in his body, in his flesh, &c: not excluding the proper & immediate sufferings of his Spirit, nor any passable part of his Manhood, but only his Godhead against those Haeretikes: showing thus also, that no other Creatu • e besides him or with him satisfied any way for us: altogether after the Apostles like phrase in many places. Let the Authors themselves be viewed, if you think I affirm of them falsely. Tertullian and Cyril will give a taste hereof for all the rest. Tertullian's words id est carnem, thas is to say Christ's flesh, are expressly opposed to his Deity, not to his Soul: so that evidently he meaneth thereby his whole and entire passable Manhood. If he had meant to exclude any parte or faculty of his Soul from suffering, as he doth his Godhead, he had confirmed that Haeresy against w ^ch he striveth, as f before I noted. Also it seems he yieldeth the name of Death to this suffering of Christ's whole Manhood, in saying Quod vnctum est mortuum ostendit: that Dyed which received the Annoynting. For I hope his spirit was Anointed with the Holy Ghost, as well as his Flesh. And he saith thus, as indefinitely, so also by way of oppositiō to his Deity, as I said: therefore he meaneth the whole Manhood died. Howbeit in what sort this might be, I shown before. My false trāslating of him which you note, is not worth the noting. But you do worse in false placing those his last rehearsed words for advantage: in Tertull. they are used more generally in their own place coming long before those words, after which you set them. As for that Denique posuit spiritū, &c. it showeth that Christ's bodily death also (but not only) came by reason of God's forsaking and separating from him. For before we saw how Tertull. expressly attributeth God's Derelectiō both to his soul & body on the Cross: though you grudge thereat. Thus (I say) he excepteth only his Godhead from Dereliction and Suffering &c. Cyril also even in that book which you cite for you, showeth that he excludeth but Christ's Deity, though he mention only his suffering in Flesh: Carne passum dicit, docens patiendi ineffabilem naturam a passionibus alienam. Deus igitur Christus Divine quidem impassibilis, passibilis secundum carnem. He excludeth only the Deity from suffering, when he saith, he suffered in his Flesh. In a word, so do all the rest, as before is partly noted. Against Nestorius they affirm the union of Christ's Natures, with preserving the properties of each. They therefore hold not his only bodily sufferings. Is this then your great boast of all the Fathers and Councils? Nay, are they well used at your hands, to be thus drawn clean from their purpose to an opinion which they never thought of? Is this good dealing towards God's people, to tell them that the Fathers generally teach the only bodily sufferings of Christ, and deny our Assertion of his Souls peculiar suffering, which * they justify & confirm indeed? Yea, this 〈◊〉 the profit that comes by ordinary slanting with Fathers, which use many do frequent in these days. Think they, if the scriptures alone suffice not for all things in Religion, that the Fathers will suffice? Or if the Fathers make a sense upon some text, that therefore this must be the right meaning always? Or if the Scriptures may be wrested by subtle heads, that yet the Fathers cannot? Or that God's people may sooner see and find when the Fathers are abused, then when the Scriptures are? It is great pity that men are, yea will be so deceived with vain shows. Let us in God's name content ourselves (in handling matters of Religion) only with God's all sufficient word: unless where the importunity of an Adversary forceth us. Otherwise let us spare the Authority of men in God's matters, to them that make an Idol of it. Finally if in this case we were to look after any man, surely we have more cause to regard our later faithful Teachers, rather then those of old. Who being equal with the best of them in any of the excellent graces of God's spirit which he useth to bestow on his servants for the edifying of the Church, yet herein these have advantage of the former, that they were directly provoked & occasioned to study and sift out this question against the Papists, which the Ancients were not occasioned to do.

After, a you set yourself to prove that in Hell there is material fire. But it seemeth you are now almost afraid so to call it: yet b you call it true fire. Which also we utterly deny. All your proofs (such as they are) run to prove corporal and material fire: yet eternal. Except your Scriptures, which utterly prove nothing at all: for they show no more any corporal, or material, or true fire to be now in Hell, then a corporal worm, material brimston, and much wood, & true chains. Which you say is a sleeveles objection, but neither yourself, nor Austin whom you cite against it, doth anywhere answer it. Yea Austin thinketh that incorporall spirits shall be fastened to corporal fire. But he saith not that now they are: which only is our question or, else nothing. For my parte I see no reason to believe that now there is corporal fire in Hell, whatsoever there shall be hereafter when Bodies also shall be there united and tormented with the Souls. Again Austin here doth not prove that there shall be such fire: he only showeth the manner how it may be so hereafter, if God will. Now if all your reason be the power of God only, then as well you may prove that the sky is fallen. For as touching God's will herein, you name it indeed, but you show it nowhere, nor seem to show it. All the rest say nothing further, nor indeed so far as Austin. Yet you think it may be called a true created fire. That no Christian ever doubted of, if you mean that it is a true creature. If you mean simply, that it is true fire, that still we deny. And me thinks you should not care for corporal fire now in Hell, seeing you seem to believe no torments for Damned souls save only at the Resurrection. For thus you reason, As the Body hath ben the instrument of the Souls pleasure (in sin) so it shall be of hir pain. But all provocations and pleasures of sin the soul taketh from her body, all acts of sin she committeth by her body. Therefore the justice of God both temporally and eternally punisheth the Soul (only) by the Body. Or Therefore all the Souls pain for sin both temporally & eternally is by the Body. This is your own reason: which being true, why should you care for corporal fire in Hell, before the last judgment?

Your striving to confute my allegations of Fathers, I hope I have refuted sufficiently before. And then Sir Refuter endeth as be began with egregious lies. What lies began he with, and with what doth he end? In the beginning our lies have proved tales of truth, and in the end your words will prove injurious at least. I said, that not some, or the most, or best, but even all & everyone both Churches & Writers in the world who are Protestants, teach as we do: except only yourself, or happily some after you, since the year 1597. What lie is there in all this? Why name you not in all y ^e world one man (of those whom we call Protestants) of your mind? that it may appear who deserveth such rebukes. Nay in this, being the very point of the matter you are silent: in revilings, outcries, and accusations you exceed.

Where I avouch that only the hoatest and cunningest Papists, Jesuits, Priests, & Friars have always until this day had this controversy with all Protestants, and all Protestants against them: & namely Bellarmine, Campian, English Rhemists, &c. To all this scanalous & suspicious argument you reply not a syllable. What shall we think of such doctrine, which in this learned age hath none but such defenders. And yet among the Papists I noted 2, Cusanus and Ferus as liking of the Protestants doctrine herein, which also they do in some other matters. Now these 2. and only these (though more there are) c you cite at large: whose words indeed (especially the Friars) seem excessive. But our own most worthy and learned Teachers d M. Fulke, M. Deering, M. Whitaker's which against you I alleged, you vouchsafe not a look towards them. Nor to M. Nowels Catechism, nor to the Synod authorising it, nor to the Archb: great * approbation thereof: Not to our Common Bibles note authorised publicly to be read thorough out England. Only against my alleging of our Homilyes e you take exception: but I trust I have before fully and clearly defended them to be for us, and against you. Neither doeth any such matter appear in them as f you avouch. Thus then I end our 1. Question: being sorry that I have ben so long. But I trust the friendly Reader will pardon me, considering how I have ben occasioned thereunto.

That Christ after his death on the Cross went not down into Hell in his Soul.

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

• 1. That the Law and the Gospel do greatly differ, & namely in that the Law doeth not save us, but the Gospel doeth.
• 2. He showeth the cause hereof, for that no flesh can keep the Law, nor ever could: as he confirmeth by this out of Moses, where men thinking to live by the Law, are noted to seek and search everywhere far and near, by all ways & means, that they might satisfy their own hearts, and find how to keep it: which proveth that their own hearts bear witness that they keep it not, neither can keep it.
• 3. He showeth that thus by seeking to live by the Law, they loose the life of God coming by Christ's Death and Resurrection in the Gospel.

Thus the Apostle rightly keepeth him self to the whole matter and meaning of Moses, whose words (though shortened) he citeth and discourseth upon. But then it is not possible that the deep here should have any reference at all to Hell. For what color is there to make a man pensive about keeping the Law to ask, who shall go down for him among the Devils and damned spirtis to bring it thence unto him? or to imagine that the keeping of the Law might be rather there, then in his own heart? or that any means might be got from thence to help men, that they might keep it? There is no likelilyhood for this out of doubt. Therefore also the deep here signifieth not Hell any way: seeing the Apostle doubtless retayneth Moses sense, as is aforesaid. Lastly I may not omit to show how you deal here again with the text. You allege it a He descended into the deep, all with special letters differing from the rest of purpose, to show that Christ's descent into Hell (for so you take the deep ) is found written in the very Scripture. But He is cunningly added to the text: neither are these words meant of Him, but of a Pharisaical Meritmōger, searching everywhere for righteousness by works, b as is before declared. The like practice c you use again in the Psalm: where the d text hath only veatsignah Sheol, If J lodge, or, if J spread my couch in Sheol, thou art there. There is no word to express beneath, which you put into the text of your own head. The same also I noted in e you before. Somewhere you charge me (but f vainly) with falsifying of Jerome. If I had by oversight don so, yet that were not like this falsifying: which is not of men, but of God's own word; not by oversight, but of purpose for advantage.

These are all the Scriptures that can be brought, to make any show of Christ's Soul descending locally after his death. Which being abused to this purpose so palpably, as before we have seen, I must in earnest say, I marvel that any will believe it as an article of faith, that Christ's Soul descended: Specially considering our next reason which followeth.

Our 2. and most principal Reason is this: If there be not one place of Scripture to prove that Christ's Soul was in Hell, then you ought to deny that opinion. But you have not indeed any one place that proveth it. Therefore it ought to be denied.

Against this Argument you " say you have one place, Act 2: 27. Even only one, where you think it is plain that Christ saith, He rejoiceth because God would not leave his soul in Hell. For so you must have it here translated (in Hell) even because you will. But if men with reason resist your will, and prove unto you that it ought not to be taken here for Hell, then I pray take it patiently, and use not such raging & despiteful terms as against me you do: as if I were not worthy to speak of those matters that you speak of, unless I would be bound to say your words. How be it I beseech you give us leave. This sentence taken out of David's Psalms & alleged in the Acts, signifieth the very same thing in both places. The Hebrew word controversed is Sheol, the Greek Hades. Now must the word Sheol and Hades needs signify Hell, being applied to souls departed hence? So indeed you avouch more confidently then truly: and hereupon it seemeth you pawn the trial of this Question, saying; Till we bring you someone good proof out of the Scriptures that the Souls of the righteous before Christ's coming were in Sheol or Hades, you will rest in your opinion, that by this only plain place Christ's Soul was in Hell. We hope then, when this proof (which you asko for against your opinion) is shown, you will correct your opinion in this point. Let it therefore be considered, I pray, which the Psalmist also hath elsewhere of this matter. Let us interpret the Psalms by the Psalms. First this we observe in them, howe it is written What man liveth and shall not see death? Shall he deliver his soul from the hand of Sheol? Here now the Soul attributed to every man living, must be properly taken as well as in the former place, where you take it for Christ's very Soul. For, This rule must be held thoughout the Scriptures, that we divert not frō the native and proper significations of the words, but when the letter impugneth the grounds of Christian faith and charity. Otherwise we shall leave nothing sound & sure in God's word, if we may avoid all things by figures that please not our humors. So long then as the proper sense of the Scriptures may stand with the Analogy of faith and direction of charity, we offer violence to the word of God if we wrest it to a figurative understanding. Now then it is apparent that here the souls of all mē living, both good & bad (after death) are appointed to Sheol. For there is none whosoever that can possibly escape it, saith y ^e text. Yet many good men there are & then were, who could & did escape Hell. Therefore in the Script. Sheol and hades applied to departed souls, is not always Hell, but the Cōdition or place, as well where the just men's souls are after death, as that where the damned are. Wherefore we hope that you will keep your word, that is, to acknowledge Sheol and Hades may be applied to the Souls of just and blessed men deceased. And withal that Christ's Soul after his death (having Sheol applied to it by the Psalmist, who applieth the very same also to all just men's Souls in the world when they dy) ought not therefore in any wise to be thought to have ben in Hell: even because he was the iustest and holiest man that ever was. Vnles some other scripture (more plain then this) do affirm it. Which because there is utterly none, I say not one, that doeth lean anything towards such a sense; therefore you ought not stiffly to maintain that Christ's Soul was locally in Hell, as hitherto you have done. But Austin a collecteth this opinion from this place in the Acts. Oh, then this point of faith is grounded on Austin: it is his collection (not the text itself without him) that serves your turn. Certainly so it is. But this thē agreeth not to your worthy protestations noted b before: this becometh not such good words. I beseech you, be not you of them qui virtutē verba putāt. Then touching Austin's authority, c you know how you leave him, when you think good: & regard not his d scant probable proofs, & conjectural inclinations. Finally, that here Austin hath no better then scant probable proofs and mere conjectures, we shall plainly declare (God willing) after we have shown a general consent and correspondence of all Authors for our sense of Sheol & Hades: which I hope presently you shall see.

But first you must note that we go not about to prove Sheol & Hades to be Heaven. We never thought it, neither need we so to think. The more is your injury, when you have nothing to reprove, yet with skoffes, and floutes, & bitter reproaches to disgrace me as you do, and that even for this your own mere conceit. Neither yet can your e witty reason prove, that Limbus hereby cannot be avoided. Consider a word of like use in Latin: Defuncti signifying the Dead, may be applied generally to the Souls of men deceased. Yet notwithstanding this, I hope Limbus may be easily avoided. Also I pray, are Defuncti none other but the Damned only in Hell? The blessed in Heaven may be likewise called Defuncti, I suppose. Howbeit not in respect of their being in Heaven: but only in respect that they have done with this life, and are gone hence. The word is properly general: signifying by it self neither the Blessed nor the Damned, neither to be in Hell nor in Heaven. Yet restrained by Circūstances (such as they may be) it signifieth either. Certainly so doth hades, & also Sheol▪ All these (the Latin, the Greek, and the Hebrew) words are indifferent and common in them selves; signifying in deed no positive thing properly, but a mere privation of this life, and of a former visible being here sometime. And so it is, that the Psalm saith, Even the just men's Souls, and all, must come to Hades & Sheol. Moreover, thus in effect they are all one with Thanatos, Death: but that Thanatos belongeth properly to Bodies. Hades & Sheol sometimes to Bodies, sometime to Souls of Men indifferently. Yea sometime these 2. are applied (though more rarely) to other things also which are in this visible world, namely whē they come to Destruction, and No being anymore: as anon we shall better understand.

Now let us proceed, and show further even by the Scriptures first, that Sheol and Hades are (as I say) more then once used for the general condition of death wherein even just men's souls are held, or the mansion of souls departed as well good as bad. Then afterward the common consent of others will avail the more.

That Psalm which entreateth wholly of Death, of the impossibility to escape it, of the power which it hath over the wicked whose joy and pomp is only in this world, in that it cutteth of all their hopes, it endeth their pleasure, and marreth all their beauty. I say in this Psalm, where all express circumstances do show that the Prophet speaketh of this death, not of Hell, yet David here saith: notwithstanding God shall deliver my soul from the power of Sheol (that is death, or the state of death ) when he shall reoeave me most mightily. So Tremellius turneth it, noting here David's hope of the Resurrection, which I think he hath well understood in this place. Otherwise David might here comfort himself in this, that he knew God would save him alive from this common death, not always as you friuolously object, but oftentimes: yea always till he should enjoy the Kingdom, which indeed God did for him when he was near death not seldom, and when his enemies & the wicked were caught therewith. Again, that Psalm showeth it also where it is thus written, My Soul is filled with sorrows, and my life draweth near to Sheol. By his life he meaneth his soul the proper cause and fountain of life in him, which also in the first parte of the sentence he expressly named. As the manner of phrase in the Psalms is; in the 2. parte of the sentence commonly to speak of the same things that are uttered in the former, but varying the terms. That life here should signify the body distinctly from the soul, there is no such likelihood nor reason. Indeed I deny not but life may signify here the whole person of man, and so may c nephesh the soul also very well: and then Sheol and Hades signify not peculiarly and distinctly the Grave which only is for the carcase, but the condition of the Whole mā after he hath no being in this world. In which regard, chose what sense you will, either that nephesh and chai shall in all these places of the Psalms before handled signify strictly the soul, as very fitly it may, or the whole person of man consisting both of a soul and of a living body, contrary to which estate Sheol and Hades is very often taken, and d peradventure so it is understood here in these places. In which sense Sheol & Hades are far from signifying hell, yea or heaven either, yea or only and merely the Grave: but it signifieth destruction from out of this world, & no-being here anymore as afore time to the whole person, that is, both to the Soul and to the Body. And thus Sheol and Hades Job resembleth to a house or Habitation, where he nameth it † Beth m • gned lecol chai: the habitation (after this world) appointed for every person, or (if you will) for all living things. The same also Job wisheth and desireth of God to himself, that God would hide him " Bisheol in this world of the deceased, & would give him term till his wrath was overpast. In another place he comforteth himself thinking quickly to enjoy it, saying, † If I have any hope, Sheol or Hades, the world of the deceased shall be my habitation. He joineth thereunto also particularly the grave: but as touching Sheol seeng Job speaketh of it as his continual habitation till the worlds end, it cannot be meant only of the Grave for his body, which endured but a very short time; neither had his flesh any being at all after it was turned to very earth and worms. He speaketh here therefore also of his souls continuing habitatiō, or mansion in another world. And in greatest reason this is that which Jacob meaneth, when he saith, " He will go down mourning to his son i • Sheol. That is, He will mourn till he dy: for this he meaneth by * going down here speaking of death. And then he hopeth to enjoy the society of his dear son in soul. For his body he thought was devoured and digested in the bellies of wild beasts, therefore he would go to the soul of his son in Sheol. Or else understanding here the dissolution & passage of his Whole person, he may mean partly his going down to the grave as touching his body, and yet also the enjoying of the society of his dear son in Sheol, which surely (as J said) could not be in body but in soul. Thus Sheol here hath respect to the changed estate of Jacob's whole person dissolved, and not to one parte thereof only, his body, but to his soul also: and it hath respect likewise to the estate of his dead sons soul, where this loving Father hoped again to have society with him (not anywhere else) without which he could not be comforted. Albeit in another place it seems he limiteth Sheol to the grave only: but that we do so understand by reason of the Circumstances, you will bring my Gray Head with sorrow to the Grave. But again to follow our purpose: Good Hezekiah also looked for Sheol to be his habitation likewise after this life. I said (saith he) I shall go to the gates of Sheol (the Land of the dead:) I shall not see the Lord in the Land of the living; I shall see Man no more among the inhabitants of the world: My habitation, or Mansion is translated and removed from me as a sheapheards tent, &c. This here cannot be the Grave, nor Hell which he describeth. For he thought he should thē have died: and thus his habitation he thought should have ben removed and translated from him: that is, I take it, his body should be removed from his soul, which was the mansion or habitation of his soul while he lived, but now he should have another age, or enduring, or Mansion, and be removed to another place. This cannot be understood of his Carcase, rotting and wasting away to nothing in the grave, and therefore endureth not as the word signifieth: therefore he meaneth it of his Souls removing and abiding elsewhere. Also he expressly opposeth the land of the living to Sheol: therefore Sheol is the land of the dead, not the grave only, nor Hell only, but as large and as general to the dead, and as fit to receive both the partes of men, yea both good and bad men, (but separated, and dissolved) as the land of the living is to receive both those partes united and knit together. Again Hezekiah was a godly man, therefore hell was not for him: also though he should not see the Lord in the land of the living, which was the thing he desired, yet thereby he seemeth to insinuate that in the land of the dead he might see him, whither he was about to go: and that must needs be the place of blessed Souls, even that which here is noted by the word Sheol. It is a most vain reason that you give, that " sheol here is to be taken for Hell and so to be translated because death to the wicked is the passage to Hel, which death Hezekiah was now near unto. It is untrue that Hezekiah was near unto that death which the wicked dy, or that he feared that kind of death, or that there is no sound difference between the death of the godly & the death of the wicked, or that by any means according to sound divinity the death of the godly may be named or taken for Hell. This is so vain that I will not stand any longer to answer it. Another objection of yours a is as weak, where you say Sheol here must be the Grave, because it is said b afterward, Sheol doth not confess the, death cannot praise thee &c. Though I grant that the Grave is not here excluded especially in the words next after, They that go down to the pit cannot hope for thy truth: yet I affirm that Sheol namely in the former place verse. 10. cannot exclude the mansion of good men's souls departed hence, & that for the reasons above noted. Neither here doth this circumstance limit it to the Grave only, because it is said Sheol confesseth not thee. For it is evident that He Zekiah meaneth not absolutely that there is no praising of God in Sheol, but only he understandeth that which c he so greatly desired, the outward frequenting of the Temple, the holy Ceremonies and Sacrifices, & joining to the visible congregation, and publishing of God's goodness to others. Which he expresseth immediately to be that praising of God that he meaneth & cannot be in Sheol, by knitting close to the former these words, d The living, the living, he shall confess thee, as I do this day: the Father to the Children shall declare the truth. This is that which he denieth of sheol: that none there do praise God to the example and edifying of others. He denieth not simply nor absolutely that there is none in sheol at all, in any respect, that praise God. The very same David expresseth also very plainly, saying, e I shall walk before the Lord in the land of the living, and f I shall not die but live and declare the works of the Lord. Where unless they meant only this visible praising of God to others edifying, otherwise these holy men had no cause so greatly to desire to praise God here, for they knew very well, how that (for their own parts) they should praise him much better, and more perfectly in the next world.

To the very same purpose the Septuagint use hades in other places also, besides in their translating of these aforesaid. For it is truly and well acknowledged by you, that both these words Sheol and Hades are just all one. Now the Septuagint I say in other places do show thus much also. If the Lord had not holpen me, my soul had almost dwelt in Hados: in Hebrew it is in silence. Which is not meant of hell for there is weeping, and wailing, and gnashing of teeth: but of the state of death. Nor yet of the Grave, only, because here it is named to be the Habitation of the Prophets soul, whither it was almost come when he was like to have died. Again, My soul was filled with sorrows, and my life drew near to hades. How my soul and my lift here, are taken for the self same, I have shown before. As also in that of Job, his life (or soul) is in hades, in the world of the Dead.

Again, it sufficeth for our purpose, that Hades and Sheol are often used even indifferently for Death and as being in effect the same, or for the state and Condicion of Death, or the Power of Death. Which also sometime we may likewise conceive of the Latin Inferi: which is by the Translatours and other writers used for Sheol and Hades, though (I deny not) very dangerously and corruptly in deed. First, for misheol, the Greek hath ek thanátou from death, reckoning Death and Sheol to be all one. So in Ecclesiastes Sheol and Hammethim the dead are in effect all one. And the very same doeth Isaiah call Shagnare Sheol, the gates of sheol, which the Psalms and Job do call Shagnare maueth, the gates of Death. In the Proverbs he meaneth Death, not Hell nor the Grave strictly taken; where, by an excellency the greediness of it is noted for being Never satisfied. For Death generally cra • eth more then either Hell or the Grave strictly taken, do. So likewise Habakkuk coupleth them together as being in effect alone, Like sheoll and Death it will not be satisfied. Thus also it will appear that that which David rejoiceth for, the very same in effect Christ here rejoiceth for. Only with this difference, David rejoiceth that God had delivered his soul from death thē, when he was likely to have died: Christ rejoiceth because God would deliver his soul from the Condicion of Death (sheol) after he was in it, & speedily even before his flesh should corrupt. This might be evidently shown in infinite places mo, but that it is utterly needles. In this sense it is that the Reprobates and the Elect after death are said to be together. a To morrow thou & thy sons shall be with us, saith the supposed Samuel to Saul. Not that there is any positive thing common to the Elect and Reprobates after death (which b you observe well: ) but only that they be alike dead, and alike remain in death. Yet I say, they are not like any further. This c Aust. very well showeth whom you d bring: saith he, mortuus mortem vivo proenuntiabat: that is, being dead he foreshowed death to him that yet lived. So that it was the same condition of death both to Saul and Samuel, but not the same fruition of happiness. Thus the old Latin Translatour useth Infernum, as commonly for Hades, so sometimes for e Thanatos death, and sometimes f Mors death for Hades. Epiphanius readeth the g Text indifferently h Thanátou or i Hadou, as reckoning thē in effect all one. Justin Martyr long before, saith, k Christ a little before his death noted the folly of those men tôn nomizónton me êinai auton Christon all hegonmenon thanatôsein auton, kai hós koinon ánthropon en hadou menein: that thought him not to be Christ, but that he should dy and remain in Hades as a common man. He meaneth not here as a wicked man in Hell, but as any common man (whether good or bad) dying abideth in Death, or in the Dominion of Death, or in the world of the Dead. Irenaeus saith, l Herein Christ (legem mortuorum servavit) did but as others do that Dy, & conversed 3. days vbi erant Mortui (sancti) where the dead (Saints) were. And this he calleth Locum invisibilem the unseen World. What meaneth this but Hades, as we take it? Yea a little before he expressly calleth it Paradise. Nevertheless I grant that he thought this unseen world was indeed beneath in the earth: wherein his proofs do vnterly fail him, as yourself do fully grant, and profess in that point as well as we. Again m he further showeth: that in the n Scripture he taketh Hades to be all one with Death, or the Dominion of Death, where he readeth the Text thus, Absorpta est mors in victoriâ, vbi est mors aculeus tuus? vbi est o mors victoria tua? Death is swallowed up in victory, Death where is thy sting? Death where is thy victory? And he addeth, Haec autem just dicentur tunc, &c. These things shall truly be spoken then, when this mortal and corruptible flesh, (about which Death is, and which is holden down by a certain Dominion of Death) arising up into life shall put on incorruption and immortality. Then verily shall death be overcome, when the flesh which is holden by it, shall come forth out of the Dominion thereof. Thus he taketh here Thanatos and Hades for one and the same thing in effect, that is for Death, and the power of death, and nothing else. Tertullian doth likewise: for speaking of Inferi, which he taketh for the same that Hades is, he noteth it as the place Quo vniversa Humanitas trahitur, whither all mankind must go. And therefore of Christ's going thither he saith, Quia & homo, mortuus secundum Scripturas & sepultus secundum easdem, hic quo{que} legi satisfecit formâ humanae mortis apud inferos functus: Because also he was a man (therefore) he died according to the Scriptures & was buried according to the same, also here he satisfied the common law (of nature) by following the form of men's Dying (and going) to the world of the Dead, Tertullian is for us yet further. He taketh Hades in the Newe Testament merely for Death, or the Dominion of Death, even as Irenaeus before did. Thus he readeth the Text & that often times, Vbi est mors aculeus tuus? Vbi est mors contentio tua? Aculeus autem mortis delinquentia: virtus autem delinquentiae Lex. O Death where is thy sting? O Death where is thy force? The sting of Death is sin: the force of sin is the Law. And again, Scriptum est apud Creatorem, Vbi est mors victoria, vel contentio tua? Vbi est mors aculeus tuus? Verbum autem hoc Creatoris est apud Prophetam. It is written by the Creator, Death where is thy victory, or thy force, or strife? Death where is thy sting? This is the word of the Lord God by the Prophet Ozee. Still he maketh Hades & Sheol nothing else but Death in these places. And saith he, Deo gratias dicit ( Apostolus) quod nobis victoriam vti{que} de morte prestitit. The Apostle in the New Testament applying words of the Prophet to the Resurrection, giveth thanks to God because he causeth us to get a victory indeed of Death. So still he maketh Hades to be Death and not Hell. Which yet is further most clearly to be seen: Lazarus apud inferos in sinû Abrahae refrigerium consecutus, &c. Lazarus in the world of the Dead enjoyeth comfort in Abraham's bosom, contrariwise the Rich man is in the torments of fire, both of them (there) receiving their divers rewards. How clear is this, that he maketh Hades and Inferos even in a Luke also, to be nothing but the common state and world of the Dead. Wherevpon the learned Junius noteth thus, Observandum autem quod ait Apud Jnferos etiam de Lazaro. Nam inferos Latini Patres (vt Graeci Haden) pro omni loco aut statû mortuorum dixerunt promiscue. At{que} in hunc sensum Lazarus & Dives apud inferos collocantur. Quomodo b Irenaeus, & c Chrysostomus ex verbis Luc. 16.23. locuti sunt, & Tertullíanus locis quamplurimis. This therefore it is that Tertullian saith in another place, d Constituimus omnem animam apud inferos sequestrari in diem iudicij: We determine that every man's Soul is kept apart in the world of the dead til the day of judgment. And, Are all souls thē in the power of the kingdom of Death, penes inferos? Will you nill you, there you shall find punishments and comforts, as in Lazarus and the Rich man. For why should you not think that the Soul may be both punished and comforted in inferis, in the Worlde of the dead? Neither doth he c Montanize in this (as f you object) but consenteth with Irenaeus before and with others after him as shall appear, who were no Montanists. Notwithstanding it is true, that somewhere he taketh inferos, pro locali determinatione (as he speaketh) for the peculiar and determinat place of the wicked deceased, that is, Hell strictly and properly. Thus he doth in that g against Marcion, wth you cite pag. 201. Also in that h objection of certain Haeretikes whom he confuteth, not the true Christians, as i: you k misconceave. They argued thus (as you do) in hoc Christus Jnfiros adiit, ne nos adiremus. Christ therefore went to Hell, to the ende that we might never come there. He answereth them that it is false that Christ went to Jnferos in that sense, that is to Hell: for then what difference is there between the wicked Heathens and the godly Christians, if one & the same prison after death were for them both. Taking it for a thing generally granted in the church, that Christ being dead went only thither where the godly Dead were, and therefore that it were a wicked and Haereticall thing to think he went where the Damned were, that is into Hell. And so he quite overthroweth your opinion together with the reason thereof, as an opinion, which if any held, they were ill thought of in those days. Thus also is Augustine well l understood, where he denieth that the Patriarchs were apud inferos, in Hell, namely the place of the Damned, because they were in Abraha • s bosom. Which yet elsewhere he granteth unto, that they might be apud inferos in the world of the Dead, & namely where the Godly dead should be. So that thus if you had but distinguished these and other Fathers like words as you ought to have done, there needed no such folly of Contradiction to be imputed unto them, as you do lay to their charge in this point, altogether vndeservedly. Which being well observed you shall see that all the Fathers (as M ^r Junius saith) both Greek & Latin, do take Hades and inferos indifferently for the state of the Dead, as well pertaining to y ^t Souls of the Godly, as to the Damned likewise. Athanasius also saying vbi tenebatur anima humana in morte, ibi exhibuit humanam suam animam: Where Human Souls were held by Death, there he brought his human Soul, Meaneth nothing else but that his human Soul came under the same condition of death, as other men's Souls did: not that he went to the place of the Dāned. Neiter must he be understood after your partial translatiō, but after his own language the Greek. When you say ex Orco, out of Hell, him self saith exhadou, out of the power of Death. So that he saith not a word that Christ was in Hell, but only that his Soul was in Hades, in the Dominion of Death, as other good men's Souls were also: whence he by his victorious return conquering Death brought us immortality, and wrought resurrection for us. Here Hades being enemy and opposit to the Immortality and Resurrection of men's persons, cannot by any means be Hell: For Hell agreeth with Immortality and Resurrection, & in Hell shall be immortality and resurrection as well as in Heavē. But it is the common Death and dissolution of our persons, which is contrary to the immortality and resurrection of them. For as Resurrection is nothing else but a restoring and revniting of the Soul to the Body, so the contrary is nothing else but merely the dissolution and separation of the Soul from the Body: which is Death, and not Hell. Now in this death (saith Athanasius ) Christ was held till he spoiled and conquered it; thereby giving us resurrection and immortality. This cannot be Hell out of questiō. Hilarius verily hath this meaning also, saying; This is the Law of human necessity, that their bodies go down to the Grave, their Souls to the world of the Dead, ad inferos. Which descent the Lord did not refuse, that he might prove him self in every point to be a true man. His going to Hell proveth him not to be a true man: but his Soul to come under the power of Death, as well as his body to come to the Grave, that right well proveth him in deed to have been a true man, and wholly in nature like all other men. Also this was indeed the Law of human necessity, (after the like phrase as a Justin, b Irenaeus, and c Tertullian also speak:) but not to go to Hell. Now this Death properly belongeth to the Body of Men; d as it is left without life. Also no less properly it belongeth to the whole Person of men, as it is dissolved and destroyed thereby. Thirdly, by consequence it belongeth to both the dissolved partes: yea even to the immortal Soul (though blessed; not as it is in blessedness, but) as it remaineth held from the Body by the force of Death. And so all these last named are very excellent places to prove (which afterward I shall further show) that all those articles of the Creed He Dyed, was Buryed, and descended to Hades do indeed signify but one thing in effect, that he was a true man: seeing thus it befell him as it doeth all other men by the Law of our Nature: that is, to Dye. And therefore that it was clean left out in all ancient Creedes, (where both those other clauses are specified) as being no divers point in effect from Dead and Buryed. Which Creedes nevertheless are worthily deemed to be absolute and perfect touching Christ's works of Redemption which he hath wrought for us. Since perhaps, when it came into the Common Creed, they signified hereby Christ's going to Limbus. Which opinion indeed men generally inclined unto (though erroneously) for many years: yet that the Ancients put this Descending to hades, (meaning Limbus, or howsoever) into the vulgar Creed distinctly from both the other foresaid clauses, I believe not. The contrary is proved afterwards: as anon we shall see. But to proceed here: c Chrysostom and d Basel likewise (with the rest of the Greeks) may be noted, how they yield Hades to the Souls of the godly and just men deceased remaining in joys. Also Ambrose is to be considered, who right according to all the rest, saith, e Souls departed from their Bodies did go to Hades, that is, to an invisible place, which in Latin we call Infernum. And Jerome, f Infernus is a place where the Souls are included, either in rest or pains. And Ruffinus vpō g Descendit ad inferna giveth this sense Descendit in Mortem, He submitted unto Death. All the rest which h you cite (or can cite) have nothing contrary, but rather consenting heerewith. So that it is certain by all the Fathers generally,

• 1. That Hades and Sheol are taken for Death, the Cōmon state of Death, or the invisible world of the dead common to the Souls both of good and bad, though their particular places were far separate and distinct.
• 2. That Christ went not into Hell the place of the Damned, as you hold: but to the Habitation of the blessed deceased (called also by them Abraham's bosom: ) which we know (and you also) was indeed Heaven: according to that word of Christ, I leave the Worlde, and go to the Father.

Which I have proved further before, pag. 149. 150. I doubt not but they erred generally (as yourself also holdeth) in thinking that this Habitation of the blessed Souls was beneath in the earth, or that it was not heaven: nevertheless this is the point wherein we agree, and wherein they erred not, and which I cite them for, and which is directly against you, that hades (which also is sheol ) belonged to the Blessed souls deceased, as well as to the Damned: and namely that Christ's going to Hades was to go to be Blessed deceased. Which in Latin also they called Jnfernū, but so improperly and so unaptly in respect of the truth, that even this ill term surely both sprang from error, and began in them their error, or confirmed and spread farther this error.

Now thus your vain boasting of all the Fathers is but a bubble: and that All the Fathers without exception do touch and teach Christ's local Descent to hell. So that if you be content (as you say) to be tried by all the Fathers Greek and Latin, they quite overthrow you, notwithstanding your great words. For the truth is, they are all against you: and with us, in such sort as I said. Only Austin doubtingly and waveringly differeth from all the rest: who somwhere seemeth to think that Inferi cannot be attributed to just men's Souls departed. For thus doubtingly he speaketh, Illud me nondum invenisse confiteor &c. I confess I have not yet found that Inferi are named where the just men's Souls are at peace. Yes surely the Ancientes named the places for all the deceased both good & bad Inferos, like as they named (where both wicked and good do live in the world) Superos. And Austin (if he had marked it well) might have found even this (which he saith he found not) in the Latin translation of the Scripture: Quis est homo, qui vivet, &c. What man is there that (ever) shall live and shall not see death? Shall he deliver his Soul from the hand of Inferi, that is Death. For he cannot here understand Inferi to be the Grave, because then the Soul must signify the dead body: which a you say is more then absurd. Wherefore the Soul here being taken properly for the Soul, then Inferi is found applied to just men's Souls deceased, as well as to the wicked: which Augustine might have observed. Yea he him self b elsewhere granteth also that the just in peace might be in inferis after death. And here he denieth it but coldly & waveringly, Proinde vt dixi nondum inveni, & adhuc quaero, nec mihi occurrit inferos alicubi in bono posuisse Scripturam. Now this is Austin's difference herein: let the Reader judge, if you say truly that c Austin judicially and resolutely affirmeth it. Or is it not rather (as I call it) his † Cōiecturall inclination: yea his only. For d Fulgentius denieth not inferos to the godly deceased, nor that Christ was locally with them only in inferis. So that in saying, He was where the wicked are tormented, he meaneth that in respect of the Cōmon place; which in whole he calleth infernum. Thus then we may see that Austin's differing herein is to little purpose.

• 1. Because it is contrary to all the ancient Fathers before him, with him, and since him.
• 2. Because we must not esteem his saying by the Latin Inferi, but by the original Sheol and Hades, which are more against him: as before I have shown.
• 3. Because it is waveringly delivered, & with doubt in him self; yea contrary to him self, as I have shown.
• 4. Because he secketh to maintain it erroneously.

For he giveth this reason and end of Christ's going to Hell (the place of the Damned) that he might deliver some of the damned sinners out of Hell torments, quos esse solvendos occultâ suá iusticiâ iudicabat. Which most strange conceit of his yourself e do confute rightly. But either grant this end and reason to be true, or else say his main opinion is false also, that Christ went thither: feeing he maketh that the reason of this. And why may not Austin err as well in saying that he went to Hell after death, as in saying that he went thither to loose out of pains such and such? It seemeth Austin was carried into this conceit, because he could not imagine what f else Christ should do in Hell: and that he was there in deed he thought, because he guessed (contrary to all antiquity besides) that the meaning of inferi and hades could not be applied to the estate of blessed souls after this life. Which mistaking of his (as also yours with him) is plentifully convinced (I hope) before. Wherein I desire the learned to judge. As for Austin's opposing against this our sense of Hades, saying: In graecà linguâ origo nominis quo appellātur inferi, ex eo quod nihil suave habeant, resonare perhibetur. It showeth his mistaking more: yea the very ground of all his mistaking, as I think. First it appeareth by this, that Austin had very little knowledge in the Greek: seeing he thinketh that Hades should originally signify nihil suave, nothing sweet. I conjecture that he thinketh Hades is made of hedys sweet, and α the Privative. Wherein then he misseth much: for hades in Greek hath always iôta written under, which showeth that in the true original whence hades cometh, there is the letter iôta expressed. But in hedys sweet there is none. The truth is, it cometh from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to see, and α the privative: as all Grecians (Plato, Plutarch, &c.) yea the Fathers, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Ambrose, &c.) do show: and that it signifieth, An invisible state after a visible being in this world, and sometime Darknes, or a place of darkness. Not that the state of all the Dead generally was thought to be in darkness, but because Death took them out of this cheerful worlds light, and covered them (as it were) with darkness and oblivion from the worlds sight and knowledge here. This etymology of hades was most familiar and frequent with all Grecians, with whom it seems Austin was not much acquainted: as by this his wide conjecture we may think. Neither impute this (I pray) as arrogancy to me, for so judging of such a man. I think all men will so judge of him likewise, and yet derogat nothing from his great desert in God's Church. Him self doth soberly acknowledge it of him self, saying, Ego quidem Graecae linguae perparùm assecutus sum, & prope nihil. Truly J have but little Greck: yea almost none. Neither would he here have said perhibetur, thus it is reported, touching the Etymology of Hades: if he had pretended any skill in that tongue. Yea Possidonius in his Life testifieth, that he had no love to the Greek language. Besides many other arguments hereof, if it were likely that I wronged him in judging thus of him. Wherefore seeing it was thus, no marvel if Austin easily mistook the proper & right meaning of hades: &c then much sooner of Inferi, for the reason before noted. Thus also he might readily imagine heervpon, that Hades and Inferi (in Scripture specially) were nowhere applied to blessed Souls. Which oversight in him is much more pardonable, then it can be in you: who I doubt not in the languages want no skill, if you would but sincerely judge according to that you do understand. Yea and in comparison of myself, I unfeignedly confess, that I suppose I have not seen many books in the learned tongues, which you are likely to have read and studied. Nevertheless I am well assured that in the sense of these words Hades and Sheol; you are greatly over hot: and most of all in this unsavory opiniō coming therefrom, that Christ's soul after death went to Hell. As I hope it hath hitherto well appeared. Yet you will say, Austin speaketh marvelous resolutely, that a None but an infidel will deny that Christ's Soul was in inferis. So he may well, understanding here Jnferos to express Hades in Greek: for that is the Scripture in deed. Which to deny were infidelity. But he is no insidell that denieth inferos to be a fit Latin word for Hades in Greck: or * admitting the translation, yet denieth in English that Christ was in Hell. After all, yet I may not forget how Aust. here "would have in this controversy the very nature & proper Etymology of Hades to be regarded and precisely followed: notwithstanding that himself mistook it much. How then is it, that you skornfully cal this endeavor (touching the H • brue Sheol ) b Rabbinical Grammar observations, and (touching Hades in Greek) the Poets fantastical imaginations? In this therefore Austin also is not a little against you. Other exceptions of his touching the matter, we shall afterwards consider together with yours.

Now I come from the Ancients to the later learned Writers: that we may not neglect their judgment in this question. Who as they were generally freer from error then those of old for the most part, so they testify this point with me more clee • lie & more constantly then they. Who were observed * before. Yet because you let them go without (as it were) saluting them, and as if they were not worthy (belike) that you should cast a look on them: therefore they shall be noted once more, that I may press you with thē, and that others at least wise, may consider them better. Bucer saith, 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. Again, In that we acknowledge that the Lord went down to Infernum, we understand that in his Soul he joined to the society of the souls of the dead Saints, even as in his body he was joined to their bodies by Burial. P. Ma • tyr, That Christ descended to Inferos (or Hades) signifieth nothing else, but that he did undergo the same state as other souls do that depart this life. Mollerus, (touching Sheol, Hades, and Infernum ascribed to Christ saith, they do signify but that Christ died: and to be no more, then as if he should say in the Psalm, Therefore I rejoice because I know that although I dy yet I shall rise to life again. Bulinger (speaking of Christ & indifferently of the godly) showeth that To go to Inferos, is to go to Abraham's bosom, that is into Heaven, not into Hell: and that Inferi and Hades do make difference only between the Living and the Dead, & nothing else. Lavater saith, Hades in Greek is a general word for the condition of the dead both in torments and in peace. Tremellius saith, This Hebrew word Sheol doth signify any station or state of the 'Dead in general in very many places of Scripture: and Hell it may sometime signify, but by a figure synecdoche. Lastly Junius in his note upon Tertullian before rehearsed, doth confirm all this most fully. These men I think every wise and faithful Christian will highly esteem and prefer, for their learning and namely for their skill in the tongue • s, for their sincerity and soundness in Religion, for their unity and conse ••• n this point, for their diligence, faithfulness, and m • d • sty in all things.

The rather this sense of Hades we are to acknowledge, because it hath ben the ancient phrase and common use of speech before Christianity: that this word should signify the general state of D • ath applied even to the Souls both of the Blessed & Damned Which sufficiently I shown before out of Plato, Homer, and others. Yea no less I shown also touching the Latin word Inferi out of Cicero: though this word naturally implieth an error, which Hades doth not, as before also I have declared. What is your answer to this? Forsooth (I think because you have ben a master of Grammar) you go about to teach Cicero Latin, & for his general phrase implying that all the Deceased both good & bad were apud inferos, vou do so whip him & handle him here, that it seemeth you forget by whom yourself hath profited, and that even he in time past hath ben your Teacher. I will not now enter into any defense of Cicero: his speech and language will defend it self. Also that were to leave our main purpose. But it is the lesso strange that you use Cicero thus: for others also have had the like correction at your hands with him. a Before Torence scaped not. And b here Plato and Socrates and other Greeks have also their partes, for their using and taking of the Greek word Hades so largely as the natural Etymology thereof doeth bear. But let them defend them selves whether they speak usual and right Greek and Latin, or no: I will leave them in that. They are eloquent enough, they can speak in this case for them selves. Only I will take their words at their hands evens as c I find them, and so I refer the judgment of all to the learned and wise Reader. Also for that charge against me of d lewd lying, and open falsifying of Plato, I remit all to the indifferent Reader. Yet I cannot but smile truly (for offended I will not be) that Mai. Bilson is so strongly persuaded, that c I am of Plato's and Ciceroes religiō touching Hell, Heaven, the God's, and wicked Spirites: and that I seek indeed to bring in their fantastical Hell into our Christian Creed. This fantastical conceit of his, let him feed him self with it: and let him persuade it to whom he can. Thus much the sober and indifferent Reader will consider and acknowledge, that the Holy Apostles do teach the Heavenly truth with the very words and Grammar of the Heathen men: whereunto that serveth which is written of them, f We every man hear them speak in our own tongues and languages wherein we were borne. Then the Apostles surely spake according to the currant speech before their times and in their times, and yet thereby never g Canonized the fables and fancies which the nations implied in their words. Whosoever he be that will say otherwise, knoweth not what he saith: neither shall any credit or greatness which he hath, get him credit in so saying. Yet in a certain place you most strangely and confidently avouch, h That neither with the ancient Masters of the Greek tongue which were Poets, nor with the 70. nor with the Writers of the New Testament, nor with the people of that time Hades did ever signify the world of Souls without any limitation of state or place. I thought that those few allegations which " I brought of * Plato, † Homer, and " Plutarch for the Greek, and of Latins for the Latin would have suffised to cause you not to deny so clear and manifest a truth, which here you deny even against your own knowledge, as after shall appear. Wherefore to demonstrate this point a little further to you, and to all men, if any yet do believe this your assertion, (which is most untrue) I will not think it to much to note some more places out of the Heathen authentic Greeks, (for that is the principal controversy) that Hades with thē did signify the World of Souls, without any limitation (in the very word itself) either of state or place. But as all men know that by reason of Circumstances it often signifieth with thē Hell determinatly, so by reason of circumstances also it signifieth with them many times determinatly the Habitatiō of the Souls of good men in joys and pleasures, which was to them as their Heaven. And for this I will only put you in mind of some places, which you know well enough already. First note that common epithet or title of Hades: Hades pandokeus or pandocheus. The unseen world or state of Death that receiveth all, both good and bad. Others imagine Hades a God or mighty power power of Death, & do cal him, eneroisin kataphthimenoisin anassôn, Ruler (not of Hell only, but) of all that 'Dy. And therefore to this place come not the wicked and damned only, but the noblest and best also, (as Achilles saith being dead and being in Hades) Aidós de katelthemen entha te nekroi: Hither into hades all we that are dead do come. This Plato and Plutarch do acknowledge in that place which you cite at large: together with a number mo both of the Poëts & Philosophers. And this also it is that Homer showing how Jupiter cast down his rebellious Angels into Hell ( Tártaron, with them the proper place of the Damned) he describeth it to be so much beneath Hades the place of the other Dead, hoson ouranos esti apo gaies: as heaven is from the earth. So in regard of this it is that another maketh it to be much better to be in hades, as it is the common place and condition of the dead (not Hell) then to be sick vnrecoverably: kreissôn aida keuthôn e nosôn mátan. And so Plutarch maketh Hades (not Hel, but) the place of the Dead or the stare of the dead in general to be a sovereign comfort to the afflicted & miserable in this world, O Thanate paian iatros molois, Limen gar ontôs aidas an' aian: Aiden d'echôn boethon, ou tremo skias. Lastly that which you bring of Orpheus describing the true God, that he is King both of the Vnseene world aitheros ed'aïdou, and also of this present visible world ponton gaieste tyrannos, confirmeth all that is before said. For aither aides here is to be construed together, not separatly; and so he signifieth thereby that the true God indeed is Lord and King not only over this whole Visible world (which he understandeth by the Sea and Land ) but also over the whole Invisible world or air, that is over all the Dead both good and bad. I marvel therefore very much what you mean to speak so plainly contrary to the truth and to your own knowledge, that Hades did never signify the world of Souls without any limitation of state or place, no not with the ancient Masters of the Greek tongue which were the Poets. The rather this your speech is directly against your knowledge because you expressly collect and confess the contrary, that is the same which I do: thus you say. a Hades before (the Apostles time) extended to good and bad. And " within Plutoes kingdom under the earth which they call Hades, as well the places and pleasures for the Good, as the prisons and punishments for the bad are in their conceit prepared and settled. Again, b Hades with them was the Ruler or place of Souls, were they in rest or pain. Where you make a strange answer, that Christian Religion will assure, that this place must needs be Hell. What? That place where some good men's souls deceased are in rest? Is this Hell? Yea is it Hell in Christian Religion? Who then henceforth will care for Hell, if some souls have rest and pleasures in Hell? But you say also that those Heathen Greeks did think that this place of Souls was c under the Earth. It is true, they thought so indeed: and it was their "error, as also the very same was the Christian Fathers error likewise. Which they drew certainly from their acquaintance with those Heathens, but nowhere at all from the Scriptures. Yet none of these thought this place to be very Hell, where souls were in rest. There is small rest, and few pleasures in Hell. But these Heathens d understood Hades chiefly for Pluto the Ruler of this place under the earth. So that though the place were also called Hades, yet this was but secondarily. I answer: This is questionless utterly untrue. For rather the Place or the Estate of the Dead was first & originally called Hades. The God thereof (whom afterward they idolatrously imagined) they did conceive secondarily in respect of the place or thing. Which beside the evidence of the matter, I am persuaded that Plato & Plutarch do show also plain enough, even here where you cite them. Howsoever: this is not maternal, nor to any purpose, whether the place and state were with thē first and chiefly called Hades, or whether the feigned Power of death, and Ruler of the Dead (as they imagined) were first and principally so called. This is certain, that this Power or Ruler which they conceived to be over the Dead, as they like Idolaters made it a God, so their meaning was to esteem him as the God of the Dead in General, and his state and kingdom to be the Habitatiō of the Dead in general, not of the wicked only in Hel, but of the good also in their Elysian happiness: which was to them in their estimation and reckoning, that which Heaven indeed is to us. But you say, there is no one place in truth common to all souls departed this life, but some are in Hel, and some in Heaven. I doubt not but the blessed in Heaven & the Damned in Hell are both in condition & situation separated a funder exceeding far. Yet nevertheless as they are somwhere w ^th in the cōpass of the created world so they are in a common place; opposi • indeed to this visible earth & world of the living, but common to all the Dead, namely in this only respect as they are Dead & departed hence, & are unseen, & utterly exempted frō all mutual meddling together with us that do live. Moreover we stand not so much on this, that by Hades must be understood any one place common to all the Dead, but the State and condition of death among the Dead, or the Power and Dominion of Death which very aptly also it serveth for, and fitteth our purpose as well as to understand there by a common place. But indeed all this I doubt not Hades very well may signify, when it is referred to men, according to the circumstances of the author where it is read. But this Hades you say in those Heathen authors is the very Devil himself. Therefore his Kingdom must be needs nothing but Hell. I answer, The Heathen in their conceit thought him not to be a Devil but a God, even the God and Ruler over all the Dead: and so they worshipped this foul Idol. Therefore his whole kingdom & region they reckoned to be the World of the Dead or Dominion of Death, which also they called Hades: It may be Porphyry meaneth that they held him to be Lord and Ruler over Hell and all the wicked Spirits and Devils therein: yet he saith not but that Hades or Pluto was thought by them to have power over all the Dead: his rage against men, and the fear that men had of him, signified the unmercifulness of Death sparing none, and how it is to the nature of all men a thing most terrible. So that they esteemed a part indeed of his Dominion to be Hell peculiarly: but a part also to be the Region of the Happy, which was their Heaven. But you say, this was the Devil. Yea even as the rest of their God's were also very Devils indeed, & nothing else. So was their Highest Jupiter, and so was Apollo, and so was Mercury, and all the rest of the God's and Goddesses which their impiety adored. They were indeed none other, then very Devils illuding the vanity of men. And thus I grant was their Hades or Pluto likewise. Howbeit in their estimation he was not properly the Devil, but a Power or Ruler over the Dead both good and bad: and his Kingdom the Dominion and world of the Dead both good and bad. But a you remit Poets and Pagans using this word to the alleagers. Yet Poets & Pagans are the authentic masters for Grammar both Greek & Latin. Yea they were yours I doubt not in time past. Austin (as we " saw) alloweth the Etymology and natural property of hades to be regarded. Yea all learned men in all ages condemn this your rejecting of Pagans and Poets for the Grammatical use of words: whom still they do regard and follow in this respect.

But here let us observe, how the holy Apostles do teach the truths of the Gospel with the very words and language of the Heathens. There are in this point 3. or 4. things that must be [ 1] well observed and remembered. 1. The Apostles do speak of the mysteries of true Religion with the Heathens words (as I said) yet so, as that when the Heathens words do imply some error with truth, then in other express places they plentifully refute all their errors implied in their words. Whereby it comes to pass that all the proportion of truth which the Heathen signified by them, is yet fully and rightly signified still in the Apostles use of them: but nothing further, that is, none of the other fancyes & fictions of the Heathen. As for example, Zeus Jupiter, was among the Heathens their great God, & he only was their highest: of whom besides they held a 1000. fables, and indeed he was none other but a Devil, as is before noted. Nevertheless the Apostle useth the same for the only true God the author and governor of Heaven and Earth (passing by all their Fables) when he applieth the Poets verse, His generation also we are. Tartarus which you object, though rarely & sometime perhaps a Philosopher will note thereby the Ayer, yet indeed usually and in a manner always they meant Hell by it, with a thousand of dreams thereto belonging. Yet Peter not canonizing nor commending their dreams and fictions of Hell, notwithstanding signifieth Hell indeed by that word of theirs according to their common use thereof, and according to the proportion of truth which therein they held. So Daimonion, which also you object they used to signify by it both good and bad Spirits following and conversing with them: and the good they honored as God's. But indeed and in truth seeing these same were all Devils, therefore the Scripture holdeth not the Heathens erroneous meaning in this word: yet it doth retain that which they understood by it truly, that is to signify Devils and bad spirits. Again, Theos the Heathen used for to express the Nature of God: but so as that they thought it common to many several God's. The Apostles use the word also for the true God, yet not understanding therein a nature common to many: which error they otherwise clearly and often refute. And thus we might speak of infinite mo the like words: as Fear, the power and strength whereof they also feigned to be a God, and of Hope and of Revenge Goddesses, &c. Like whereunto is Hades, even that which presently we have in hand. With the Heathē it commonly and most usually signified the state of Dead men: sometime rarely, the Destruction of other things which perish out of this visible world & have no more being here. Whereof anon we shall see further. Howbeit now to consider it as it respecteth men only, thus the Heathens chiefly and commonly by Hades understood the state I say and Condition of men both good and bad deceased and gone out of this world. And they meant it commonly for the Destruction of their persons from out of this world generally and indifferently. Again, oftentimes particularly touching their Bodies burial: also particularly many things touching their Souls state being parted from the Body. Some of which they believed were in Blessedness, some in Tormentes: although they signified neither of these in the word Hades, but only (as I said) their state after their departure hence. Also they thought some of the Blessed Souls to be in the a chiefest Blessedness, that was in presence with the God's. Yet they were in Hades also, that is in another world after they were wiped out from hence. Hither they admitted only Philosophers, Heroês, & such like. Thus hither it is that b Plato assigneth Socrates, and thus Socrates him self hopeth to go to Hades, to the wise and good God. Other Souls of good men they gave Blessedness unto in the Elysian fields under the earth: as they fancied, or where else I know not. And these were also in Hades. So that both these estates and conditions of blessed Souls deceased which was their Heaven (though differing very much in places) they yield • d to be in Hades. Whence I think some of the Fathers, and after them some Papists, have feigned divers places of rest and joy to the Dead. Heaven presently to the Martyrs, but to other good Christians another place of rest & joy (which they called Abraham's bosom) either in the earth, or where they also knew not. Howbeit into the glory of Heaven and the presence of God and of Christ they admit none, save only the Martyrs before the last day. But this error and all other errors about Hades, the Apostles sufficiently confute in their writings: so that we are not now to respect the same in the use of Hades. Only we are therefore to note how much and what (besides all errors) may be truly retained and meant by the Apostles in applying this word Hades, as the Heathen did, to both sortes of Souls of Dead men. They might truly understand that both have one common condition and state as touching their being in another world, as they were dissolved, departed from and wiped out of this visible world, & a • they were now in the world of the Dead an opposite estate & condition to the living. This also the very Natural Etymology of the word according to Grammar, doeth properly yield in that it signifieth c Vnseene, or Not seen anymore in this world, or an estate not seen here with us: topos aîdes, an Unseene place, as Plato calleth it. Where note, it cannot be referred to the estate of Angels, because Hades is the unseen state of them that once had a visible and ordinary being and conversation here in this world. So that in very deed it hath properly but a Privative sense, & not anything positive in it: though this d you cannot brook. All this then the Apostles might well understand & allow in the word Hades, without any taint of Heathenism. And therefore also doubtless so they did. But the heathens further made Hades a Divine power (whom also they called Pluto, as it were the God of Death, or of the Dead) because (as before is shown) they dreamed that he held all that were Dead, under his power, both blessed & damned souls. And because no man that dieth whether good or bad, doeth ever live here again: and because all whosoever without exception must dy, therefore they call him Hades ameilichos kai adámastos, impla • able and vnmastered: and Nelees êtor echôn having a mercilesso heart. In which sense in Latin also they used Parca, Destiny: the ende of all, because it spareth none. Certainly this Deifying of such a Power or to make a God of it, the Apostles abhorred: and everywhere in their writings they show what Idolatry and extreme impiety it is. But yet they may and do acknowledge such a power of Death, which worketh this Destruction of all men frō the world, & detayneth them in Death afterward. Wherefore they have in sundry places Prosopopoeas thereof as in the Revelation the Keys of Death and Hades: Death riding on a pale horse, and Hades following after him: Death and Hades yielded up their dead, and both were cast into Hell. Likewise that, O Death where is thy sting, O Power of death where is thy victory. But of these more anon. Hitherto the 1. observation is manefest that the Apostles using the Heathens words, yet need not, nor do nor understand in them any of their fancyes and errors, which by their doctrine otherwise they refute; nevertheless they may and do understand the general truth signified in them, whatsoever the Heathens used by them to signify and imply. And thus is our word in controversy Hades cleared. But to clear the rest also of those which you object: Sec: we are to observe that the Apostles transfer the Heathens Civil words many times to their Ecclesiastical [ 2] use: namely keeping yet still the proportion of their former sense. As in these, Apostle, Bishop, Deacon, Gospel, Law, Sin, Repen • ance, Hope, Conscience, Concupisence, &c. Which change is small and easy, since the words have a just proportion still together both in Civil and Ecclesiastical use. Only if any difference or odds be, it is expressly uttered in some part of the Apostles doctrine besides. There is no such cause, nor matter of difference to be found in Hades. Third. The Apostles do use some words kat' exochen [ 3] by an excellency, & yet in no point altering the native use or property of them. a Thus Scripture is used commonly for the Word of God only, Diábolos for the Devil, although sometimes other writings are called also Scripture, and other Accusers and slanderers Diaboloi. But neither hath this consideration any place in Hades, that in Scripture it should signify chiefly Hell: much less only. Which thing b you avouch. Lastly, Som think the Apostles altered the word Faith from the Passive sense of it importing [ 2] Faithfulness and honesty, as the Heathens commonly used it, to the Active sense which is True belief or Trust used in the Scriptures: which you also object. But I suppose the Apostles took this Active sense of the word Faith frō the Old Testament, merely translating the Hebrew into Greek. For I see not what difference at all there is between c Pistis, and d Emunah whereby the Jews signified Faith to salvation. Which is reason enough for this use thereof in Greek by the Apostles, namely if it be a Hebraism, though it be not very suitable to the Heathens use thereof. The like I judge of Elder, Law, Sin, &c. But Hades for Hell hath no like reason. Further I think even the Heathens have used this word Faith, sometime Actively as the Gospel usually hath it: likewise the Gospel abhorreth not altogether the Passive use of it for Faithfulness. Lastly, if it were so that the Apostles did follow no other reason, but merely transferred that word from the Civil passive to the Ecclesiastical active use, we say on necessity they might do it. For having some Spiritual doctrine to deliver and the ordinary speech wanting some fit word for the same, then they might, yea of necessity they were forced to take some word nearest in nature and sense to their purpose, & so they might give to that word a peculiar Ecclesiastical use further then anciently it had. But Hades for Hell hath no help by this reason: they took the word Gehenna from the Hebrews, and used it properly for Hell. Therefore they need not alter hades for that purpose, for which they had another proper word. It is manefest then that the Apostles still kept the proportion of the sense in all their words translated from the common and usual speech of the Heathen so far as any reason of truth might be alike in both, & so they spake indeed still the tongue and language of the Nations: and therefore Hades with the Apostles cannot be properly Hell, as even with Heathens also properly it was never.

I suppose yet you will say, The Fathers take Hades for Hell. I answered before how they sometime take it determinatly and strictly; so they signify Hell by it. Somtime they take it largely & generally according to the Ancient Heathens use: and so they signify by it nothing but the general state of Death pertaining alike both to good and bad deceased, as I have declared. Thus you get nothing by them: albeit sometime the • restrain the word Hades more then they ought to restrain it.

Here also were place to have added somewhat for justifying that I said, The Fathers do alter the ancient true use of some words both Greek and Latin, from whom (in controversies) we ought to appeal to their authentic use in Scripture and Classical authors. But because you send me about Chirotonía to another place, I am content to examine what you have there to the contrary. Which, seeing it draweth me into further matter thereunto appertaining, I will differ for this time.

Hitherto we have tried the nature and use of Hades, and have found it to be not properly Hell, as you avouch. No, not when it is applied to souls of men deceased. And therefore also that it cannot be so understood in Act. 2.27. where it is applied to Christ's Soul after he was dead. Which yet is the only place that you have to pretend. Now something more you bring for your purpose from the Circumstances of this Text: which we must consider. But first let us simply and plainly understand the same, according to our former true declaration of the nature and use of Hades. Where the text is, Thou wilt not leave my Soul in Hades, or to [ 1] Hades: we may simply take Hades for the invisible state or place of the deceased. And so supplying the defect of a word which must be understood, thus we may say eis ton topon, or chôran hadou: in the place or region of the invisible state or World of the Deceased Otherwise we may take it simply for Deaths force & strength and [ 2] power: supplying also the same words eis ton topon, or ten chôran hadou, in that place where the power and strength of Death prevaileth and holdeth the deceased Souls from their Bodies. This is the World of the Dead, implying nothing ells but ap estate opposit to our Visible estate in this world. Thus may hades be fuly taken, since I have largely proved before how Hades & Thanato • Death are in effect all one: and may both be applied even to just men's Souls deceased, but hades more easily & naturally. Last of all we may take hades here by a Prosopopoea conceiving it to be [ 2] (as it were) some Person of irresistible power taking away & withholding from hence all men's Souls departed. Howbeit this power was controlled and loosed by God in Christ's Resurrection. And then we may construe it thus: eis ten chóran, topon, or oikian Hadou, in the place, region, or habitation of this mighty power. Or eis to kratos, exousian, dynamin, or epikratian tou Hadou, to the strength, power, or dominion of this Destroyer of life. Thus howsoever we take it, (though this last way is not the vnlikelyest) Hades here signifieth in effect nothing else but Death, & that Christ's Soul (departed this life) was held therein, but could not be holden fast. You object, c We must not make a Figurative sense but where manefest need is. Here is no need of a figurative sense. Therefore here ought to be no Figure supposed. I answer, First we grant your Conclusion: whether of the 2. former ways soever that we take hades, so there is simply no Figure at all therein. Sec: Then your own sense of Hell in this place is clean overthrown by yourself. For whensoever hades and sheol do signify Hell, it is indeed by a Figure: namely Synekdoche, where the Whole is set for a part, Which I have proved at large before: & particularly by d Tremellius a sufficient man for his Hebrew skill. Wherefore by this reason Hell cannot possibly be meant here, if no Figure be admitted. Third: it seemeth convenient and also likely to take hades here by a Prosopopoea, after our 3. sense before noted. Which kind of Figure supposeth (as it were) a Person of that thing which otherwise a word properly signifieth. So that by this figure nothing of the words native signification is diminished. Thus our word hades is used in the Corinthians, O Hades where is thy victory? Also as it may seem in the " Revelation Death & Hades were cast into Hell. Thus then it is nothing but emphatically signifying the power of Death. Fourth: Admit that hades and sheol did properly signify Hell, as (we see) they do not. Likewise that sometime they signify only the Grave, which also you acknowledge: & it is true, when it is applied to a dead Body. Again admit that nephesh by a Figure may signify the whole Person, yea e the dead Body sometimes. Then I affirm, that here in this place of necessity there ought to be understood a Figurative sense. Here is plainly most necessary cause. For take them thus literally (as you do) and they impugn the grounds of faith and charity. Which you grant (& that rightly) is sufficient to cause a Figurative sense in Scripture. But how do they impugn faith or charity, being taken as you take them? Verily thus; Your sense implieth by the way and consequently, that a good and sinles man (yea the best that ever was) worthy of Paradise and the highest Heavens, yet after death did go to Hell. And further, that being in Heaven, yet he stayed not there (as you say) but immediately came out again to go into Hell. Again, that a Human soul being in the depth of Hell, yet should feel no pains: and that being locally in hell it should come out thence also. What can be more against the general rules of the Scripture then these things? Yea how doth this impugn our general charity towards all the just when they dy? Besides many other disproportions and unreasonable inconveniences following withal, as anon we shall further see. Wherefore if by any meames possibly a Figure may be here admitted, certainly it must be so: for these most necessary causes last rehearsed. The rather seeing no other text anywhere insinuateth any such peculiar matter in Christ, that he should differ in these points from all good men else, as you do urge.

But you say, the circumstances here do prove that the word must be Hell properly taken. That I would fain see. What are these circumstances. First, this place showeth a special prerogative verified in none but in Christ. I deny it: here is no such prerogative mentioned. Except this, that whereas some other men after death have returned to life again, it was not by their own power, as Christ's Resurrectiō was. Again God in his revealed will having signified by his Prophet long before that he should be restored speedily to life again: thus it was simply impossible that Christ should be holden fast by the power of Death, although it had got hold of him. And so indeed he had a prerogative before all men ells, which also is here shown us: but no other prerogative in the world neither here, nor anywhere else cā be gathered touching his return from Hell. You add, No flesh (dead) was ever free from corruption but only Christ's. What then? Ergo his Soul was in Hell? Or ells, why bring you such needles and impertinent matter. Besides, I judge that not to be true. Were not some being dead raised to life again before their flesh putrefied? But non • (you say) in the sepulcher. And what then? How will this infer or prove, that so none but Christ's Soul was ever supported in Hel, or that it was ever there. These are simple reasons for so great a conclusion. Then you say, If by Hell we understand Paradise it was no privilege to be there not forsaken, but rather a childish absurdity to think any Soul might be there forsaken. It is a strange absurdity still to abuse your reader calling this word Hel, which indeed is nothing but Death in effect, the Power of death, or the condition and state of death. Again to presume that we take it for Paradise or Heaven, or Hell at any time: when we refer it always to the general state of the Dead, and no further immediately. Now in this Christ had cause to rejoice that neither his Soul nor Body was left: but so soon raised up to perfect life again, and so sitted to a full receiving of glory, which within few days after he had. Also besides this cause (his deliverance from the condition of death) he had another inestimable cause to rejoice that he was raised to life again, namely that he might fulfill his whole work for our Salvation, which before his Resurrection, Ascension, &c: he could not accomplish. Further b you object, that Peter maketh mention that the sorrows of death were broken, that they should not hold Christ nor hinder him from rising again. But there were none such in the Grave, none in Paradise. Therefore in Hel Christ's Soul was, whence he was delivered when he rose again. I deny utterly this sequel. Because the text saith not that there were any present sorrows in Hades where Christ was. Here is not a word to any such purpose. What saith the text, " God raised him up, loosing the sorrows of Death, because it was impossible for him to be, holden fast of it. Will you conclude frō hence: Ergo there were present sorrows in that place where Christ was? There is no strength in this reason. The Apostle signifieth here 2. or 3. things.

• 1. That God loosed Death frō him; wherein he was held, but could not be holden fast.
• 2. That this Death had been a most sorrowful & painful Death: which indeed he tasted to the full vpō the Cross. As this Hebraism, the sorrows of Death (for a sorrowful Death ) may emphatically signify.

Also he may set these 2. the sorrows of Death thus together, as the Cause and the Effect: signifying that by the violence of sorrows and bitter pains which he suffered Death came unto him & took hold of him: but it could not hold him fast, because God himself loosed and dissolved it. Thus then it cannot follow by the text, that there were sorrows now in hades where Christ was. Further the very text implieth that Christ was holden in this which was loosed from him: I say, he was holden but not holden fast. Now he was not holden in sorrows, for then he could not but have felt them after death: which you will not affirm. It was therefore Death (w ^ch came by sorrows) whereof he was hold̄, but not held fast. Again it appeareth that Christ was in that which was loosed and rid from him: Thou wilt not leave my soul in hades. I say, he was now in the same wherein he was not left nor forsaken. But he was in no sorrows at all now, for then I think he should have felt them: he was in death and in the power thereof. Therefore it was Death and the power thereof, which was loosed at Christ's resurrection: not any present sorrows and pains. Neither is it the nature of Sorrowes to hold and hinder frō Resurrectiō: but it is the strength of Death which doth that. Thus your collection out of Austin is against the true and plain meaning of the text, where you say that the sorrows of death (or hell) were brokē before Christ, & so he was never in thē, but as the snares of hunters are broken ne teneant non quia tenuerunt before they took hold, not after they had taken hold. This is merely imagined: the text plainly meaneth another loosing and dissolving, namely of the power of Death (as I said) under the which Christ's manhood (even the Body also, as well as the Soul) was now for a while held, but not victoriously holden fast, when God's will was that he should rise again. Yet you mightily urge, how that it is Austin's collection from this text. I perceive your argument is from Austin, and not from Peter, as you pretend. When you cite Scripture it is enough belike, if any learned man do collect and frame an opinion from the text, whether right or wrong. You may easily see by that before, that this collection of Austin hath no ground nor reason in the text, but is indeed disproved by it. Which may the sooner be conceived, if we note how he missed in his Translation of these words. Thus he readeth- solutis doloribus inferni, quia impossible erat teneri eum in illis: whom God raised up loosing the sorrows of hell, because it was impossible that he should be held in them. But the text hath, Loosing the sorrows of death, seeing it was impossible that he should be g holden fast or strongly holden h of it. Thus it seemeth Austin looked not to the original, which he ought to have don: specially now inquiring into and sifting out an obscure point of Christian faith, as it appeareth that here Austin doth. In no wise ought he to have leaned to a faulty Translation, as this is which he followeth. Seeing therefore he failed in expressing the text, no marvel if his Collection frō it were wide. Wherein also he is nowhere resolut nor persuaded indeed: therefore a weak stay is he alone, for our faith to rest on in this article. Nay in the winding up of that Epistle his godly modesty is registered for example to you and all Christian Ministers. He gives us good leave to refuse his collection and opinion here, so that we bring better reason. Thus he saith, Hec expositio verborum Petri cui displicet, &c. Now whether we bring reason to dissent from Austin herein or no, I refer it (not to you to judge, who are to partial, but) to every indifferent learned reader. The rather for that mo Circumstances of this text do make also affirmatively for us. First, a Peter plainly granteth all this matter of David as well as of Christ: except this, that David was left therein even till this day, as Christ was not. But David was never in Hel. Therefore neither Christ was ever there, whose figure David was. Sec: If it be altogether here from the purpose of Peter to speak to the ignorant and unbelieving Jews of Christ's Souls being in hell, then there is no reason to take these words hades and sheol here for hell. But by the whole b Text it is evident, Peter had no reason nor purpose to speak to the Jews of Christ's Souls being in hell. Therefore I see not how hades & sheol (if they but might signify otherwise) can here signify hell. His whole and direct purpose was to show them of Christ's Souls departure out of this world, and of his Body lying dead in the grave, as is the manner of other men when they dy, and that he was from thence mightily c raised up again to life, more then other men were, or can be. Here to speak to them of his Souls being in hell, what were there in it?

• 1. They being (as I said) ignorant, unbelieving, and stubborn.
• 2. The thing being invisible strange and uncouth, not subject to sense, and without all example of the like in the whole Law, & namely no Figure foreshaddowing any such matter to be fulfilled in him.
• 3. He intending only in all this speech to show them that this Jesus whom they had slain was not now dead but risen again, why should he speak here of hell? Christ's being there made nothing the more to show his Resurrection, which was the only scope of his speech.

But being so disproportioned with then former faith and understanding, it would rather hinder then further them to the Christian faith. Both these Circumstāces I noted before, but I see no answer to them. Wherefore I hope, they with the rest of my assertions herein are firm and good.

Thus it appeareth that hades doth not everywhere signify Hell in the New Testament. We have seen that it hath no such meaning in the Acts, which yet is the only Scripture whereon you build. Alas, how little a show serveth your turn, when affection leadeth you. This were sufficient to end this Argument: but yet it shall be good also to try whether anywhere else Hades properly signifieth Hell. Verily it doth so signify nowhere at all in the Scripture. Yet I grant it is & ought to be translated Hel in 2. places. Not that the word itself doth necessarily signify Hel, but because the circumstances here do require that meaning, as the fittest & best for these particular purposes. In the 1. Christ promiseth that y ^e Gates of Hades shall not prevail against his Church. He meaneth no destruction nor desolation shall root it out, nor take it away from the world utterly. Now seeing of the Churches Destroyers Hell is the chiefest, and the malice and tage of Satan is the most violent adversary: that the Church (being assured against the worst enemy) may be confirmed and comforted against all other whatsoever, therefore kat' exochen Hades here signifieth Hell, & for special emphasis we are to name it Hell. Which particular is here intended thus indeed, being always contained otherwise in the compass of this general word Hades. So that albeit the gates of Hades in their own simple nature & common use are the same as the gates of Sheol or maveth, (which are no more but the gates of Death ) as before I have showed, and as others call it, periphrasis moriendi, a phrase or speech signifiing Death: yet I say the circumstances here in Matthew do require a greater emphasis in it. Even that Hell should be chiefly and particularly noted as to weak against God's Church; that so we should much less fear all other evils. Likewise in Luke, I grant Hades is to be translated Hell: yet only because of the circumstances there. Seeing the wicked miser being now in the state of Death, was in torments: now where could this be indeed but in Hel? So that here also for better emphasis sake it is best to name it Hell, but not for the nature of the word Hades. W ^ch the worthy M. Bucer noteth well, saying, Dives non simpliciter scribitur esse in Hade, sed & in Gehenna: quia in tormentis & stammis. The Rich man is not said to be simply in Hades, but also in Hell: because he is said to be in firy torments. Thus I grant in 2. places Hell is intended by Hades in the Scripture. But what then? Will you conclude from this, as you do about Abyssus? In the Revelation, and Luke d Abyssus is used to signify Hell. Therefore it signifieth hell in the * Romans: or therefore everywhere properly it signifieth hell. " Death sometime is the 2. Death. Ergo it is so, Act. 2.24. If you will argue so about hades also from those 2. places before named, I can easily deny your argument in all. The untruth whereof hath appeared before in that principal place of the Acts: and likewise shall appear in all the rest following by God's help. Next let us a consider, b And thou Capernaum, which art lift up to the Heaven, shalt be brought down to Hades, to Destruction. I say Hades here is not hell, but the Destruction of Capernaum the City. Christ threateneth 1. this proud and lofty City it self: also the inhabitants thereof for despising his Gospel. The City it self with destruction and razing out from the face of the earth, which is it that he meaneth by Hades. The inhabitants the wicked people thereof he threateneth with c Damnation in hell. For the 1 ^st . I understand that so Hades sometime may be referred to the Destruction even of unreasonable things, as well as of reasonable men. For it seemeth the generality of the word Hades is such that it signifieth No visible being here anymore, or Destruction from this world (as the proper Etymology thereof admitteth) to any visible Creature perishing frō hence. Though it be certain, it is not so often applied to other things: but it belongeth most commonly & usually indeed to Men only. Notwithstanding to other things we may find it applied: as where Plato (which d you stumble at) saith in Hades were Birds, Beasts, Trees, Flowers, Fruits, &c. I deny not but they had fabulous and toyish conceits about these things being in Hades: but wise men may see how their meaning was, these visible creatures being once brought to Destruction & to have no being anymore here, that then they yielded hades unto them also, like as they did unto mē departed hence. This may be the meaning also of Plut. where d he maketh Hades to have the whole contrary part to the Sun (whō they called also Apollo, & Delius, and Pythius ) because all Creatures under the Sun (as we use to speak) when they perish hence and have no more being in this world, come to Hades. And thus it seemeth Moses also useth Sheol, when he saith, men, women, children, and cattle alive, yea houses and riches went to Sheol. Therefore here Moses certainly meaneth not Hell, as you think: but he signifieth 2. things.

• 1. That all these things were taken utterly away out of this world by an vnrecoverable Destruction: which is the most general and large sense of Sheol.
• 2. That they descended down into a vast and deep Gulf in the earth: which also Sheol doth very often signify in the Scripture, like to Abyssus in Greek. After which manner also those Sheep in Sheol (which you turn to the worst) may be understood.

Thus I say Sheol may show the utter taking away (not of men only, but) of other things also when they have no being in this world anymore. Which Abacuk also meaneth in saying, neither Sheol nor Death can be satisfied, if he make any difference in these. Also in the very like place of the Proverbs, Sheol seemeth to be most rightly understood in the most large signification. To which sense likewise, I take it that phrase in Daniel, en lo, may be compared, though here it be used of Messiah: • tikkare Messiah, ve ên lo, Messiah shall be cut of and shall have No being. He meaneth, Not anymore as he was before in this world: which in effect is nothing else then that which Sheol signifieth. Yet we must come nearer. You allege 2. frivolous proofs of Sheols signifying Hell: viz: when it hath Opposition to Heaven, and Situation as the lowest. For the Situation of Hell, it is a secret which God's word hath not revealed at all. Neither ought we to determine, as you very rasly do, If Hel be anywhere, there can be no doubt but it must be in the lower parts of the earth. You know the Apostle mentioneth the Air, and that on high, as being the place of Devils. Notwithstanding far be it from me to affirm that hell certainly is not beneath. Yet your pretended scriptures are merely forced to prove it. As in the chief I have shown already. In the rest it will appear likewise anon. Howbeit, wheresoever Hel indeed is, though we do grant in it to be locally in the earth beneath us; yet every Opposition between Shammajim the Heavens or Skyes, and Sheol doth not signify the opposition between Heaven and Hel. This you shall never be able to prove: Shammajim thus placed signifieth the Skyes, not the very place of Heavenly glory in the presence of God, which in English we call Heaven. And Sheol thus placed signifieth not Hell, the place of torments: but it is taken thus 2. ways. Somtime for † a vast and deep Gulf only or pit in the earth, the bottom whereof we know not. So do a many of your places mean, which you draw and wrest to signify Hell. Somtime for Ruin and Destruction or Abolishing of any visible Creatures from hence: which seemeth to be the largest & most proper sense of Sheol. So doth it in Jsay signify, where Sheol is threatened to the King of Babel, b Though thou be lifted up to the Skyes, yet shalt thou be brought down to Sheol, that is (in this place) to an inglorious Destruction and No being in this word: and (thy carcase) unto the sides of the pit, that is the Grave. This the contrariety here showeth, Thoug • thou be lifted up to the Skyes. He meaneth not here, into the glory of the Saints of God in Heaven: but lifted up in great pomp and worldly glory, as the Latin phrase meaneth also when they say ad sydera tolli. Now saith the Prophet to this King of Babel: Though at this time it be thus with thee, yet surely thou shalt be brought down to the contrary point, to an inglorious Destruction, and a wiping out from the Earth. Which sense of Isaiah is also very well confirmed by the like matter in Jeremiah. c Though Babel should mount up to the Heavens, and though she should defend her strength on high: yet from me shall her Destroyers come, saith the Lord. A sound of a cry cometh from Babel, and of great Destruction from the Chaldeans, &c. Where that which Isaiah called Sheol, Jeremiah speaking of the very same matter nameth Destruction, utter laying wast, and overthrowing of that City and State. And so to come to our purpose, d this is the very same phrase here in Matthew touching Capernaum: Thou Capernaum which art lift up to the Heaven shalt be brought down to Hades: that is, to Destruction, & to an inglorious Not being anymore in the world as before time it had ben. Which also is confirmed by that which he addeth presently of Sodom, that if they had had the means of repentance as Capernaum had, Sodom might have remained a City to this day. Inferring by this that Capernaum for their greater contempt of God and his word, deserved more then Sodom to be destroyed & to become no City. Hitherto this is the first judgment threatened to the state of the City; Hades Destruction, or an utter razing out from the earth. The 2. judgment here threatened followeth in the next verse, Moveover I say unto you that it shall be easier for them of the land of Sodom in the day of judgment then for these. Here indeed is Hell threatened to them of Capernaum: yet as touching that before, there was nothing else but the overthrow and destruction of their City signified by that word Hades, applied to the City, as is before declared. And contrary to this you have not any piece of reason in all that you say here about. The world of Souls (which you play withal) Hades may and doeth signify: but yet then only when it is referred to deceased Souls, & not otherwise. Next, let us view the Corinthes O Death where is thy victory? O Hades, O Destruction, or, O Power of Death where is thy sting? Here it is referred to the destruction of the whole and entire Persons of men taken away by death out of this world: who in the end by this conquest and triumph over Death & the power thereof (at the last day) shall be restored to life again in a true and perfect Resurrection and restitution. This is the whole scope and drift of the Apostle here: and you grant it. But you infer, that therefore it is meant of Hel. Of Hell, which way? Because since by sin Hell gat possession of both partes of man as well of his body as of his Soul, the full deliverance and conquest over Hell, is not but in the Resurrection. This is very untrue. Our full deliverance from Hell and from Satan is obtained in this life: as it is written, We being delivered from our enemies and from the hands of all that hate us, must serve him without fear all the days of our life in bolines and righteousness before him. That is, we being here truly justified by his grace, are fully freed and delivered from all the power of our enemies. Satan is conquered, spoiled, bound, and cast out from us. So that your speech is very bad and scandalous, where you say, The bodies of the Saints lying in their graves are in the Devils walk. For then the Graves where bodies lie senseless, are a part of Hell, properly taken. At least the Deaths of the Reprobat and of the Children of God, ( touching the state of their bodies) till the resurrection, are all one: And men truly justified are justified but in their Souls, Sin remaining still charged on their Bodies, and therefore in their bodies they remain subject to the power of Hell, and to the curse of the Law, and to the claim of Satan, till the day of our Resurrection at the last judgment. And thus the godly must pay " a part of their own redemption and satisfaction for sin. And then Christ was not our only and absolute Redeemor. If this be good doctrine, let the godly judge. Your self overthroweth this enough, saying, f He changed the curse of death and made it now a rest from all labors. So that I hope the Bodies of the dead Saints are not in the * Devils walk: much less are they g in the possession of Hell, in the handfast of Hell. Further you say upon the text: h Through death Christ destroyed him that had the power of death, that is the Devil. Whereby i it is evident, that Hell is spoiled of all right and claim to the members of Christ, he brake, &c. I hope in this life the godly are the members of Christ: then in this life they are fully freed from Hell forever. Wherefore it is very untrue that Hell properly taken, hath any possession of the just, and handfast or power on them, or that Hell is not fully subdued for them until the Resurrection. I grant that the common death here is called an enemy: but he meaneth not such an Enemy as Hell is, especially as this is spoken touching the godly. Yet it is an Enemy even to them, not as any Curse at all, but as a Memoriall & consequent of the old Curse (like as a scarie is where was a deadly wound) also as a peaceable and quiet stop or stay unto them, that their whole persons cannot yet enjoy their appointed felicity. Howbeit for all this toward them it hath not the least affinity with Hell at all. Therefore Hades here in no sort signifieth Hell, but only Death, or the power of Death, or the world and kingdom of Death, or something to that effect only. Yea the very text seemeth thus to expound it self, saying, Where is thy sting, O Hades? The sting of Death is sin. Where the later seemeth a very direct answer and exposition of the former words. Thus, The sting of Death (or Hades ) is sin: noting these 2. words (Hades and Death) as Synonimaes for one thing, being applied to men. Or if you will have them to differ, He may take Hades for the Power & strength of Death (which the brain-sick Idolaters made a God) or the Dominion and Kingdom of Death. These respects Hades might well have with the Apostle, which differ from Thanatos Death, the mere separation of the Soul from the Body: which yet in effect are all one, and have no difference touching our purpose. Like as we saw before howe all Authors have used them. Further, The Grave of the Wicked is not to be n • med nor reckoned Hell properly, nor any part thereof. In Hell there wanteth not sense of pain. If you say, it is an entrance to hell, and that which holdeth and reserveth the wicked unto hell. Yet then it is not Hell: for even thus the Grave and Hell do greatly differ. Finally, Hades is adversary to the Resurrection. But Hell would not be adversary to the Resurrection. Therefore Hades here is not hell, no not to the wicked. Death in deed and the Dominion of Death is an adversary to the Resurrection, and at that day it shall be vanquished and utterly abolished, when all flesh shall live again. As for Hell that shall increase thē and be advanced, when all the wicked both bodies and Souls shall be subdued under it forever. Therefore Hades here is not hell, but the power of Death, as hath been said, or the Dominion of Death or merely to that effect. Also we are to note, that the Apostle here plainly alludeth to that of Hosea: O Sheol, o kingdom of death, or power of 'Death, I will be thy destruction. Not, o Hell. For the Prophet speaketh this to comfort Israel in their captivity against their continual Destructions and razings out from this world, showing that now the Lord would stay his judgment that way, & Death (which had consumed them) should now destroy them no more, but they should live and flourish again. This the Apostle might notably allude unto, speaking of the Resurrectiō. As for Hell if the Prophet had meant it (as he doeth not) the Apostle could make no allusion to it, nor have anything to deal which it in this matter of the Resurrectiō simply. So that where you say, what reason is there to exclude out of these words Christ's victory over Hell, it is very weak. What reason is there to include it, where the Apostle speaketh only of our resurrection from bodily Death, and of nothing else. Next we come to the Revelatiō: First, I have the Keys of Hades (that is of Destruction, or of the kingdom of death and of Death. Or, we may take them as 2. words for one and the same thing: that is, both of them for Death. For here Christ showeth only, that as He was dead, so now he hath overcome Death. & hath power to dy no more: as I hau • heretofore noted. What show of reason have you then, to bring in here Christ's power over the Damned Souls in Hell? Because there is mention • lswhere of the Key of hell: Therefore the Key of h • des here is the same. What color of reasō is there in this? Again a One sitteth on a pale horse whose name was Death, & Hades Des ••• on the world of the Dead, or the Kingdom of Death followed a • ter •• m. Th •• in no wise can be Hel: because the text addeth, Power 〈…〉 them to slay with the sword and with samine, and death, and with wild beasts. Hell slayeth none in that sort, these are not the weapons of Hell: but of the Dominion and Power of Death th • se and such other mo, are the proper weapons. b You take it to b • the power of the Devil, because the Devil slayeth some • times the bodies of men. Which you prove by the bodily slaying and siniting of Job and his children. This indeed is the thing which we hold. This is not the Torments of Hell in the place of Damned: these be only bodily harms and death. So that hereby you confirm our purpose: for we deny not but God sometime useth Satan to punish and to slay the bodies of men. But seeing this is nothing but Death, not Hell which then is inflicted: therefore it is b • st to take Hades here most generally as the nature of it is, for the Power of Death, or the world of the Dead. Hell by no means it can be. You tell me in c one place, that my best skill is in varying phrases. It is better to vary phrases then to vary opinions, as you very often do. I vary phrases to express Hades, which in Authors is not always the same thing: or at least not after the same manner. Whose general largeness which it properly hath, cannot in one word be expressed in English. Wherefore my varying of ph • ases to this purpose (I hope) is pardonable, since indeed it is necessary. That conjecture of mine of the 4 ^th part of the worlds not going to Hell at once, I never esteemed it worth the standing on. I he last place is, † Death and Hades (that is the Dominiō, or power of Death) were cast into Hell. I said, it was absurd to say Hell was cast into Hell: You answer, it is more absurd to say the world of Souls was cast into Hell. Where you do but dally and play with words. For I use not that term * the world of souls, though it may be named sometime, in a good sense. Which you will by no means conceive: only you delight much to sport your s • lfe with it. Our answer thē is this; There is no absurdity to say, that at the last (day when the * last enemy shall be destroyed) then Death, and the power of Death, or the Kingdom and Dominion of Death shall be cast into Hel: that is eternally d • st • oy • d & ab •• ished, & shall r • turn to the Devil wh ••• they came. To say many so • t that thē Hell phalbe cast into Hell, soūdeath sense • les in my • at • s. Although you mean the Contayning to b • put for the Contayned, H • ll for the Devils of Hel: and that the Devils shalb • thē cast into h • l fire. Yea although one Andreas & • eda understand it so likewise. For neither you nor they (it ••• meth) do cosid • r, that this place assigneth them to Hell then at the last day, who yet are not in Hell, but shall be then cast into Hell • nd destroyed. But the Devils are in Hell already, & reserved in e •• rlasting ch • mes of darkness. Therefore the Devils cannot be vnd •• stood here by Had • s, that they shall be then cast into Hel, seeing • hey are already cast in to Hell forever. Death, and the Power thereof being the last enemy that shall be d • stroyed, is not yet, but shall be indeed at the last day aboli • hed & swallowed up of Hell. Lastly • eere is shown the most general & universal rendering up of all the • ead whatsoever to judgment. But Hel plainly hath not all the Dead▪ Death, & the world of the Dead, or th • Dominion of Death have all. Therefore D • ath & Hades here do not signify properly the Div • ll & Hell: but this only, that Death, and the universal Dominion or power of Death yielded up to judgment all the Dead, both great & small both good and bad to be judged according to their works.

Thus it is evident and clear that Hades nowhere in the • ew Testament doth signify properly Hel, as you say it doth. Thus also that is concluded fully and perfectly which my 2. Reason before affirmed: that you have not one place at all in the Scripture to prove that Christ's Soul was in Hell. One place only you have stood upon, that Christ's Soul was in Hades: but that helpeth you nothing at all, as we have seen. You must prove indeed that Chri • ts Soul was in Gehenna, if you would persuade any man of knowledge, which you shall never do. Gehenna in the New Testament is properly Hell: but Hades is never properly so taken, as I hope it is sufficiently before proved. Therefore the Conclu • ion is good, To think that Christ's Soul was ever in Hell, is a thing that ought to be v • terly denied.

Yet, here we must consider a main objection of yours: • ven those words of our common Creed, which usually in English w • utter thus; He descended into Hell: originally 〈◊〉 is, He descended into Hades. And in truth this is all that you have to all • age for your opinion. But I answer 2. ways. First, Admitting, then Denying the authority of th • se words in our Comon Cre • d. 1. Admitting [ 1] the authority of these words, (& yet, Not as sufficient, not as Apos •• h • all, but such, as may be f • ō godly and sound Christians) w • affirm that we can well understand them according to the Scriptures use of Hades rightly: viz: that Christ's whole human Person came under the power and Dominion of Death, or that he d • caying in this world & * falling down from that state of life wherein a while he flourished, went absol • tly from hence into the world of the Dead, according to the law of nature which all other men follow likewise when they d • . How this sense doth fully agree also with the minds of the ancient Fathers generally, we have at large d • clared c before. But this serveth not your turn: & therefore you will needs enjoin us d 3. Rules to be exactly and pr • c • s • lie kept in the expounding of these words: namely 1. Distinction of matter. 2. Consequence of order. 3. Propriety of words. You must know that we can be no more strict, nor more religious in observing the Ci • cūstances of matter & order even in the holy Scriptures themselves, then you enjoin here to be observed in these words of men. Might not these godly men (think you) miss in some such Circumstance or light point, although the Scripture cannot? Or if they might, why impose you such strictness on our consciences about men's words, as if here were no possibility of any the least missing, or imperfection. Howbeit we admit your 3. Rules also, and will observe them sufficiently. First these words [ 1] He descended to Hades may very well express a Distinction of matter differing from all the words here besides. They naturally and properly signify (as before we shown) that Christ came to utter decay in this world, and being taken hence was gathered in both partes (of his Manhood dissolved) wholly & entirely to those who were departed before him into another world. Or ells thus, that he came under the full power & Dominion of Death. Now either of these differeth verily from mere and simple Death. For to Dy prope • lie is nothing else but the going a sunder of the Soul from the Body. That other is to be wholly razed out from the presence and sight of this world, also a remaining under the possession and strength of Death, and a going to the society of them in another world. These indeed are f differing points and degrees in Death: albeit in effect generally they be all one with Death, that is they be necessa • ily consequent, & always conjoined unto Death. Again if those words in the Creed were only but a more emphatical phrase of through and perfect Dying and Departing hence, if there were in them no further Distinctiō of matter then so, yet this were enough to distinguish them frō the other words, Dead and Buryed. This is cause enough (especially in the Ancient times, when men suppose this Creed was framed, & when Christ's Humanity and natural Death was by all means subtly and violently oppugned after a short word signifying his Death and Burial, yet for more emphasis sake, and for further Viging the same, to add • this other short familiar phrase importing (no other main matter then was before noted, but only) a more effectual and more absolute signification thereof. Which in truth these our words in question do well perform, He came under the Dominion of Death, or Went to the society of the Dead, following presently after these words Dead & Buried. And thus your 2. Rule [ 2] alse, Consequence of order is rightly kept. For even in respect of time it is certain, that Christ's whole person perishing frō hence was wholly joined to the Dead, after the precise separation of his Soul and body, which was his Death. And his Burial being the visible part thereof, in good reason may be set before that which signifieth the whole containing also his Souls invisible going unto the Dead. Lastly, if there be no more in this but a stronger emphasis merely, & a more full-signifying phrase, it might well come after terms of less emphasis. Your 3. [ 3] and last Rule, Proprietie of Words is plainly for us, and against yourself. For that which we strive for, is the native and proper sense of Hades, even according to the etymology of it, and according to common use. You, if you urge it to signify Hel, do indeed make a Figure in it, viz. Synecdoche, a part for the whole, as before we have shown. As for the other word here in the Creed katebe or katelthe, He descended, or came under, it is not necessary to take it always to signify a local going down, specially thus joined with Hades. For thus it may aptly & lively show the fall or whole casting down of a man's person from the state of life, to death and utter destruction out of this world: as also men are said to stand up and spring up when they live. Or it may serve to express the Force and Dominion of Death which Christ came under when he died. Or the abasement and humiliation of Christ yielding & submitting him self so far, that is not only to Dy, but also to come under the strength and force of death by lying held, & subdued (as it were) for so long time in it. All this the very property of the word katebe admitteth very easily: and Ruffinus liketh it where he interpreteth this phrase " Descendit in mortem, He descended unto Death. If any think this to be somewhat figurative, yet it is verily so familiar and easy to all people as that other word in this Creed is, He sitteth at the right hand of God: yea it is farie easier indeed. And herein all the later famous, learned and godly Restorers of Religion in a manner do join with us, as Mat. Bucer, P. Martyr, Bulinger, Olevia, &c. Yea M. Calvin "liked this also well enough: though yet he seemeth to lean more to another sense (viz. Christ's Hellish sufferings ) which indeed is a true doctrine, as before is declared, though to this place of the Creed (I think) not so fit. Now these men your L. ought not to scorn nor reproach, though you have leave to deal so with me. Their piety, learning, and authority is such with all that love the Gospel, as will overwaigh your big words and high looks, and whatsoever else you are lifted up withal above our mediocrity. Hitherto we have answered, admitting the authority of these words He descended to Hades.

But we are in truth to know, that (as you cite them and vige them) they have no such authority & credit, as hitherto we have yielded unto them. And that for 3. causes. First, for that your Trāslating and terming them, He descended into Hel, is corrupt, partial, and untrue. Which I trust is manifest by that which I have shown before touching the true property & natural use of Hades. If you say among us all men do so speak here and translate hades Hel. I pray you consider that this article (as also I think this whole Creed) was at first written in Greek, and not in English. Wherefore the English term (how common so ever) must not prejudice us, nor the truth in this matter, as very unreasonably a you endeavor to make it to do. Convince us evidently and soundly by Greek authority, that Hades is always Hell, or that Hades is never applied to the condition and state of the godly deceased and then I will yield: or else my sufficient proofs before to the contrary will convince the untrue and partial translation. Another reason to deny utterly the authority and credit of these words (He descended to hades,) & so to hold them unable to make any argument as from our Creed, is because this special clause of Christ's descending to Hades or to Infernum is new, and lately put into our vulgar Creed called the Apostles Creed. Ruffinus witnesseth (who lived about 500. years after Christ) that it was not at all in the Creed in his time. I say not at all • neither in the Roman Creed, nor yet in the Creed of the Eastern Churches. His words are these, Sciendum sane est quod in Ecclesiae Romanae symbolo non habetur additum, Deseendit ad inferna: sed nee in Orientis Ecclesiis habetur hic sermo. Will you say, Ruffinus lieth? Or can you bring to the contrary any proof? I think not: yea I am sure you cannot. Then if there were no such Article as this, nor any such words anywhere in the Creed for the space of 500. years after Christ, I marvel what authority they have now to be taken necessarily for a distinct article in our Creed, and as differing materially from Dead and Buried. Sure, it is to new to be received for doctrine, which sprang up so late. Yea, thus Erasmus may seem to have some color for his conjecture, that about Thomas Aquinas time they might (peradventure) be put into this Creed. Third: we cannot see, but that whensoever whosoever put it first into this place, they signified hereby it seemeth, that Christ went to Limbus, a place under the earth, where they imagined the blessed Patriarchs rested. For this was indeed the opinion generally of the ancient Christians even for a long time, and still is retained among the Papists, though now grown much worse thē it was of old. But this you justly condemn as an error as well as we, how general and how ancient soever it be. Now also though this were the 1 ^st meaning of this Article, whensoever it fi • fte took place in the common Creed, yet this was not Hell: this giveth no furtherance to your assertion, that Christ went into the place of the Damned in torments. But Thaddaeus, Jgnatius, Athanasius, have these very words. Yet they say not anywhere that they were in that set form of the Apostles Creed which we now have. Also they are clean against your opinion here, as presently we shall see. You will say, yet even Ruffinus in his exposition of the Creed allegeth this article, and he alloweth the doctrine thereof. I answer, He allegeth truly these words Descendit ad inferna, but not out of any example of the Apostles Creed: yea he expressly denieth it to be therein anywhere at that time, as before we shown. Only it being his own and the common opinion then, he groundeth it upon other reasons (namely certain mis • aken scriptures) yet such as he was content to like of, and so holdeth indeed that Christ went down to Infernum, that is to Limbus Patrum, as an opinion then common among men, and worthy (as he thought) to be believed, and to be applied to this place of the Creed touching the Death of Christ, although as yet no such matter was contained in the common Creed. Erasmus saith, The Fathers would not be so rash as to put it into the articles of their Creed, seeing their opinions heereabout were so varying and doubtful. Now this you know was all mistaken, wrongfully gathered from the Scriptures, as badly applied to the Creed, & nothing else indeed but the common error of those times. Yet then hitherto all this is far from justifying your opinion, ner •• er may you allege the Creed for your warrant. Where note also that Ruffinus here understandeth the very matter itself (precisely signified by these words Descendit ad inferna ) to be immediately but this, that He died like other good men, and was buried. For he saith, Vis verb •• adem videtur esse in eo quod Sepultus dicitur: The effect of this phrase He descended to Infernum, seemeth to be all one and the same with this, He was Buried. And afterward going ab • ut to prove by the Scripture that Christ descended to Jnfernū, he showeth that he meaneth his death hereby and his burial: Quod in infernum descendit evidenter praenūtiatur in Psalms, vbi dicit: Et in pulverem mortis deduxisti me. Et iterum, Quae vt • litas in sanguine meo dum descendo in Corruptionem. And before upon those words: He was Crucified under Pon. Pilate, and descended to infernum h • giveth this sense among other words, Divina natura in mortem per carnem descendit. The Divine nature humbled it self evē unto Death in respect of the flesh. Howsoever then he thinketh consequently that Christ descending to infernū did after Death go to a place beneath unto the godly Souls departed before, & then set them free from thence and carried them with him, yet it appeareth that immediately by this phrase and properly he meant no more, but that he Dyed and was Bu • ied: all the rest was consequent as an effect after this, according as he and most others of the Ancients did think. Lastly here we see that Ruffinus extendeth this his Descending to the Divine nature: but he meaneth it improperly and in a certain sort, according to that also in the Philippains, He being in the form of God, humbled himself & became obedient unto death. So that properly he meaneth it of the very death of his Manhood, and nothing else. Which is our very mind and judgment, agreeing also generally with the Fathers herein before rehearsed. But Ignatius you think, † is clearly yours: likewise one Thaddaeus, by Eusebius report one of the 70. Disciples which the Evangelist Luke speaks of: also Athanasius Creed. Ignatius saying, Christ descended to Hades alone, but rose again with many, meaneth evidently his Burial and going down into his Grave: as you acknowledge that Hades many times may well signify. Which is the plainer to be his meaning, for as much as he noteth his Buryall here in no other words besides. And sure he alludeth to that in Matthew, The Graves did open, and many bodies of the Saints which slept, arose▪ And came out of the Graves after his Resurrection, and went into the holy City and appeared to many. This is touching the Resurrection of their bodies out of their Graves, not of their Souls ansing up from Hell. Neither in Ignatius is there any show of reason that he meant Hades for Hell. He may mean, I grant, (that which is in effect all one) the restoring of their whole Persons taken away hence by Death, or their coming from under the Dominion and power of Death: which indeed is according to the proper largeness of this word. Also that Christ (katelthe) came under the same. Not that he went locally downward, except in his Burial; but touching his whole manhood that he was humbled and abased even under the Dominion and strength of Death. And thus it is true, that Christ by his Death (including also together his Burial) came down or Descended. But only this you urge and stand upon for your claim to Ignatius, because it is said. He brake down the wall or stop, which was never brokē before. Where you may know that the meaning is this: The power of the Grave, or the strength and force of Death was now by Christ's Death & Resurrection utterly overcome and dissolved, which remained in deed from the beginning of the world (till Christ's death) as a mighty Wall not broken down. But now the virtue of his death and resurrection brake it clean down forever. So that hereby Christ is taught to be (as the Apostle also to like effect speaketh) the first fruits of the Dead. But you say, a Many rose from the dead before Christ, and therefore that partition was often broken by others before him. I answer, Though some being dead did rise to life again before Christ's Resurrection (as touching the time) yet the virtue and power of Christ's resurrectiō was before them, by which only and merely they rose again. Neither yet was Resurrectiō to all the Dead forth with performed by the Resurrection of Christ: nevertheless thoroughly purchased it was evē then, and by the only power and virtue thereof is & shall be performed to all in due time. So that thus Christ alone brake that wall and stop, and absolutely he hath broken it down, which no man before him nor besides him ever brake. The like unto this is your Thaddaeus sentence: also Athanasius in his Creed. Whom the rather thus I understand, (as it seemeth, most reasonably and necessarily) because they express neither his Death, nor his Burial at all in any other words save these, He descended to Hades. Therefore surely this is it, which here they mean by his descending to Hades; and this is all that they mean therein, that he was brought under the dominion of death and was Buryed. Consdering also that * no Ancient Creed in the world hath all these 3. divers and distinct Clauses, He 'Dyed, was Buryed, Descended to Hades: not the very Apostles Creed (as we call it) in Ruffinus time had them, as we have seen. But this last clause which is in question was put in "since that time (to signify Christ's going to Limbus, it seemeth) by whomsoever it was put in, as is before said. b Your seeking to prevent this reason, because the Ancient Creeds want sundry other Articles which now are in our vulgar Creed, is to no purpose. For as much as they all do evermore intend to set down persitly the sum of Christ's accomplished Redemption & Mediation at the least. Not any of those his main works are in thē omitted. Now always in the Creeds where they express his Dying and Burying, there is omitted his going to Hades. Where they express his Going to Hades, there they omit his Dying, or his Burial, or both. Therefore I may well conclude, I think, that no Ancient Creed in the world ever meant to teach that Christ went to Hades, except in such a sense only as was (in their judgment) in effect all one as to Dy, or to go among the Dead, and to be Buried and no more. Thus far of Thaddaeus and Athanasiaes Creeds. Howbeit to speak plainly, your Thaddaeus whom you so highly esteem, is a mere coūterfait. You say, This report of him in Eusebius, by some men is counted fabulous. Nay, whoever since Euseb. (I think) held it for better? Many other like matters are to much allowed by Euseb. in other cases also: notwithstanding his story of the church affairs thē (I grant) is justly received as the best that we have extant. But it is strange that this fable & forgery of Thaddaeus should so please you. It is all forged, or else foully corrupted; for these reasons:

• 1. This writing touching Thaddaeus brought by Eusebius from Edessa, saith, that Judas the Apostle (who sent this Thaddaeus being one of the 70. Disciples) was the same who is called also Thomas the Apostle. But the Scripture it self showeth that Judas and Thomas were 2. divers and several Apostles. Therefore this writing is false.
• 2. Here also we may probably conceive another error; that this Thaddaeus (one of the 70.) seemeth to be mistakē in this Syriā writing for Thaddaeus one of the 12. Apostles.
• 3. Further this counterfeit Thaddaeus was content to receive (and did receive) even from a King him self, and also (as it seemeth) from one of his Nobles, Adoration and worship. Whereas the true servants of Christ Peter & the Angel refused utterly the same in such very manner offered unto them by meaner persons in respect of state. Therefore this Thaddaeus, if he were any, was some false Apostle, and came not by Christ's sending, but led by the spirit of error and seduction: as some were, who went abroad in the name of Disciples and Apostles, in those days.
• 4. Neither do I see how it can possibly be true which this Thaddeus saith, that Christ ascended up to his Father with a great multitude: seeing the Scripture showeth how after 40. days (the time that he conversed with his Apostles) he ascended in all their sightes, alone up into Heaven.

You get nothing therefore by citing these vngainful witnesses for you. Nor yet by citing the Apostolic Creed: seeing you stand only vpō the precise order of the words He Dyed, was Buryed, descended into Hades. Which how weakly they make for you, before we have shown. Whervnto this may be added, that verily it seemeth there was no certain prescript number of Articles in the Creed of old, much less any precise or exact form of words, such as now we have, and which is all your hold. This partly by Ruffinus writing upon it, may be understood: who among the words of the Creed then, rehearseth not divers material words, which our usual form now hath expressly. The Ancients Ignatius, Irenaeus, Justin, Tertullian, Origen, &c. in their Creedes do differ more both for words, and matter also. Yet they all pretend to rehearse the Apostolic Creed, as by Tradition they received it, & as they severally conceived it: at least so far always as concerned Christ's main & distinct works of Redemption wrought for us. Neither overthrow you this, in saying, that b some of thē want a good many of the Articles which are in the Apostles Creed. For (as I said) they want none (neither ought they) concerning Christ's mediation wrought for us. His going to Hell was a main & a distinct part thereof, if he went thither indeed. Wherefore they might not in any wise be defective therein. Again though they want Articles which are now in our form of the Apostles Creed, yet how prove you that they want any of that, which with them was vulgar and common? Last of all, though some of the Ancients do not perhaps rehearse all the Articles of the Apostolic Creed, (as it was then currant by Tradition in the Churches) yet you have no color in the world to think that none of them all should rehearse it wholly and entirely. But in none of them all is this form of the Creed found which we now have, and do observe. Yea by the variety & difference of them all, who still profess that they utter the Apostolic Creed taught them by Tradition, we may see that the Apostles Creed had not any exact nor precise form of words at the beginning (as now we have it used among us) but it contained only (as we may think) certain Heads of Doctrine fundamental, That there is one God, 3. Persons, The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, That the Son Jesus Christ is both God and Man, That as man he was extremely humbled for us even unto Death, and after that exalted unto glory in Heaven, whence in due time he shall come to judgment, &c. This in effect all Creeds do express, but in words they differ greatly, & sometimes some have mo articles then these: yet such they seem to be as were on some special occasion more particularly and expressly noted, being otherwise either some part or else some proper effect & consequent from these. And so it might come to pass that some of the Ancient Creeds differed somwhere in some particular articles from other Creeds, yea all of them in words from each other: and yet in substance and effect they were all one. Seeing then that the Apostles Creed for the precise form of words was not the same in the primitive Churches which we now have: yea that at first it had no exact form of words at all. For it is sure that no man can prove by good testimony that there was any, or indeed any other then such as these ancient Fathers thus variably and differingly rehearsed. Seeing also it is proved, that this set form which we now have, specially our article in question was not received for many hundred years after Christ; some supposing that these words were not put in till near 1000. years after him. I say, All this being considered, it is evident that your Argument only frō the precise and exact form of words in the Creed, & from the order & placing of He descended to Hades, namely after Dead & Buryed, is not worth anything, to induce thereby an Article of faith, That Christ's Soul went to Hell.

After this it shall not be amiss to consider some other reasons of good moment. Our 3 ^d . Reason is: If there be no certain benefit to the godly by Christ's going to Hell, then doubtless he went not thither. But there is no certain benefit to the Godly by Christ's going to hell. Therefore doubtless he went not thither. This Reason you call our strongest fort. It is not our strongest, but yet strong indeed: for you have made nowhere any good answer to it, neither can you. I know a number of words you have throughout your whole treatise denying the Assumption, but they are nothing in the world but mere presumptions. You say, Is the subduing of hell powers, and the treading on all their force, and the restraining of all their fury so small a matter with you, that it doth no good to the Godly? And elsewhere most tediously and vainly you augment & repeat the marvelous things that Christ did by his Human presence in Hell. I would willingly believe it, but alas who saith so besides yourself, or only such as can tell no better then you. Where is that become now, what I read in the word of God that I believe, what J do not read, that I do not believe, &c. It is easy to say, that you will only hold what the Scripture assureth: but in practice you will slip from this precise order, when you list. I know well that you boldly say that the Purpose of Christ's descent is plainly professed in Scriptures, to be the spoiling of Satan, and delivering of men from the power of Hell. Is it plainly professed? I beseech you, where? I wott well what you will fain & devise of the Fathers, when you impute so palpable untruths to the word of God itself. Shew us one title, one jot of any benefit which (by the Scriptures) Christ wrought for us by his local presence in Hell, and then I will cease to gainsay it forever. Otherwise tell us never so much of the wonderful and singular fruit of Christ's being there, the more you amplify, the more you hazard your credit, & the more we shall wonder at your bold avouching matters which are not in the word of God. The benefits all and everyone (which you everywhere rehearse) I most unfeignedly and religiously believe: namely that he deserved all good things for us, and obtained thē for us in his Resurrectiō, &c. Ascension: and that finally and fully he shall in his last judgment tread down Satan under our feet. But what is this to his local being in Hell? Shew therefore I say by the express word that Christ in Hel did these, or any parte of these good things for us. If you do not (for as yet I see no title to prove that) surely all your talk is but blasts of vanity. The which I rather believe that you never can nor will do, because you confess as much somewhere as overturneth all your show of Christ's doing good to us in Hell. For, a This conquest (you say) Christ purchased by his passion, but he did not execute it till his resurrection. If he executed nothing till his Resurrection, and purchased all in his Passion, then he did nothing in Hell. For his Resurrection was distinctly after his supposed being in Hell, whither he never afterwards returned to execute there anything at all. Nay, Austin your only stay thinketh * he descended in vain, unless he did good to some who were even there in Hell in torments. But this you utterly renounce. So that every way still it remaineth good, that seeing there is no certain benefit that Christ did in Hell, neither to us, nor to any, therefore we are not to believe that he was in Hell.

Our 4 ^d . Reason: There is altogether as great reason and as urgent cause that Christ whole man (both Soul, and Body ) should be present in Hell to free us thence wholly, (that is our Souls, & Bodies) as there is that his Soul must be there present to free thence our Souls. But simply it is confessed that his Body was never there, neither had any cause to be, for the freeing of our Bodies. Therefore it followeth, that neither his Soul was ever there, nor had any cause so to be, for the freeing of our Souls. Here I wish, you would answer my proposition without Skoffes & taunts and haughty disdain, as your manner is. But bring some evident and clear difference that his Soul must go more necessarily thither alone then that his Body also should, and let it be truly grounded on the proportion of faith and Christian Religion, if not on express Scripture. I wot well what you bring from some Fathers, Fulgentius, Athanasius, & others, That his Soul by being present in Limbo, (that they mean by Hades and Infernum ) saved us from Hell, & by his flesh temporally dying he gave us life eternal, and by lying in the grave uncorrupted he gave us incorruptiō. Here we allow them so far as they mean, that what one parte of him did, that our whole man and every parte received good by. But if they think, his Soul by Divine ordinance had need to be actually present elsewhere, then only with the godly deceased, to execute his victory gotten before on the Cross against Satan, to the end that we might be free frō Hell, thē let thē show us the Scripture for this Divine ordinance: & so (by God's grace) we shall forthwith embrace it. Otherwise at least let them show us a reason (or do you so much for them) why both parts jointly should not rather have gone thither by like necessity to execute that together, which both jointly had got and deserved for together: the benefit also whereof is to come (not to one parte alone, but) jointly to both in us. Again, why this going to Hell by our Savior Christ was not rather after his Resurrection, when he had begun his actual Triumph in deed by joining together again both partes of his manhood, in both which together before he had been humbled. Neither is it likely that he began it before his Resurrection, seeing the Scripture everywhere noteth this as the first part of his exaltation after death, and it being strange in Christian reason & against proportion of faith to think, that one parte of Christ (his Soul) should gloriously triumph, the other (his Body) all this while lying in Humiliation, possessed with death in the Grave, which you say is the Devils range, a part of his power, and of the Kingdom of darkness. Yea also seeing it is most likely that he would clear himself first wholly and entirely in both partes, before he would begin to strip and spoil Satan for us. Lastly seeing it is a greater degree of triumph & victory to spoil the enemy, to tread him under foot, to break his houses and strong Holdes, to set free the captives, to make him and his to bow the knee to the conqueror, then to get perfect life & freedom to himself. So that always that, is after this. Wherefore it seemeth that Christ did thus also. If he did actually such things in Hell, it was not till after his Resurection; before which time he had not perfect life and deliverance himself. Let us I pray have some clear and Christian reason against these strong likelyhoods: and then let us ask a point or two more, w ^ch we think will follow likewise, if your assertion be true. First, if one part of Christ, viz: his Soul only were in Hel to execute his victory which before he had merited on the Cross, then why in his sufferings, righteousness, and obedience might not one parte of Christ's manhood have as well sufficed. I say why might not one parte alone have in this world merited enough (which Appollinaris an Haeretick affirmed) as well as that one parte might serve to triumph for us in Hell. Again seeing his Body in the Grave by overcoming corruption which is a part of the Kingdom of Satan as † you say, did thereby save our bodies frō that part of Satan's walk as you call it, by what reason is it that thereby he destroyed not consequently the whole kingdom of Satan, saving thereby our Souls also, in so much that Christ's Soul might not have needed to have come into Hell for that purpose. Or if they mean that his flesh being in the Grave, and his Soul being in Hell did severally and distinctly save our flesh and our souls, then how will you be reconciled with them, a who do deny that point. Further for the actual stripping of Satan of his spoils, why was it needful that an actual presence of any parte of his manhood should be in Hell, seeing indeed it is certain that the whole actual triumph of Christ over Satan proceedeth not of the proper virtue of the manhood, but only from the virtue and power of the Godhead of Christ. Therefore that might possibly be as effectual and as fully accomplished in the absence of the manhood as in the prsence: all the while that the Godhead and manhood were still united and continually together in one Person.

Last of all, if it were the very human presence of his soul that so delivered our souls from thence that they shall never come thither why did not the presence of his flesh in the Grave keep ours that it should never come there, or at least that it should never putrefy nor rot, as his flesh did not. All these sequeles and consequences are as good and as likely as your assertion, that Christ's Soul (and not his flesh) ought to be locally in Hell for this end, that ours might never come there.

Further, I made this Argument in my former Treatise, that Christ's Descending into Hell (if ever he did so) could not be judged any part of his Exaltation or Glorification. To which your reply is, I know not whether more strange, or skornful. But you resolve that these words He descended to Hell, importeth his Exaltation and Triumph. Yet you skoffe at me for the like: as if I had said, His Descending was Ascending: & Hell was Heaven. But herein you affirm untruly. 1. I say, Though his Soul leaving his body Ascended: yet this is not meant by that phrase, He descended to Hades. 2. I never said that Hades signified Heaven, although some in Hades are in Heaven. 3. Much less did I ever say, that Hell is Heaven. Why thē cry you out of impudency, facing, ridiculous, and audacious, presumption. &c. Who presumeth let the advised reader judge, when you thus confidently avouch as an article of faith that Christ's Soul locally descended; and yet bring not one proof of it from God's word, nor from any man's opinion, whom you will cleave unto fully. That you avouch Phil. 2. for it, is more strange: where we have not one word of his local being in Hel. And that the Colossians 2. should prove it, passeth all the rest. Where (though we grant you your reading) yet the express text referreth that triumph to Christ's Cross: which you openly deny. That of the Councils, howe Christ rose again, having spoiled Hell, I easily yield; seeing that proveth not his local being there. The same I affirm of that Allegory in Luke; which showeth Christ's Overcoming, Binding, and Spoyling of Satan in deed: but not by his local being in Hel. What if Christ do set out many pointes of doctrine by Parables? Yet such are those pointes, as are proved otherwise and elsewhere. The Parables do but illustrate them. Howbeit this Parable in question, Christ expressly applieth to his Dispossessing of Devils out of men's bodies. Wherefore you ought not to wrest it to another thing, whereof there he hath not a word, nor anywhere else: that is, to show how Christ bound the Devil in Hell locally. Rather remember, I pray, howe God shown his displeasure against your wresting of his word, by that strange terror that happened even then, when you were descended into the depth of this uncouth doctrine at Paul's Cross. Which for the time so affrighted many 1000. of people, that it will never be forgotten in England while your opinions be remembered: albeit this grew but of a small occasion, as after it seemed.

Where you charge me in the end, arrogantly and absurdly to falsify the Synod of our Realm, it is but what yourself doth in effect. I said, Our Synod corrected K. Edward's Synod. You acknowledge and profess that " in the later words of that former Synod now left out, are 3. things that cannot be justified by the Scriptures.

• 1. That the Spirites of the just were in Hell.
• 2. That Christ there preached unto them.
• 3. That he stayed there till his Resurrection.

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

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

The diverse Significations of the Greek word Hades; Which is ha •• according to the Circūstances of the places where it is used. See pag. 177. Wherevnto also the Hebrew Sheol may be rightly compared.

Hades a mere Priuatiō of this visible Worlde; No visible being here anymore: pa. 157. &c. 169. 178. applied

• Natively
  • Seldom, yet sometime to All visible transitory things when they are Destroyed from out of this World, & are seen here no more. pag. 188. &c.
  • Often, & chiefly to Dead Men: yea to all dead men, both Good and Bad, Blessed and Damned. pag. 155 &c. Yet only in respect y ^t they are Dead, and seen no more in this world pag. 156 162. 166. 169 177. 178. Thus sometime it signifieth concerning thē,
    • that which Tooke them away hence, and holdeth them still: pa. 169. 179. 181. 192. either.
      • Death it self. pa. 161. 1 ••
      • The Power, Strength, 〈◊〉 Force of death. pag 194.
    • their
      • State and condition: pa. 171. 175. 178 viz: of their
        • Whole Person dissolved, and taken away hence. pa. 158. 177.
        • Partes; both
          • Soul. pa. 155. &
          • Body. pa. 201.
      • Place; pa. 173. 181. in respect of
        • the dissolved Pa • tes, so 〈◊〉 as they have a Being somwhere in a place after Death.
        • no Positive thing in any place, but mere. Privation (as is said) from thi • Visible World.
• Figuratively: by a
  • Poetical fiction; making it sometime (as it were) a Place of things, which in truth have no Being nor Place after they cease to be here. pag. 188.
  • Prosopopoeia,
    • lawfully setting out y ^e Power of death, or of destruction from hence, as if it were a Person having this power. pa. 182. 179. 192.
    • Idolatrously making such an imagined Person, a false God. 173. 179.
  • Synecdoche, & so it is sometime
    • Hell: pag. 187. 171.
    • Heaven in Plato. pag. 178.
    • the Grave. pag. 159.