A Scourge for a Railer

The Accusation.

FIrst, the Rayler chargeth the Replier with railing: thus complaining: he rayleth on me without reason, calling me a secret Censor, a masking Mummer, a new Rabbi, a Limbist, a disgracer of the Gospel: pref. pag. 2. and again: your four cautions are nothing else but so many calumniations full of railing without reason, &c. a secret Censor, a disgracer of the Gospel, a partaker with the wicked, a lover of God's enemies, an adversary to Protestants, and a fighter against them with the weapons of Papists. 2. b. p. 48. and again, although you think no terms disgraceful enough towards me. 2. testim. sect. 7. because the Replier had said, these are but ridiculous objections: and yet further he saith, with what conscience or honesty, can you condemn me for a most shameless and impudent man. 3. b. p. 196.

The satisfaction.

1. Some of these terms the Replier useth not, but the other imagineth: he calleth him not a disgracer of the Gospel, but only saith thus, what came in his mind to join with the common adversary, in disgracing the defense of the Gospel, by one undertaken in Synopsis. Limbom. p. 3. the other words, a partaker with the wicked, a lover of God's enemies, an adversary to Protestants, are the Raylers own collections, not the Repliers direct applications: for he speaketh in that place in Jerome's words, and not his own: neither doth he call him, a most shameless and impudent man: but only writeth thus, with what face can the answearer affirm, &c. It seemeth his own conscience condemned him, finding himself inwardly guilty of all this, which he imagined outwardly to be imputed: as Ambrose well saith, Quod severius iudicium, quam domesticum, quo vnusquis{que} sibi est reus? what judgment is more severe, then the domestical, wherein everyone is guilty to himself?

2. The most of the titles and epithites are truly imposed, and therefore they contain no unjust calumniation, but a due castigation or reprehension: is not he a secret Censor, that censureth other men's private writings, and bringeth them to public view? a maintainer of • imbus I have proved him before in the Preface, and therefore a masking Mummer he is, that hideth his face, and rattleth his box full of counters, instead of silver and gold, winding in an error and counterfeit opinion for sound doctrine. He therefore that speaketh the truth, reuileth not, as Jerome well saith, using those words of the Apostle: inimicus factus sum tibi vera dicens? Am I become your enemy speaking the truth?

3. All this being uttered in general, no person being named, nor discovered, not so much, as the man in the moon, showeth that he doth but bark at his own shadow: for a general and indefinite reprehension is no defamation; as that Imperial law saith, Verba generalia vt quis vitam reformet, non infamant: general words that one should reform his life, do not defame. But what do I tell him of Imperial laws, whose element and trade reacheth no further, then to give laws to petites and school-boies.

The Recrimination.

Now this untrue imputation of railing, is justly returned upon his own head, who for his graceless facility that ways, is worthy to carry the bell, of all scurrilous writers (not the Popish Iudasites and Seminary sectaries excepted) that have abused their pen that way. Thus therefore he barketh and belcheth out his stinking and indigested stuff.

• 1. Like a mad dog he snatcheth. pref. p. 5.
• 2. I cannot but condemn your pravity in so willful perverting it, even contrary to your own conscience. 2. b. p. 4.
• 3. You add malice to falsehood. p. 5.
• 4. It argueth mere malice without matter. p. 6.
• 5. His malecontented impatience. p. 17.
• 6. he counteth the author of Limbomastix, both a fool, p. 27. and a goose. p. 28.
• 7. rather Ishmaelites in faction, then Israelites in faith. p. 18.
• 8. in this Calender of Saint-seeming Nocents Limbomastix hath canonized himself. p. 19.
• 9. he useth the like parasiticall preoccupation to currie favor. p. 24.
• 10. there is neither truth nor modesty in your words. p. 34
• 11. he calleth him a liar: applying these words, mendax raro memor. p. 38. that he properly belieth him. 3. b. 127.
• 12. no Sophister but yourself. p. 39.
• 13. it is but the suggestion of malice. p. 40.
• 14. proveth nothing else but presumptuous boldness. p. 44.
• 15. which for want of true knowledge, you reject with malice. p. 47.
• 16. past the bounds of modesty. p. 53.
• 17. he objecteth also impudency. ibid.
• 18. where verity is banished, modesty is expulsed. p. 56.
• 19. as in pretending charity, you should defame all Christianity. p. 64.
• 20. he objecteth unchristian, if not Machivellian policy. p. 79.
• 21. Thus Machivellian dissimulation is Christian policy with you. p. 82.
• 22. it is little better then infidelity. p. 86.
• Falsehood attended with contradiction and absurdity. p. 3.
• 23. as you began with falsehood you mean to continue. p. 32.
• 24. it is both false and calumnious. p. 87.
• 25. you would falsely insinuate. ibid.
• 26. doth notably discover his hypocrisy. p. 19.
• 27. letting hypocrisy pass this once, as if it were humility. p. 27.
• 28. you most hypocritically pretend. p. 44.
• 29. As you began your preface with falsehood and malice. p. 105.
• 30. to the ende neither falsehood should want absurdity, nor folly contrariety. p. 126.
• 31. you begin with falsehood and slander. p. 139.
• 32. fraud and falsehood are everywhere your strongest forts. p. 143.
• 33. your falsehood mixed with absurdity. p. 144.
• 34. falsification is grown into such an habit with you. p. 162.
• 35. falsehood is your surest fortress. p. 186.
• 36. as you delight in contrariety, so it best pleaseth you to add falsity to it. p. 195.
• 37. fallacy mixed with falsehood. p. 197.
• 38. would God you would once leave your falsehood. 1. test. s. 17. p. 2.
• 39. from these you proceed to the shameful falsification, &c. 1. test. sect. 23. p. 2.
• 40. you seek after nothing but falsehood. 3. test. s. 7. p. 1.
• 41. your profane contentions. p. 103.
• 42. diabolical presumption. ibid.
• 43. having never a good thought of your own. 2. b. 106
• 44. what is this else but to root out Christianity, and plant infidelity. 2. b. 146.
• 45. it shows your spitefulnes. p. 155.
• 46. it is your own folly. ibid.
• 47. which shows you neither regard rules of divinity, nor yet of humanity. p. 158.
• 48. as you show neither verity nor modesty, so you incur thereby absurdity and impiety. p. 161.
• 49. your malice shall not extinguish my charity. p. 165.
• 50. the Evangelists are sufficient witnesses to convince your incredulity. p. 179.
• 51. which insolent vanity. p. 175.
• 52. what peruersenes or rather impiety is it. 2. test. s. 9. p. 4.
• 53. if malice had not miscarried you. 2. test. s. 14. p. 3.
• 54. what arrogant presumption is this. 2. test. s. 17. p. 1.
• 55. thus imperiously, if not saucily. ibid. thus he raileth and rageth, because the original is preferred.
• 56. with what conscience or honesty. 3. test. sect. 16. p. 5.
• 57. yourself in that respect worse then the Arians themselves. p. 178.
• 58. you still feed your Reader with falsehood instead of truth. p. 179.
• 59. you do exceed the limits of all modesty & shamefastness. p. 181.
• 60. if your darkness will receive it. p. 193.
• 61. you prove yourself to be a various impostor. 1. test. sect. 17. p. 2.
• 62. what dishonest dealing is this in you. 1. test. s. 23. p. 2.
• 63. you had no color of belying me. 2. test. s. 1. p. 3.
• 64. while you bolster out impiety with blasphemy. 1. test. s. 3. p. 2.
• 65. such malepart saucines. 1. test. s. 14. p. 3.
• 66. whosoever denieth the article, ( he meaneth, in his sense ) is an Atheist. 3. test. s. 6. p. 3.
• 67. And to fill up the measure of this his poisoned cup of reviling words, he chargeth him with gross error, or rather heresy directly tending to Atheism. pref. to the first book.

Thus this uncharitable fellow goeth on in his pitiful rage, laying on load, charging the Replier, with folly, hypocrisy, falsehood, infidelity, impudency, Machiavellisme, Atheism, heresy: who in the sight of God, and of all good Christians, will by God's grace approve himself as far from the imputation of these, as the Rayler will show himself (if he go on in this course) from the reputation of an honest man. Little did he remember, when he suffered his pen thus to rage, that all railers by the sentence of the Apostle, are excluded out of God's inheritance: what blindness is this, to object railing to another, giving him self ten words of reproach for one, and that not reproachful neither. Jerome's complaint is here most just: Quid possumus facere, si vnusquisque just putat se facere, quod facit, & videtur sibi remorderi potius, quam mordere: what should we do, if every man thinketh he well doeth, that which he doth, and that he himself is bitten, when he biteth others.

But the Replier for his part grieveth not to hear this intemperate mate, thus to revile the living: for, as Jerome saith, Scillaeos canes obdurata aure transibo: I will pass by the Scillean dogs, and stop mine ears: seeing that he spareth not the dead, but emptieth his unclean stomach, casting up gall and all by his unbridled tongue upon them. Of reverend Beza, he thus unreverantly speaketh: All the fig leaves you can filch, will not cover his nakedness herein. 2. testim. sect. 17. p. 3. of that learned man D. Fulke, he is not ashamed to say, that he was in such an error, as could not be defended without blasphemy. 3. testim. sect. 17. p. 2. grave M. Gilbie is charged with swelling pride, and seducing hypocrisy. 2. b. p. 9. Carlisle, a Protestant, neither Papist, nor heretic, is burdened with heretical dealing in depraving Scripture. 1. testim. sect. 1. p. 2. But among all other, that are at rest in the Lord, this wretched man rageth not more against any, then against worthy Doctor Reynolds: whom he is not ignorant to be the author of the objections, which he taketh upon him to confute in the first book: for he in two several places, 2. b. p. 6. and p. 76. nameth him in the Margen. In this manner doth he handle that learned Defender of the truth against the Popish Synagogue: calling his fact, in so objecting and impugning, profane and irreligious: epist. dedicat. p. 3. and [ 1] the effect thereof heathenish & pernicious. ibid. their dissenting [ 2] in this question of the local discension, he blasphemously termeth, heretical and sacrilegious. ib • d. p. 6. he [ 3] saith further, whereby grace may happily work in their [ 4] hearts. epist. p. 11. as though that godly man, had been void of grace: he in the same place further chargeth him, frowardly to have excluded the truth: he includeth him, among [ 5] the profane Anaxagorists of this age. pref. p. 2. one [ 6] of the iuuenters of Noueltie, and Masters of error. ibid. he [ 7] dealeth with him, as an adversary of the truth. ibid. p. 3. he [ 8] affirmeth, that he stands peremptorily upon the denial of [ 9] this article. ibid. he meaneth an article of the faith: as throughout the whole book is evident. And further he he saith: both which foul imperfections you grossly discover, [ 10] &c. 1. b. p. 3. it argueth more cunning and subtlety, then [ 11] simple and plain dealing. p. 4. unless perhaps you think, the [ 12] confession of the truth to be an indignity unto you: who, as it seemeth, have vowed the contrary in this question. p. 7. in the same place he chargeth him, with gross absurdity, or [ 13] rather impiety: with profane speeches. p. 18. with gross [ 14] error joined with impiety: he calleth him captious sophister. p. 24. he challengeth him, that he wresteth the Scriptures, [ 15] and maketh the spirit of verity, the spirit of error and absurdity. [ 16] p. 26. you deal, as you did in the former, that is corruptly, [ 17] and so falsely in both. p. 33. this Nemesis still pursueth [ 18] falsehood. 33. resting in hope, that where the love of verity [ 19] cannot draw you, the very loathsomnes of absurdity will drive you to renounce it. p. 43. And thus he persecuteth the blessed memory of that renowned Divine in his former book: which although it was first printed, while that worthy man was yet living, and not known to be the author of those objections; yet it is evident, that he, whom this Reviler and false accuser of his brethren now knoweth to have first written those objections, had then finished his days in peace, before this filthy sink and channel was the second time let go, and this slanderous Inuectiue reprinted. And no better dealeth he with him in the second book: D. Reynolds in his opinion was none of the [ 20] writers of our Church: for thus he writeth, I say and prove that it is directed against no writer of our Church at all: 2. b. p. 7. l. 9. whereas he writeth directly against D. Reynolds. And this motion being made, that it had been better privately to have conferred with him (that is, D. Reynolds ) then publicly to have censured him, this answer is made [ 21] out of Ecclesiasticus: Ask no counsel of religion of him; who is without all religiō himself. 1. b. p. 74. but falsely noted [ 22] 57. Again, he saith, in this point (that is, of the local discension) every good Christian is fully satisfied. p. 76. So by his uncharitable censure, D. Reynolds was without all religion, and no good Christian.

Thus this good man is traduced by the Raylers uncharitable pen, as guilty of profane, irreligious, heretical, sacrilegious opinions, of grossenes, absurdity, sophistry, profaneness, and what not: So that, to use his own phrase, What could the greatest Seminary or Jesuit have spoken more to the discredit, or defamation of this worthy Confessor: whose memorial shall be blessed, when the name of such as he is shall rott: according to the saying of the wise man in the Proverbs. Nay, I verily think, the most gross and railing Romanist would have been ashamed, thus to have reviled the servant of God: who blusheth not, and is not ashamed that such stuff should come out in print: as Augustine saith, miror, si habet in corpore sanguinem, qui ad haec verba non erubescit: I wonder, if he have any blood in his body, that doth not blush at these words. I may say unto him in Tullius words to Antony: quam me pudet nequitiae tuae, cuius teipsum non pudet: how am I ashamed of your lewdness, whereof you are not ashamed yourself. To scourge good men living with the whip of the tongue, is injurious, but to rage against the name and memory of the righteous departed, is impious, and sacrilegious. Jerome saith well: prava dixisse de rectis, non facilis venia: to speak evil of the righteous, is not so easily pardoned. Plato resembleth such, as rage against the dead, unto dogs, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; which are angry with the stones which are cast, not touching him that cast them: such are they, which unchristianly, and currishly too (according to his own phrase, 2. b. pag. 199.) bark against the dead, carping at their memory and name, who themselves are without his reach. The Replier therefore need not to be grieved, that he is marked with such a black coal: seeing such reverend men as M. Beza, D. Fulke, D. Reynolds cannot go vnbranded: where he may say with Cicero, In huius concilij societatē, tanquam in equum Tr • ianum includi non recusabo: I will not refuse to be included in this company, as in a Trojane horse. But in the mean time, while he would obscure others men's fame, he staineth his own, and besprinkleth his own face with that filthy dirt, which he casteth upon others. Let him go on still, if he will in his mad fits, he will purchase thereby eternal infamy unto himself: as the Orator again saith, Pergit in me maledicta congerere, quasi vero ei pulcherrime priora processerint, quem ego inustum verissimis maledictorum notis, tradam memory hominum sempiternae: he proceedeth still to speak evil of me, as though he had sped so well in the former: whom branded with the true notes of disgrace, I will deliver over to the everlasting memory of men.

The accusation.

1. The Replier is noted as a slanderer, because he chargeth the Antagonist, to understand directly by Christ's death, hell. 2. b. p. 36.

2. He calleth it a slander, that he is charged by the Replier, to maintain Limbus patrum. 2. b. p. 40.

The satisfaction, or justification.

1. THe slanderer himself mistaketh the Repliers words, which are these; he directly by his death understandeth hell: where this word his, should by the Compositor have been made this: which missing of a letter in the word this, is an oversight of the Printer, as may be seen in other places of the Repliers works: the Printer therefore, setteth his death; the Author wrote, this death: neither of them hath Christ's death, as he misreporteth: he is therefore the slanderer himself.

2. Whether he be not without any slander or false imputation, directly a Limbist, it hath been sufficiently proved before in the preface.

The recrimination.

That eloquent declamer said well, Carere debet omni vitio, qui in alterum paratus est dicere: he should himself be void of blame, that speaketh against another: with what face then could the Accuser impute that to others, which he falleth into himself? and wrack himself upon that rock, which he imagineth others to run against: for here followeth a rabble of his slanderous accusations.

1. Limbomastix, is become Symbolomastix: that is, a scourger of the Creed. epist. dedic. p. 10. you cunningly went about to casheere an article of the Creed. 2 b. p. 166. you still labor to discreede this Article of our faith. 3. b. p. 3. 179. you still labor not only to discredit it, but to discreede it also. 3. b. p. 198. And in diverse other places he layeth this grievous imputation: whereas the Replier directly saith, Who denieth the article of Christ's discension? 3. b. p. 197.

2. That he conveyeth an appeal frō his Majesty, and the Clergy, unto the Parliament: epist. p. 10. whereas the Epistle Dedicatorie to the Parliament house, is directly entitled to the Lord's spiritual and temporal.

3. That in Synopsis he striketh at some main points of faith, shaking the foundation it self, and calling in question heaven and hell, the divinity and humanity: yea, the very soul and salvation of Christ himself. epist. p. 6. all which are mere slanders: the author of Synopsis holdeth all these points more soundly, then this slanderous carper: neither shall he be able to fasten any such imputation upon that book, and therefore he glaunceth over with this general fiction, descending to no particular.

4. That the Replier holdeth this blasphemous paradox, that Christ our Savior suffered in his sacred soul, the hellish horror and pains of the damned. epist. p. 10. whereas, he misliketh this phrase of speech, that Christ suffered the pains of the damned, and wisheth it to be forborne. Synops. p. 974. err. 7.

5. That he maintaineth, impious and heretical paradoxes: pref. p. 2. seeketh to bring in a new Puritan heresy. p. 43. that neither Rhemist nor Romanist could lightly have more disgraced the discipline and doctrine of the Church. epist. dedic. p. 10. how falsely he hath herein slandered the Replier, his writings already extant can give sufficient testimony both to this age present, and to posterity: that he is as far from all heresy, and popish doctrine, as this Reviler is from a sober and modest man.

6. That he falleth to scourging the guides and governors of the Church: 2. b. p. 2. transformeth the order thereof into an Anarchy: p. 29. that he rejecteth Ecclesiastical authority, ever repining at that government whereby you should be ruled. p. 110. But what a reverent opinion the Replier hath of the calling of Bishops, it appeareth both by his judgment delivered, Synops. p. 241. l. 3. wherein he confesseth in the calling of Bishops in the reformed Churches, (such as the Church of England is) somewhat no doubt to be divine and Apostolical: and Antilog. pref. to the King, p. 9. where he esteemeth the calling it self of Bishops, as one of the profitable parts of the Church. As also by his practice, who hath dedicated diverse books unto certain reverend Bishops and Prelates: more, I think, then any one writer of the Church in this age hath done beside: which he hath done only of duty and love toward them, not being moved thereunto by any present fruition, or future hope, of any preferment either received at their hands, or expected.

7. As for personal inueighing against the writers of our Church, there is none that hath more peremptorily directed his pen, or more presumptuously employed his pains, then yourself. 2. b. p. 7. There is none among all the impugners of the local descent of Christ's soul to hell, who hath in more disgraceful manner reproached some of the best Preachers and writers of this English Church, then you have done. 2. b. p. 81. he falsely and slanderously condemneth the doctrine and teachers of the Church, for Popish, unsound, corrupt, erroneous, yea heretical. 2. b. p. 29. you affirm some Popish books to have been written by Protestants. 2. b. p. 54. All these are uncharitable slanders: 1. for he cannot name one writer of the Church, that the Replier hath personally inveighed or directed his pen against. 2. of like truth is it, that he hath used reproachful terms against some of the best preachers: what are those reproachful words, where, and when uttered? 3. it is as true, that he chargeth the doctrine and teachers of the Church, with heretical opinions, and writing of Popish books: he saith that some books (set forth ) do maintain doctrine too much declining to Popery, which cannot be denied of any of sound judgment: if these and the like positions, that the Scriptures alone are not complete to everlasting felicity: that man's will naturally is apt without grace to believe: that men's natural works are acceptable unto God: that there are works of supererogation: that to be preserved from all sin in this life, is not impossible: and such like, as they are noted else where, be not doctrines too much declining to Popery: then it must be confessed the Replier is overseen, if they be, then the wrongful Accuser is proved a slanderer. Doth he count these the doctrines of the Church, which are directly opposite to the articles of religion established? which thus affirm, that the holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: artic. 6. that man of his own natural strength, cannot turn and prepare himself to faith: artic. 10. that works done before the grace of Christ, are not pleasant to God: artic. 13. works of supererogation, cannot be taught without arrogancy and impiety: artic. 14. they are to be condemned, which say they can no more sun, as long as they live here. artic. 16. The Slaunderer then himself, and his adherents, are those that condemn the doctrine of the Church.

8. He chargeth the Replier, with heresy tending to Atheism: pref. p. 5. it is to be feared least in time you become as bad members to the Church of England, as they, that is, the Anabaptists, were to the Church of Germany. 2. b. p. 8. there were certain omnifidians, &c. who held the like opinion, as you do, of which number was one Appelles, who affirmed, that it was needless to discuss the particulars of faith. 2. b. p. 90. he calleth his exposition of some places of Scripture (which he termeth misconstruction) heretical. 2. b. p. 91. blasphemous, p. 92. These imputations of heresy, blasphemy, Anabaptism, are most vile and pestilent slanders: so is this, that the Replier is burdened, to hold an implicit faith, p. 91. and that it is needless to discuss the particulars of faith: whereas he directly holdeth the contrary, condemning else where the Popish implicit, and simple faith: he only wisheth, that seeing we all hold the foundation, the peace of the Church be not broken, in contending about the manner of Christ's discension. Limbom. p. 5.

9. Slaunder. That he bitterly exclaimeth against the whole state of the Church: 1. b. p. 10. reviveth clamorous invectives: their heads plotting, and their hands practicing Babylonian wars: they cannot avoid the name of dissemblers in the Church of England, nor yet disturbers of it. p. 18. his petition and complaint, are in plain English nothing else but a bitter invective against the doctrine and discipline of the Church, glossed with flattery, and gilded with hypocrisy. 2. b. p. 19. that they thought his Majesty would erect the Genevian Consitory, or Scottish Presbyterie, p. 23. and change the state of religion. ibid. the picture of a discontented, if not turbulent spirit. p. 29. he rebelleth against the Church. p. 31. those whom you call reverend Fathers, you vouchsafe them no son-like obedience. p. 68. All these are most untruly objected: 1. to complain of some abuses of the Church, is not to exclaim against the Church: the late Canons and Constitutions of the Church do show, that many things had need of amendment and reformation in the Church: 2. what reverent opinion the Replier hath of the Governors of the Church, is before shown, slaund. 6. 3. how far he is from a turbulent spirit, God he knoweth: and some of the greatest place in the Church can tell, how his courses have tended to a pacification in the Church. A more vile slanderous tongue, I think hath seldom been heard to speak.

10. Slaund. The Kings most excellent Majesty can not escape the Taint of his intemperate tongue: for whereas his grace saith, that he acknowledgeth the Roman Church to be our mother Church: it is ( saith Limbomastix) a foolish conceit and imagination: he maketh him a very novice in the faith. 2. b. p. 28.

In these foul slanders, he doth bewray nothing else but (to use his own terms) falsehood and malice. 1. Is it like that the Replier had the least imagination to cross his Majesty's speech, when as the book, which the slanderer quoteth, was published ann. 1603. about the time of his Majesty's coronation in the month of July, and the Kings oration followed above six months after, in the month of March: what an absurd collection is this? 2. But this slanderous obiecter doth his Majesty the wrong, to suppose that he is contrary to himself: for his Majesty holdeth the Pope to be Antichrist, and to be the head of a false and hypocritical Church: is he so shameless to imagine, that his Majesty thinketh a false and hypocritical Church to be our mother? it is clear then, that the King in acknowledging the Roman Church to be our mother, meaneth not the Popish Church, as it now standeth: but that sometime while it stood in the integrity, it was our mother Church: that is, a principal and chief church, where the Patriarchal seat was of the Occidentall parts: for these are his Majesty's own words, I acknowledge the Roman Church to be our mother Church, although defiled with some infirmities and corruptions, as the Jews were, when they crucified Christ. The Church of Rome is no otherwise then our mother Church, then the Church of the Jews was of our Savior Christ and the Apostles. 3. Neither yet is it in the place given in instance called a foolish conceit to say, that the Roman Church is our mother, (which in the Kings sense being admitted, yet as he blindly taketh it, will be denied) but that Rome should be the mother Church and nursery of all the world: the Accuser then himself is found to be a falsifier, and slanderer. 4. Yea, it is his own intemperate tongue, the taint whereof his Majesty cannot escape: whereas he calleth diverse points of doctrine true and sound positions, 2. b. p. 20. some of which are before set down, slaund. 7. which his Majesty in his judgment condemneth: the King affirmeth, that all, which is necessary to salvation, is contained in the Scripture: that no man is able to keep the law, or any part thereof: that we are saved by believing, not by doing: that whatsoever is not of faith, is sin: that we cannot think anything of our selves, and consequently that we are not apt of our selves to believe: the contrary positions to all these, with others, this cauillous adversary calleth sound and true positions: as that the Scriptures of themselves are not complete to salvation: that it is not impossible in this life to be preserved from all sin, and so consequently to keep the law: that our works (and so not only faith and believing) are means to blot out sin: that natural works are acceptable to God, even such as are without faith: that man's will is apt to take or refuse any particular object: and consequently to believe. Then in this slanderous excepters opinion, the King holdeth unsound and untrue positions: the contrary whereof he calleth sound and true positions: and thus he thwarteth not only the doctrine of the Church in the articles of religion, as is before shown, 7. slaund. but his Majesty's judgment also: see more of this, pref. to Antilog. p. 4.

5. But the other objection is frivolous and childish, that the Replier maketh him a Novice in the faith: affording his Highnes only a lively feeling and inward touch thereof: for, 1. he addeth ( only ) deceitfully of his own: the Repliers words are these, as God hath endued his princely heart with a lively feeling, and inward touch of true religion. 2. he bewrayeth his carnal and gross ignorance, in making the lively sense and feeling of religion only to appertain to a Novice, which is the very perfection of true knowledge, and religion: for a lively sense presupposeth knowledge: one may have the knowledge and show of religion, and yet feel not the power thereof, as the Apostle saith, having a form of religion, but have denied the power thereof: in which number (I fear me) this envious adversary is one. But there cannot be a lively sense of religion, without knowledge preceding: as S. Paul again saith, I pray that your love may abound, yet more and more in all knowledge and sense.

11. Slaund. That the Replier defendeth many things in that book that is contrary to the Gospel. 2. b. p. 50. you convince yourself to be no Protestant, in calling me an adversary to Protestants. p. 52. they have neither friend, nor faith left them. p. 53. that some of his friends deny the Pater noster. p. 76. if we must receive no article of the Creed, unless it be expounded according to your sense of the Scriptures, and your conceit of the Analogy of faith, we may in time have neither Creed, nor Christianity left us. 2. b. p. 180. that he followeth profane error in hatred of the truth. 3. b. p. 203.

Unless this shameless man were possessed with the spirit of lying and slander, he would never have laid unto the Repliers charge, to defend things contrary to the Gospel, to be no Protestant, to have no faith, no Christianity, to hate the truth: whose books, if they had not more true divinity in one leaf, then his railing bundle in the whole pack, and the author more faith and Christianity in his serious meditations, then the other in his deepest studies, he would never set pen to paper again, nor look any man in the face hereafter. But I must here excuse myself with Tully, Iniuriae dolor facit me praeter morem gloriosum: the sense of my wrong maketh me boast beside my wont.

12. Slaund. Your seldom excursions abroad against the common adversary, cannot excuse your often incursions at home against your brethren: 2. b. p. 58. what will not a slanderous tongue forge? The Replier calleth God and men to witness for the clearing of him in this point: that he hath neither used often nor seldom incursions against his brethren; making any challenge by name to any of them. This whole Church can testify with him, that the most, if not all of his writings (certain explanations of Scripture only excepted) have been directed against the common adversary: of like truth is the marginal glance in the same place: that two petitions were exhibited to the King, the one with a 1000. hands, the other with 1500. whereas I have been certainly informed, and I do verily believe, that neither of them were subscribed with any hands at all. Of the same credit is the next objection, p. 60. that the Replier with others do think themselves persecuted for the profession of the Gospel: whereas (leaving other men's complaints) he most heartily thanketh God for that sweet peace, which he hath enjoyed in his ministry, which by God's gracious assistance hath brought forth such fruits in the use of his pen, as he needeth not be ashamed of.

13. Slaund. Your words do necessarily imply all the ancient fathers, and all sound writers since, together with all good Christians throughout the whole world, to be popish and superstitious men, &c. for all these do firmly hold the local descent of Christ's soul into hell. 2. b. p. 82. Contra. 1. The Repliers words do imply no such thing, but the contrary: for these they are, They which hold not the local descent of Christ's soul to hell should not condemn the other as profane & superstitious that are so persuaded. Limbom. p. 5. is not then he ashamed to infer the contrary, that the Repliers words imply they are popish? 2. The fathers opinion touching the local descent of Christ's soul, is far different from his: and in these four substantial and material points: 1. in respect of the place, they hold he went not down to the hell of the damned, but to that part of hell, where the fathers were: 2. in respect of their persons; that he descended not to the damned, but to preach deliverance to the fathers there detained: 3. the ende is also diverse: they hold he went to deliver: 4. in the effect they differ: for their opinion is, that hell was emptied at Christ's going down thither, and that returning from thence, he brought an innumerable company of captives with him: to this purpose Bellarmine allegeth above twenty Greek and Latin fathers beside Councils. 3. And are all sound writers, and good Christians of his opinion? then Calvin, Bucer, Beza, Erasmus, Sarcerius, Marlorate, Gasper Megander, Oleviane, D. Fulke, D. Reynolds, Sadeel, Scultetus, Ursinus, Bucanus, with diverse others, were in his blind opinion neither sound writers, nor good Christians, all which held the contrary.

14. Slaund. That the Replier was one of those that contradicted, what reverend B. Bilson taught concerning our redemption by the death of Christ: p. 95. that he holdeth that the article of Christ's descention is to be rejected out of the Creed as a new addition, lately foisted into the Creed. 2. b. p. 96. Contra. What will not now this malicious Accuser dare to say, objecting things as contrary to truth, as darkness is to light? he might as well say, that the Replier holdeth, there is no Christ, nor God, as accuse him to deny the redemption of mankind by the death of Christ, and the article of the discension: his profane heart knew, that his dissembling lips, wandering hand, and erring pen, consented here to make a lie.

15. Slaund. The fourth fault is horrible impiety, in that you hereby condemn the soul of the Prophet David, to the very place of the damned. Whereas, 1. the Replier saith in very direct words, his, that is, David's soul was not at all in hell, Limbom. p. 24. how then is not the slanderer ashamed thus to object: 2. because the Replier saith, the not being or leaving of the soul in hell, was as well performed in David as in Christ: Limbom. p. 24. hence he doth infer thus: David's soul was not left in hell, Ergo it was in hell: whereas it is clear, that the Replier, by not leaving, understandeth the not being: so our Savior saith to his Apostles, John. 14. 18. I will not leave you comfortless: will he hereupon conclude, that they were comfortless, but not so left: 3. It is the accuser himself, that is guilty of this impiety, that David's soul was, if not in hell, yet near unto hell: for in these words of David, if the Lord had not holpen me, my soul had well-nigh dwelt in silence, Psal. 94. 17. by silence, he understandeth hell: in his sentence then David's soul was almost in hell, and by the like collection it was there, though it dwelt not, or continued there.

16. Slaund. The Replier is charged with Judaism, for that none but Jews did ever apply this prophesy to any but to our Savior Christ. Contra. 1. It is not Judaism to apply the prophetical saying of David concerning Christ, in some sense, unto David, but to understand them only of David, and not at all of Christ: as, if his memory had served him, he might have turned back to 2. b. p. 136 where he himself citeth Jerome upon the 71. Psalm. v. 20. Thou wilt take me from the depth of the earth: Iudaei hunc psalmum in solum Davidem convenire volunt, &c. the Jews will have this psalm to agree unto David only: and 3. b. p. 47. he allegeth out of Mollerus, that D. Kimchi interpreteth the 16. Psal. of the Prophet David: and will not have these words meant of the resurrection of Christ. 2. If they savor of Judaism, which apply the prophetical sayings concerning Messiah in the Psalms to David, then is Basil guilty that way, who upon these words in the 48. Psal. The Lord shall deliver my soul from the hand of hell, thus writeth: Manifeste vaticinatur Domini ad inferos descensum, qui cum alijs etiam ipsius animam redimat, ne remaneat ibi: he manifestly prophesieth of the Lord's descension to hell, which with others should also redeem his soul that it remain not there: he applieth this text both concerning Christ's descension to hell, and David's deliverance from thence. So Augustine indifferently expoundeth those words, Psal. 86. v. 13. Thou hast delivered my soul from the lowest hell: either of Christ, or of some of his members. Ergo aut ipsius vox est hic, eruisti &c. wherefore it is either his voice (that is, Christ's) or our voice by Christ our Lord, which to that ende came thither. 3. Then doth he himself Judaize, who thus confesseth of that place, Psal. 68. 18. He ascended up on high, and led captivity captive, which is as properly by S. Paul fitted to the ascension of Christ, Eph. 4. 8. as the other place, Psal. 16. is by S. Peter to our Saviors resurrection: alluding (saith this obiecter) to the place of the Psalm, where it is literally spoken of King David himself, to whom God gave victory and triumph over all his enemies, but prophetically meant of Christ our Savior, of whom David was a type and figure. Thus it falleth out according to the saying of the wise man, he that diggeth a pit, shall fall therein, and he that rolleth a stone, it shall return unto him: this accusation of Judaism, which as a stone he cast at the Replier, recoiling again, hath broken his own pate.

17. Slaunder. According to your sense, all that will follow Christ, must suffer the death of the soul, 3. b. p. 63. You deliver for sound doctrine, that Christ suffered that death which was threatened to Adam. 3. b. p. 66. Your blasphemous paradox of the death of Christ's soul. 3. b. p. 83. Whereas the Replier doth directly affirm, that Christ died not the death of the soul, either by sin, or damnation. Synops. p. 977. which are the two kinds only of the proper dying of the soul. And, though a kind of death may after some sort be affirmed of Christ's soul, in respect of the great anguish and torment which he endured in his soul; yet he wisheth that kind of phrase, as being not used in Scripture, to be forborne and discontinued. Synops. p. 978. The Replier here then, is as far from blasphemy, as the Accuser is from honesty, in charging him with such an apparent untruth.

18. Slaunder. That he doth call again out of hell, Arius, Eunomius, Apollinaris, Lucianus, to join hands with you against Athanasius, Epiphanius, Fulgentius: that he doth justify so pestilent and blasphemous heretics, against so reverend, so learned, and holy fathers. 3. b. p. 74. You rejected Athanasius before for a misconstruer of Scripture, an establisher of error; yea little better then a blasphemer: even because he proved against the Arians, that the word Spirit in this place of Peter, signifieth the human soul of Christ. 3. b. 125. 1.

Contra. 1. What an absurd collection is this? Athanasius, Epiphanius, did censure the Apollinarists out of this place of Peter, proving thence, that Christ had an human soul: you therefore refusing their interpretation and collection out of this place, condemn them, and justify those heretics. 2. Augustine and Ambrose do prove the eternity of Christ, and coexistence with his father, against the Arians out of that place, John. 8. 2. which they read thus according to the vulgar latin; the beginning, who spake unto you: which reading, indeed by the authority of these Fathers, the Rhemists follow in their translation: whereas, the true reading according to the original is, Even the same thing which I said unto you from the beginning. Doth it follow, that they which refuse this their interpretation and application of this text against the Arians, do therefore justify the Arians against these godly Fathers? 3. The Replier nowhere ascribeth blasphemy unto Athanasius; the slanderer blasphemeth rather in so saying: error he is not free from, seeing he is cited by Bellarmine, to prove Christ's descent to Limbus patrum, which all Protestants hold to be an error, howsoever this Antagonist staggereth at it.

19. Slaunder. That the flames and torments of hell fire are temporal: and that eternal continuance in them, is not of the essence and nature of hell torments. 3. b. p. 77. If this (false fellow) had not hardened his face as the Adamant, he would not for shame have thus objected: for, the Replier in the first place quoted in the margen, speaketh only of the hell sorrows and torments, which Christ suffered in his soul, which were not eternal, because of the dignity of his person: for, these are the words concerning hell flames; First, in that they are not eternal in Christ, the digniti • of his person obtained: for his temporal enduring of hell sorrow, was as effectual and meritorious, as if they had been perpetual. Here is no one word of the torments of hell in general. Again, in the other place these are the words: The inseparable adjuncts, and necessary members of hell, are these; 1. the Place, which is infernal: 2. the Time, which is perpetual: 3. darkness unspeakable. What fault can this quarrel-picker find with these words? what mean Logician knoweth not, that the continuance of time, is not of the essence of a thing, but a necessary adiacent or adjunct? Yea, these are his very own words in an other place; whose inseparable adjuncts (speaking of hell) are utter darkness, and endless pains. 1. b. p. 3. Is he not now a wise man, that reproveth another for speaking in his own words?

20. Slaunder. By which wicked and intolerable speech, you send to hell, not only those, which were at that time thorough the world, but even Noah's own family also, which were together with him in the Ark. 3. b. p. 104. But more wicked and intolerable is this shameless creature, that dare thus open his mouth to revile: for, whereas the words which he quarrelleth at, stand thus in the book; In so much, that the Lord upheld him in all his preaching, and profession, against all the (professors) of the old world, condemning them, and saving him: but that his malice blinded him, he might have turned to the Errata in the beginning of the book, where he should have found, that professors by the Printer was here taken for profane persons. If he knew this escape to be so corrected, and yet would traduce the Replier, it bewrayeth malice: if he knew it not, it argueth his ignorance and rashness, that would make no further search.

21. Slaunder. You place hell in the air. 3. b. p. 153. 1. What shameful dealing is this, thus without any conscience to detort and deprave the Repliers words? He in that place speaketh only of the place whither the deui • s are now cast down, which is into hell (as S. Peter saith) where God hath delivered them to chains of darkness; whom yet S. Paul saith, to rule in the air, Eph. 2. 2. To reconcile these two Apostles, it must be confessed, that the air is the devils present hell: and so Augustine taketh it. Poenaliter hunc infernum, id est, caligino sum aerem tanqua • carcerem acceperunt: They have received this infernal and dark air for their prison. That therefore, which is spoken secundum quid, in part, and after such a sort, he wresteth, as being spoken simpliciter, simply and absolutely: inferring thus; The devils present hell is in the air: ergo, there shall be no hell but in the air. 2 And concerning the site of hell, the Replier else-where deemeth not, but that it may be in the earth, or where else it pleaseth God: and consisteth specially upon this position, That the place of hell causeth not the torment, but the wrath and curse of God: which, this caueller shall never be able to disprove.

22. Slaunder. That he utterly condemneth allegories. 3. b. p. 166. Here this endless wrangler committeth the same fault which he fell into before, to press that as generally spoken against all allegories, which is intended only against such allegories, as are of men's devising, and have no warrant in Scripture: as the words thus stand in the first place there noted, I hold it not safe wading without a bottom, and therefore I omit these allegorical applications, as men's fancies. Is this utterly to condemn allegories? he that so doeth, alloweth none, and so even the allegories used by S. Paul, Gal. 4. and in other places of Scripture, should also be excluded. Every man may see what paltrie dealing this is, and such is his lewd vain throughout this whole Satirical discourse. Many other slanderous accusations are foisted in everywhere, which it were lost labor to examine. If I should altogether busy myself in raking in this filthy dunghill, I might be thought as vain and beastly, as this Coprologus himself: yet I will add one slander more.

23. Slaunder. That the Replier calleth the blessed roots of the Christian faith, cursed roots. 2. b. p. 84. A vile slander: for the Replier only repeateth the Confutors words, which are these; That he chargeth his brethren irreligiously and unchristianly to call the main grounds and principles of our faith into question. Saying further, To plant by writing, or water by speaking the cursed roots thereof. These are his own words in many syllables: now this word thereof, which he meaneth of Atheism, he with a cavillous spirit retorteth upon the Replier, as spoken of faith in the precedent sentence; which is apparently separated and suspended from the next clause, by these words interlaced in other caracters ( and saying ) which this sly iugler concealeth, that his fraud appear not.

I would he had grace to consider, how grievously he hath offended, in persecuting his brother with such uncharitable slanders, and had remembered that sentence of the Apostle, that he which hateth his brother is a man-slaier: yea, as Cyprian saith, Multo malum leuius & periculum minus est, cum membra gladio vulnerantur: facilior cura, vbi plaga perspicua, &c. zeli vulnera abstrusa sunt & occulta. Serm. de Liuore. It is a lighter evil, and less danger, when the members are wounded with a sword: the cure is easier, where the wound is in sight; the wounds of envy are close and secret.

Theocritus being demanded which were the most cruel beasts, made this answer; Truly in the hills, the Bears and Lions; but in Cities, sycophants and slanderers. The wise man hath expressed it better, That a Bear might rather meet with a man, then a fool in his folly. But, because a word once spoken cannot be called in; the next way to make amends for this gross over-sight, is to take heed of the like slip afterward: and to follow the wise man's counsel; If thou hast been foolish in lifting thyself up, and if thou hast thought wickedly, lay thy hand upon thy mouth. Let him hear Cyprian again; Venena fellis euome, purgetur men's quam serpentinus livor infecerat, amaritudo omnis quae intus insiderat, Christi dulcedine leniatur. Vomite up thy poisoned gall: let the mind be purged which serpentine envy hath infected: let all bitterness, which festered within, be allaied by the sweetness of Christ.

The accusation.

Next after his uncharitable slanders, followeth the imputation of untruths. In the front of Limbomastix he findeth no fewer then six untruths.

1. He taketh exception to the title Limbomastix, which he would have to signify, a scourge of the hem or border of a garment: and so he chargeth the Replier in his rude discourse (as he more rude himself calleth it) to cut a sunder the hem of the precious garment of Christ, the doctrine and discipline of the Church: he saith also that it is a new found name: and it should have been entitled Limbopatrum mastix, the word patrum should have been added to limit the general signification. 2. b. p. 2.

2. Vntr • th. That he forgeth a new matter never questioned in this Church, whether Christ descended into hell to deliver the Patriarchs. ibid. p. 3.

3. Vntruth. That the Replier ac • useth his answer as inclining to that opinion ( of Limbus patrum: ) for what one word ( saith he ) thorough the whole book doth insinuate so much as any suspicion thereof? p. 5.

4. Vntruth. The abuse and misapplication of Saint Paul's words, Phil. 3. 15. Let us, as many as be perfect, be thus minded. p. 8. for the Apostle speaketh not this of doctrine, but of perfection of life, if you will credit S. Chrysostom. p. 10.

5. Vntruth. You abuse that ancient and godly father S. Augustine in perverting his words. p. 12.

6. Vntruth. That he maketh the ignorant believe that the defenders of this article of Christ's descension into hell, join hands with none but with Bellarmine and other Papist. 2. b. p. 33.

The justification.

1. FIrst, if the Replier had missed somewhat in the title and inscription of his book, had that been so great a fault, as to deserve to be counted an untruth? Cicero was more equal toward his deadly enemy Antony: who saith, Te verbi inopia lapsum putarem: I would have thought, that you were overseen for want of a word. 2. What though Limbus originally signify the purle, hem, or gard of a woman's garment: yet seeing the Romanists have appropriated that word, to signify that place which is in the brim and skirts of hell, where they imagine the fathers to have been, we must understand it according to the usual sense: as Jerome saith in the like: non possumus quae dicuntur, nisi consuetis vocibus intelligere: we cannot understand what is said, but by the accustomed words. 3. That the Replier scourgeth the doctrine and discipline of the Church (which is as the hem of Christ's garment) is a mere slander, as is before shown, slaund. 6. but the Replier is beholding to this forger of untruths, that he maketh him but a scourger of the hem of Christ's garment, which cometh not near the flesh and body: as the saying is, near is my shirt, but nearer is my skin▪ whereas he himself hath whipped the very members and parts of Christ's body, holding his brethren, because they dissent from him about the local descent, no better then dissemblers, schismatics, yea heretics, and maintainers of blasphemous paradoxes: as hath been before declared, in the two former imputations of railing, and slanders: so that I may justly return upon him Augustine's words against the Donatists: Venit persecutor, & non fregit crura Christi, venit Donatus, & diripuit Ecclesiam Christi: integrum corpus Christi in cruce inter manus persecutorum est, & inter manus Christianorum, non est integrum corpus Ecclesiae: The persecutor came and brake not the legs of Christ: Donatus came, and spoiled the Church of Christ: the body of Christ is whole amid the hands of the persecutors; but in the hands of Christians, the body of the Church is not whole.

Secondly, though Limbomastix may seem a new name for the application, yet in respect of the manner of derivation and composition, it is not new: as the usual words, Homeromastix, Rhetoromastix, do show. Again, if Limbomastix be a new found name, what is his Symbolomastix, and Cleromastix, epist. dedid. p. 10. and that new term of discreeding, wherein he glorieth being used throughout his, not only rude, but raving and railing writing: whereof I may say, as Tully doth of a certain strange word in the Latin tongue, which Antony used: quod verbum in lingua (Anglicana) nullum est, id tu novum propter diuinam tuam pietatem inducis: that word which is not at all in (the English) tongue, you take up new, because of your divine piety.

Thirdly, whereas he would have it entitled rather, Limbopatrum mastix: 1. what need the word patrum be inserted, seeing use hath obtained among the Romanists (who are masters both of the word, and error therein implied) that Limbus, without any addition should signify that place and part of hell, where they imagined the fathers to be imprisoned: as his ringleader could have told him, after whose pipe he might have daunced here, as well as in other places. 2. And if he would needs have formed a word, to his own fashion, he that is so cunning in declining and inflecting of nounes (as his daily exercise with his grammar boys doth make him perfect) should rather have said, Limbopatrimastix, to avoid the concurrence of a double ( m) euphoniae gratia, then Limbopatrummastix. 3. And why else doth he so must strive for this sesquipedale verbum, Limbopatrummastix, but to obtrude, as Jerome, saith, magis portenta, quam nomina, monstrous terms, rather then names: simplices quos{que} terrens sono, vt quod non intelligant, plus mirentur: terrifying the simple, with strange sounds, that what they understand not, they may wonder at, as Jerome saith of Basilides.

2. The question in deed concerning Limbus patrum, was never controverted among sound Protestants: and therefore while he falleth upon that rock (as is discovered in the preface) he bringeth his Protestants faith into strong suspicion, as not holding a strait course by the direction of the true compass of Evangelical truth: he wresteth here against the Replier a sentence out of Augustine: as though he could have had nothing to say, unless he had imagined an adversary to rail upon. But the truth is, that if this brazen face, I would say, brazen-nose master of art, had left out his railing, slanders, untruths, errors, absurdities, and such like: he should neither have found what, nor against whom to have written. And Augustine shall be returned again upon himself, who may use his words in his own person: Procliviores sumus quaerere potius, quid contra ea respondeamus, quae nostro obijciuntur errori, quam intendere, quam sunt salubria, vt carcamus error: we are more ready to seek rather, what we may answer to those things, which are objected against our error, then to consider, how wholesome they are, that we may be without error.

3 How untrue it is, that there is not one word through his whole book, that doth insinuate any suspicion of holding Limbus patrum, let the Preface be witness, wherein this Popes▪ livery is fitted so close to his back, as if he himself had of purpose put it out to making. Therefore, the title of Lambomastix misseth not an hairs breadth, (in that respect) of that mark which he aimeth at in his first book. Indeed, his leaves are fronted throughout with false and presumptuous inscriptions; the defense of 3. testimonies of scripture. For, what a vile slander is this, that any of those against whom he speaketh, and carpeth (according to his name) should deny any testimony of Scripture? and what presumption is it, to take upon him, & profess to be a defender of Scripture; whereas, both the truth, and whosoever professeth the truth, is by it defended: the Scripture should be driven to a great straight, if it needed his poor defense. Here therefore, Augustine's sentence fitteth him well; Haeretici ad defensionem possessionis suae, Christi titulos ponunt, sicut nonnulli faciunt in doma sua: ne domum suam inuadat aliquis potens, ponit ibi titulos potentis, titulos mendaces, ipse vult possessor esse domus, & frontem domus suae titulo alieno vult muniri. Heretiks for the defense of their possessiō, do set up the titles of Christ, as many do in their house: least some mighty man should invade his house, he setteth up the title of some great man, but a false title: he would be the owner of the house, but the front of his house he would have privileged by another man's title. We will pardon him the first name of heretics, though we might as justly return it upon him, as he sendeth it to us: but all the rest most kindly agreeth unto him. For, he under color of defending certain testimonies of Scripture, obtrudeth his own private sense of scripture.

4 First, some Fathers also understand that place of the perfection of knowledge; as Origen upon those words, Rom. 15. 14. filled with all knowledge, alluding unto this place, thus expoundeth the one by the other; Paulus, & si qui sunt tales, ad comparationem caeterorum perfecti dicuntur, &c. Paul, and if there be any such, are said to be perfect by way of comparison with others; ad illam summam scientiam, quae est in coelestibus ordinibus, &c. in respect of that high knowledge, which is in the heavenly orders, none among mortal men can be called perfect. Likewise, Augustine thus interpreteth the 13. verse, of the which, this other place dependeth: Ergo non arbitror meipsum apprehendisse, id est, qualis sit Deus: I do not think, that I have apprehended it, that is, what manner of one God is. 2 Yea Chrysostom himself, in the same place addeth these words, which are not truly alleged by the Carper: Et ne putent seipsos perfectos esse: that they should not think themselves to be perfect. Quisquis putat se totum esse assequntum, nihil habet: He that thinketh he hath attained the whole, hath nothing. And a little before he saith, Non dixit, Deus inducet, sed reuelabit, vt res ista videatur magis esse ignorantiae: He said not, God will induce, but reveal, that all this matter may seem to be ignorance. Where then, there is opinion on the one side, and ignorance of the other; there the matter treated of, belongeth to knowledge, not to practice or perfection of life only. Chrysostom's meaning then is, that the Apostle speaketh not, de dogmatibus of ( speculative) doctrines, for that must be his meaning, unless he will make him contrary to himself; but of practiced knowledge, which belongeth to the practice of life. That no man should think, that he hath any other perfection or righteousness, but only by faith in Christ; for, that is the principal argument handled in this place, as appeareth verse 9. And further, what Chrysostom's meaning is, appeareth by his interpretation of the very like place, 1. Cor. 2. 6. We speak wisdom among those which are perfect: Sapientiam autem praedicationem, & salutis modum, hoc est, per crucem salutem, perfectos vero credentes appellate, &c. Wisdom he calleth preaching, and the manner of salvation; that is, by the cross, and believers he calleth the perfect. Here it is clear, that he understandeth not the perfection of life, but of faith. 3 There is no sense urged of the Apostles words, but only the sentence produced; and therefore this exception of the Apostles meaning is superfluous and impertinent. 4 Concerning that false charge of dissembling the Apostles words following, Nevertheless, whereunto we have attained, let us proceed by one rule, that we may be of one accord. First, if he dissembleth, which citing a place of Scripture, omitteth either the verse before going, or following; he will make S. Paul a dissembler, who useth everywhere, as chap. 3. to the Romans, and chap. 10. throughout those chapters, only to allege that part of the sentence, and testimony of Scripture, which was to his purpose, leaving the rest. Secondly, the Replier also, even produceth this sentence afterward, where he had cause to use it, and this the Cauiller himself confesseth: how then was he not ashamed, to charge him herein with dissimulation?

5 Neither is Augustine abused, or his words perverted; for, the Replier writing in other characters, erraueris, and tibi, did insinuate that those words were otherwise in Augustine: and he followed rather his sense, then urged the sentence. Could he make no difference between a Rhetorical imitation of an authors sentence, and a logical allegation of his testimony? the one being used for illustration only, the other for probation: the one following the • ense, the other tied to the words. As Jerome's allegeth Cicero to have done the like: Non conuerti vt interpres, sed vt Orator: I did not turn and translate him (meaning Demosthenes ) as an interpreter; but as an Orator. And Jerome further addeth: Non me ea annumerare lectori debere putaui, sed tanquam appendere: I thought I was not bound to deliver the words by number, but by weight.

6 In the sixth untruth objected, he committeth two untruths: for neither doth the Replier make mention of other defenders of the local descension, but of the immodest pamphleter only: neither saith he that he joineth hands only with Bellarmine: but that the places first urged by Bellarmine to that purpose, were seconded by him. But thus cunningly to cover his own wickedness, he would have the lap of an others garment cast upon him: and where his own credit serveth not, he would be maintained by other men's fame. And to make the Replier more odious, and himself more popular: he seeketh to justify himself, by extending the accusation to others. So that saying of Jerome may very well be applied against him: Indecens est vnum tueri, vt plures accusare videaris, & qu • m ration non possis, societate peccantium defendere: It is an unmeet thing, so to justify one, that you seem to accuse many: & whom with reason you cannot, to defend with number of offenders. This was an old trick of the perverse dogmatizers in times past, as Dioscorus cried out in the 2. Ephesine Synod: Ego cum patribus eijcior: Ego defendo patrum dogmata: I am cast out with the fathers: I defend the opinion of the fathers.

The Recrimination.

Vntruths boldly affirmed and falsely forged in the Anapologists Reioynder.

It may seem strange that a man should be so besotted with his own conceit, and blinded with envy, that he should object error and untruth to another, not knowing to tread one right foot himself: and to cavil at another's tripping, when he stumbleth and falleth down right. For any one untruth surmised by him, he shall be apaied ten for one. It may truly be said, if a diligent examination were had, that he hath not so many leaves in his book, as leasings; nor so many numbers, as errors: a dog trotteth not so fast, as his pen droppeth forgeries (as the common saying is:) for plainly to give him the lie, the Replier will forbear, as this sophistical forger for want of manners doth more then once, being ten times more worthy the whetstone himself. Archidamus said of an old man of Chius, that being sent of an Embassage to the Lacedemonians, had coloured his graie hairs, before he delivered his message: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : what truth is to be expected from this man, which carrieth about a lie not only in his heart, but in his head. And if this Chian coyner do so forge with his hand and pen, who can judge his heart to be clear. But I will now open this pedlars pack, and bring to view his sophisticate wares.

1. Vntr. I do marvel to see an Article of our Creed in so ill credit with Christians: epist. dedicat. p. 9. he laboreth in what he may to discreede my Christian and necessary defense of this article of our Creed. pref. p. 5. Here are three untruths couched together: for what Christian denieth any article of the Creed? his defense is neither Christian, being full of uncharitable railing, and slanders: nor yet necessary: as though both other learned men had not written better of that argument, and as if there were not many that could handle their pen with more wit and learning, if he had held his peace.

2. Vntr. In the prophetical testimony of David you will needs have the word (soul) to signify the humanity of Christ, and here ( that is, in this place of Peter) you will needs have it to signify the divinity. 1. b. p. 24. Whereas in that place of Peter, there is no mention made of the soul of Christ, but of the spirit.

3. Vntr. Bellarmine most truly defendeth with me against you, &c. that Christ after his death descended in soul to those places of hell, where dolours and torments were; and where the souls of sinners wont to be tortured. 1. b. p. 35. where four untruths are wrapped up together. 1. Bellarmine saith only, probable est, &c. it was probable, that Christ descended to all the places of hell; whereas this fellow defendeth it to be an article of the Creed so to believe, and consequently of necessity: therefore his Ringleader and ghostly father therein agreeth not with him. 2. Those first are not Bellarmine's, but Augustine's words: dicit Augustinus, Christum descendisse, &c. Augustine saith, that Christ descended to those places of hell, &c. where dolours and torments were. 3. These torments Bellarmine understandeth to have been spoken of the purgatory pains, and not of the torments of hell: restat, vt loquatur de animabus quae adhuc luebant poenas purgatorias: it remaineth that he ( Augustine ) speaketh of the souls which suffered purgatory pains. in fin. capitis. 4. The other words, vbi solebant peccatorum animae torqueri, where the souls of sinners were wont to be tortured, are not Bellarmine's but Fulgentius his words: see the place.

4. Vntr. Howsoever you bestir yourselves first to kill and crucify the blessed soul of our Savior upon the cross. 2. b. p. 35. A great slander, with untruth: the Replier is far from that blasphemy, to say that the soul of Christ can be killed.

5. Vntr. Whose arguments are everywhere seconded, urged, and intruded by you: 2. b. p. 44. whom with a scurrilous term, he calleth one of his chiefest captains, and greatest masters: p. 51. and everywhere he calleth him, the Repliers Patriarke, 3. b. p. 3. and in diverse other places: whereas the Replier professeth ex animo, that he knoweth not what arguments are urged by him (whom this forger noteth) as having not read his defense: and beside, the Replier did first else where write somewhat of this matter, and therefore he was rather seconded by the other, then did second him. And how absurd and inconsequent a speech it is, who seeth not, to nickname him a Patriarke, whom his cavilling spirit everywhere inveigheth against as an impugner of the reverend calling of Bishops.

6. Vntr. That he verily believeth the Replier to be one of those, which writ the unchristian letter to M. Hooker: p. 49. whereas the Replier knoweth not to this day, who were the writers of that letter: which he that calleth unchristian, being for the manner modest, and for the points of doctrine there maintained sound, seemeth rather himself to have small Christianity. If his belief of Christ's soul descent into hell, be of no more certainty with him, then this his belief, (as it may be thought verily it is not with him, howsoever it is with others) his faith and belief is very weak.

7. Vntr. The ancient fathers do interpret it of a mortal sin, not secretly but openly committed against others: 2. b. p. 67. he meaneth that place, Matth. 18. 15. If thy brother trespass against thee, &c. In this indefinite speech, he seemeth to mean all the ancient fathers, whereas he allegeth not one to prove this his assertion to be true. But in deed in this his bold speech, he bewrayeth his ignorance mixed with untruth: for the first he is to be borne withal: for his schoolemasters skill cannot be supposed to be able to attain unto any great reading in the fathers. But his other fault is not to be excused: his ignorance in the fathers should have made him doubtful and scrupulous, not bold and presumptuous: but in him the proverb is verified, who so bold, as blind bayard: for here he hath with one breath uttered two untruths: first, that the ancient fathers do interpret this place of mortal sin: Origen I hope (in his calender) is one of the ancient fathers, yet he expoundeth the place of light and small offenses: Qui in peccato levi correptus ter, &c. non se emendat, nos quidem sic eum debemus habere tanquam publicanum, &c. He that in a light sin being thrice reproved, &c. doth not amend himself, we must so hold him as a publicane.

Secondly, that the fathers do expound it of sins openly committed; and therefore to be openly and publicly censured, is another untruth. For the author of the Homilies upon Matthew, fathered upon Chrysostom, writeth thus upon this place; Inter duos solummodo redargutionem fieri iubet, &c. He biddeth that the reprehension should be made between two alone, lest by the testimony of the multitude, &c. he should show himself more hard to be corrected. Likewise I suppose, that Augustine will be allowed for one of the Fathers, but he giveth this interpretation; Quid est (in te peccauit) tu scis, quia peccauit, quia enim secretum fuit, quando in te peccauit, secretum quaere cum corrigis, quod in te peccauit: What is this, hath sinned against thee? thou knowest that he hath sinned, because therefore it was secret, when he sinned against thee, seek him in secret, when thou doest correct that, which he hath sinned against thee. Now then, his own words may be returned upon his own head; it was either great ignorance, or gross oversight in you, to say, the ancient Fathers do interpret it of mortal sin openly committed.

8. Vntruth. That the Replier presseth Carliles very reasons, &c. and acknowledgeth him for a sound interpreter. p. 92. & that he borroweth diverse things of him. p. 125. whereas the Replier doth protest, that he never yet read, or so much as saw Carliles book: but what will not evil will imagine?

9. Vntruth. That Bellarmine agreeth with all antiquity, in taking the Hebrew and Greek words, sheol, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that they signified only soul and hell. 2. b. p. 119. Here are three notable untruths; for neither antiquity, nor yet Bellarmine, nor any learned interpreter, ever took these two words sheol, and hades, to signify the soul and hell: for neither of them was ever taken by any to signify the soul. Secondly, not all the ancient interpreters took sheol, translated infernus, only to signify hell; for Cyprian upon the Creed, which is also ascribed to Ruffinus, doeth take it for the grave, in these words: Sciendum est, quod in Ecclesiae Romanae symbolo non habetur additum descendit ad infernos, &c. We must know, that in the Roman Church it is not found added in the Creed, he descended to hell, &c. Vis tamen verbi eadem videtur esse in eo, quod sepultus dicitur: but the same force of the word seemeth to be in that he is said to be buried. And Chrysostom also concurreth: Descendit ad infernum, vt ibi à miraculo non vacaret, &c. He descended to hell, that he should not there be without miracle; for many of the bodies of the Saints rose with Christ, and died again, hom. 2. in Symbol. Here by infernus, hell, he seemeth to understand that place, from whence Christ raised the bodies of the dead, that came out of their graves; which is none other, but the place of burial, and the grave. And Augustine expoundeth that place, Psalm. 88. 3. My life draweth near to hell, by these words of Christ, My soul is heavy unto death. Thirdly, neither doth Bellarmine take the words sheol and nephesh, only to signify hell: for the first, he saith, Ordinary accipitur, &c. it is taken ordinarily for the place of souls under the earth: & vel raro, vel nunquā pro sepulchro: or seldom, or never for the grave. He simply denieth not, but that it sometime signifieth the grave, though not ordinarily. For the other word, thus he saith; Nephesh est generalissim • vox, &c. Nephesh is a general word, and signifieth without any trope, as well the soul, as the living creature; yea the body. He may be ashamed therefore thus to belie his ring-leader, and grand captain; with whom, he saith he is beholding to the Replier for joining him, being a learned Papist. p. 119.

10. Vntruth. That he doeth fasten all the torments of hell upon the blessed soul of our Savior. 2. b. p. 154. whereas the Replier simply denieth against the false charge of Feuardentius, That Christ suffered in his soul the whole pains of the damned in hell.

11. Vntruth. That you expound in the former testimony, soul, that is, body; hell, that is grave: and here, spirits, that is, men; dead, that is living. 3. b. p. 71. Here are four untruths fardelled up together. 1. Neither doth the Replier by soul understand body; but either the person, or life. 2. Neither by hell, the grave; but only showeth that the hebrew word sheol, which signifieth hell, is sometime taken for the grave. 3. Nor yet doth he expound spirits, that is men; but that they are called now spirits, with S. Peter, which sometime were men. 4. And they which are now dead, were sometime living.

12. Vntruth. Only Beza may seem to favor you, that is, in taking soul for life. 2. b. p. 118. What boldness is this, to set down such peremptory negatives, as though he had himself run over all writers, both new & old? What a great untruth is it to say, only Beza, when as Calvin directly affirmeth the same: Neque enim anima tam spiritum immortalis essentiae significat, quam vitam ipsam: for the soul doth not so much signify the immortal essence of the spirit, as the life it self. Is Calvin in his base opinion nobody?

13. It turneth Christ's everliving soul into a dead body: it siteth hell in the superficies of the earth: maketh hell a place of corruption, and there burieth the blessed soul of our Savior. 2. b. p. 164. All these impieties and absurdities he chargeth the Replier with for so understanding that place, Act. 2. 27. that Christ's life seemed to be raked up in the grave: for here he hath uttered three untruths: 1. the soul being taken for the life, turneth not the soul of Christ into the body, but maketh the life only to be as laid up in the grave: 2. they which take sheol here for the grave, which also signifieth hell, deny not, but that beside this sheol in the grave, there is another also in hell: sheol taken for the grave is a place of corruption, not sheol when it signifieth hell: 4. he is the man, that burieth and shutteth up Christ's soul in hell, holding and affirming, that it was there three days.

14. That Durand held an opinion contrary to all the rest of the Romanists, that Christ's soul descended not to hell in substance, but by certain effects: p. 190. whereas Thomas Aquinas held the same in effect: that Christ only descended per realem praesentiam, by his real presence to Limbus patrum: to all the other places of hell, per effectum, by effects: and thus Bellarmine himself citeth him: take away that conceit of Limbus patrum, which to all Protestants is but a dream, and in the rest these two agree.

15. Neither Protestant, nor yet Papist (of any account) will take your part: for the Papists, they are fitter mates for him: but diverse Protestants of great account are in this question of the Repliers judgment: as instance is given in twelve of them before, 13. slaund. therefore, it is great vnshamefastnes in this brabler, to utter so unreasonable and improbable a speech.

16. He calleth A. Humes his first instructer, p. 195. whereas he shall find that the party given in instance in his Reioynder, hath reference unto some of the Repliers works, even in this argument.

17. Vntr. In this sense the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is used every where throughout the Bible, that is, is meant for the soul. 3. b. p. 57. A most audacious speech, and full of untruth: for the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , spirit, is as often taken for the divine spirit of God, as for the soul of man: as is evident in these places, John. 4. 24. God is a spirit. Rom. 1. 4. declared mightily to be the son of God touching the spirit of sanctification. 1. Tim. 3. 16. justified in the spirit. 1. Tim. 4. 1. the spirit speaketh evidently: and many other such places might be produced: he showeth how shameless a man he is therefore, that dare vent forth such a great untruth, that this word spirit, everywhere is taken for the soul of man.

18. He saith, that sixteen of the fathers cited by Bellarmine, make no mention of the delivery of the fathers, by Christ's descending to hell: 3. b. p. 79. whereas there are five of that number wanting: for Bellarmine citeth in all 36. Councils and fathers, of the which 25. do either directly, or by necessary consequent affirm, that Christ descended to hell to deliver the souls of the fathers: so that to make up the full number, there remain only an eleven, which make mention only of Christ's descending to hell, and speak not of the delivery of the fathers, and these they are: Lateranens. Council. Irenaeus, Clemens, Gregor. Nyssen. Chrysostom, Theodoret, Augustine, Leo, Fulgentius, Vigilius, Arator subdiaconus: all which notwithstanding, or most of them, if not in those places, produced by Bellarmine, yet else where in their works, do give testimony with the rest for Limbus patrum.

19. Vntr. You flatly deny this distinction of the souls death by sin or damnation, as insufficient: 3. b. p. 84. whereas the Replier directly saith, we approve that sentence of Augustine, which maketh mention only of those two kinds of the death of the soul: speaking properly: though in a more general sense, the deep perplexity and terror of the soul, may be said to be a kind of death of the soul: where the Replier further addeth in direct terms, I will forbear to use this phrase of Christ's dying in soul. ibid.

20. Vntr. He calleth the Repliers exposition of that place of S. Peter, new fancies, having the approbation of Augustine for the most part, and of Bede more fully: whereupon the Replier inferreth, that this exposition is not newly devised. Limbom. p. 45.

21. Vntr. The word descending, is never spoken of the grave: 3. b. p. 139. whereas David saith thus to Solomon concerning Joab: thou shalt not suffer his hoary head to descend into the grave in peace: where the word iaradh is used, which signifieth to descend: and the other word sheol beside the consent of the interpreters, Pag. Mont. Tremell. Vatab. and the Chaldee translator, and both our English translations, which all read or understand, the grave; the circumstance of the place giveth it so to be taken, because he speaketh of his gray hairs, which go not down to hell, but to the grave.

22. He saith that all Latin interpreters turn sheol, infernum, hell: Psal. 139. 8. p. 151. 3. b. when as Junius readeth, stratum ponerem in sepulchro, if I should make my bed in the grave: and so Vatablus, though he retain the word infernum, in the text • yet in his annotations he understandeth it of sepulchrum the grave. An other untruth it is, that all translators and interpreters are condemned of falsehood by Limbomastix: when as the Replier saith only thus; neither do some of the best interpreters read hell, but the grave. ibid. 3. b. p. 151. in marg.

The accusation.

1. That it be lawful for none to maintain or defend, those doctrines, wherein the Protestants of England consent with other reformed Churches. Here he crieth out: when he set down this petition, sure it is either he was much distracted, or not soberly minded. 2. b. p. 25.

2. Because the Replier hath as it is printed, Augustine saith well to Jerome, whereas it was Jerome that so writ to Augustine in his 13. epist. he exclaimeth, you unlearnedly mistake. 2. b. p. 101.

3. Because his Linx eye findeth applicate printed for explicate. 3. b. p. 6.

4. Because Limbom. hath, if the Apostle had treated of Christ's descensiō, before his resurrection: is this such a foul error? whereas he should have said, if the Apostle had treated of Christ's resurrection, before his ascension: he proclaimeth gross oversight. p. 54.

5. Because Limbom. readeth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , where it should be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .

6. Limbom. saith, The Lord upheld Noah in all his preaching and profession against all the professors of the old world, condemning them, and saving him: whereupon he crieth out: a wicked and intolerable speech. 3. b. p. 104.

7. Amiddes the uncircumcised ( not circumcised ) as you falsely call them. p. 137.

8. Limbom. But there came another descention between, which immediately went before his descending to death and the grave: whereupon this peevish prier would infer, that the Replier bringeth in a third descension, which should immediately go before his descending to death and the grave. 3. b. p. 158.

The iustificatim, or satisfaction.

1. THis curious overseer of others, might have considered, that this one monosyllable ( but ) should have been inserted, and so the words to be read thus: ( but) those doctrines, wherein the Protestants, &c. And thinketh he, that so small a word, might not easily escape the compositor in the authors absence: who neither knew of the printing of that book, no • was present at it? seeing that in other of his works the like scapes have been made: sometimes by the adding of a word too much, sometime by leaving out: as were not, is put for were: for the, instead of, for that the: had yet revealed, for, had not yet revealed. And as ( but ) is here omitted, so is it there superfluously added, as, but though, for though.

2. The Replier himself in another place, citing the very same words, saith, vt been Hieronymus Augustino, as Jerome saith well to Augustine: therefore this partial Censurer, who otherwise is quick sighted enough to espy motes in the authors eye in Synopsis, might have compared that place with his censure: but his uncharitable partiality blinded him. The Replier therefore is cleared from this oversight, who soeuers else it was. And whereas Jerome writ but 10. epistles to Augustine, and this is found in the sixth of them, he committeth a double oversight, saying it is in the 13.

3. As though the Replier himself hath not corrected that word among the errata before Limbom. showing that explicate should be read for applicate: he had small reason therefore to take this slender exception.

4. He that taketh this transposing of the words, whether in the writer or the setter (an usual oversight in compositors) for so great a fault, might have remembered, that it is a grosser fault to mistake one word for another, especially of a contrary sense, as ascending for descending, as he doth in these words: there is no word of ascending joined with it, as in all places, where it signifieth hell. 3. b. p. 184. he should have said, no word of descending: for to ascend to hell was never read▪ And again, he might hal • e • eene (if he had not been willfully blind) that the Replier in setting down the objection, placed the words in their right order: the transposing then of them afterward, by all likelihood was not his fault.

5. The word corrected by the Caviller, was before so amended by the Replier in the errata, which his willful blindness would not suffer him to see.

6. Likewise, professors in that place, should be read, profane persons, as the Replier himself hath noted it among the errata to Limbom.

7. The Replier himself thus readeth in the one place not many lines before: they are gone down with the uncircumcised: and therefore this frivolous fault finder might have known, that the Replier could read no otherwise in the other place: whose oversight so ever it was.

8. Here this captious Controller picketh this quarrel for want of a small comma in parenthesis: for the words should be read thus: there came another descension between, which went immediately before,) his descending to death and the grave: that is, namely his descending &c. so there must be a pause between, before, and descending, and then there is no place left for this cavil.

The Recrimination.

1. He saith, he will take the pains to perverse his pamphlet once again, pref. p. 5. he meaneth the Repliers book: but this may be well taken for a willing or willful scape: for in deed this spiteful spy fault, or rather make fault, doth nothing else but pervert, and, in his own term, perverse the Repliers pamphlet: his pen did here hit righter then he was aware.

2. There wanted no good will in you, but courage in a good cause: he would have said, bad cause: but his pen is overruled to write the truth against his own mind.

3. Now to proceed to your militiaes, p. 57. he would have said militaries: so, 3. b. p. 150. here is a plain exposition (of ascending and descending) he would have said opposition.

4. Touching the signification of the Hebrew & Greek words, sheol and hades, used by David, and Peter in this place, all religious divines and learned Doctors, &c. which for a thousand five hundred years together flourished in the Church of God, always taught, and the Christian world believed, that they signified only soul and hell. 2. b. p. 119. I pray you (Sir Controller) which of these two words in your Grammar learning signifieth soul? sheol, or hades?

5. He citeth Synops. p. 1218. p. 124. in the margen, whereas that book hath in all but pages 1114. Will not any man think that he was well overseen here?

6. David's perdiction. 2. b. p. 116. It may be he would have said David's prediction. So 3. b. p. 78. ancient Nathers, for fathers. 3. b. p. 60. in spirituae sancto for spiritu.

7. As for the ancients, Irenaeus, Athanasius, &c. and for late interpreters, Calvin, Bullinger, &c. as the reader may see in my former book, it is also confirmed by the text it self, &c. 3. b. p. 72. I think no man living can make any sense or construction of this inconsequent speech.

8. 3. b. p. 193. he saith, S. Chrysostom, and S. Augustine, are both here named by yourself among those, which agreed in that opinion: he should have said, agreed not: for the Replier propoundeth it negatively: neither did all the fathers agree in judgment, that Christ descended into hell; to redeem, &c. and then Chrysostom and Augustine are produced, as not agreeing with the rest therein.

9. So, 3. b. p. 184. he putteth acending for descending, as is noted before, iustificat. 8. I omit many other literal scapes: as keek justice, for keep, and convertite, for convert, with such other slips usual in his book: which his trippings should not have been spoken of, but that he is so quick sighted to note the least scapes in others. Let now the indifferent Reader judge what he hath gained by objecting gross oversights.

Thus it falleth out according to that saying of Chrysostom, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : that dishonesty is easily taken, and everywhere entangled by it self. And I send him withal Jerome's posy: Suadeas homini, ne vescentium dentibus edentulus invideat, & oculos caprearum talpa contemnat: let not this toothless gentleman envy at the feeders teeth, nor the moule scorn the goats eyes: his moulish blindness was overseen to carpe at them, which are sharper sighted then himself.

The accusation.

1. Because the Replier translateth those words of Augustine: apud inferos custodiae mancipari: to be kept in hell: this Reuiler saith, every Grammarian knoweth to be false, and that the true translation is, to be kept in bondage, or held captive in hell: and further for this signification of the word, he allegeth Tully, Lucretius, and Plautus. 3. b. p. 3.

2. Because the Replier translateth out of Jerome, caprearum oculos, Goats eyes; he thus layeth about him: do you make no difference between capra and caprea, a Goat and a Roe-bucke? that you mistranslate. Jerome's words, every boy may see. 3. b. p. 99.

3. Thus this profound Grecian bestirreth him. p. 107. And for the verb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , whereon you ground your whole fancy, the meanest Grecian knoweth it is not an active, but a passive: and therefore most unlearnedly translated by you, preacheth.

4. Again, he according to his great skill chanllengeth also the Replier, for writing false Hebrew, as cheber for keber, a grave.

The justification.

1. THough the Replier hath not spent so much time in teaching of Grammar, as this perke Pedantius hath done; yet he knew what the proper signification of the verb mancipo was, before the other knew how to decline a noun, or coniugate a verb: for, though mancipo put absolutely, signify to deliver into bondage, or possession; yet the other word custodiae being put unto it, doth somewhat alter the signification: So that mancipari custodiae, signifieth to be committed or delivered up to keeping. And what is this else (Sir Grammarian) but in a shorter phrase, to be kept? And will he needs have it englished, kept in bondage? then it will follow upon Augustine's words ( Shall we think any to be so impious, that dare say that the soul of our Savior, &c. was three days held captive in hell ) that Christ's soul was held captive in hell, though not three days. But I think he is not so absurd, as to grant, that it was there held captive at all. These three latin Authors are impertinently alleged: Lucretius, for the use of the word mancipium: Plautus, for the word manceps: and Tully, for the word mancipo: whereas he should have produced them concerning this phrase, mancipari custodiae.

2. And every Grammar or dictionarie boy could have told him, that caprea as well signifieth a wild goat, as a Roe-bucke: Gesner saith, that caprae, eaedem & capreae, that the same are called by both names: which are wild goats, whom the Grecians of their seeing call (dorcas) they stay in the mountains, and (though afar off) see those which are coming, &c. He also showeth out of Martial, that he taketh caprea for rupicapra, for the wild goat, or rock goat. And Gesner himself confesseth; that the ( caprea ) is de genere caprarum syluestrium, of the kind of wild goats. And he allegeth out of Aristotle, that the caprea is the smallest of all horned beasts: and therefore cometh nearer the nature of a goat, then of a bucke.

3. But our cracking Grecian goeth on to show his skill in the Greek tongue, as he hath done in the latin. Indeed he is a very mean Grecian, that knoweth not that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 may as well be of the mean voice, as of the passive, and so may be translated as well actively, preacheth; as passively, preached. And is it indeed unlearnedly translated preacheth? Then were the Septuagint's unlearned, that so interpret the active in the Hebrew, tikra; for they were not so ignorant, as to express an active by a passive. Likewise, they in the same place interpret another active in the Hebrew, taronah, by a verb of the mean voice, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; which both the Latin translater, Montanus, and Pagnine express by the active, praedicat, preacheth. All these also must go for unlearned translators in the blind judgment of this new Grammarian, who taketh upon him to teach Divines, when he seemeth scarce able to teach boys their Grammar.

4. But his Hebrew Rabbinical science, will help out his small intelligence in the Greek: forsooth a letter is mistaken, cheth is put for coph: a great matter. But is he sure the author mistook it? I think not: for he might have found else-where, that this word is written with coph: which corner he had sought before to find dust, but he saw not the besom, that would have served to sweep it away.

The Recrimination.

1. As he challenged the Replier (but beside his book) for the signification of the word caprea, what beast it should betoken; so he shall first be apposed with the like question: what kind of beast pardus is? a Leopard it is not, for that is called Leopardus, a Leopard, or Libbard. Then was this Etymologist overseen, in translating out of Origen, pardum cum haed • , the Leopard and the Kidde. Gesner showeth, that the Leopard is a diverse beast from the Pardus, as he allegeth out of Isidorus, Ex adulterio Pardi & Le • nae, Leopardus nascitur▪ The Leopard is engendered by the adulterous commixtion of the Pard and the Lioness. The Leopard he thinketh to be the same, which the English men call the Cat a mountain. It is true that both our English translations do read Leopard in that place of Isaiah, chap. 11. v. 6. but in so translating, they express not the word pardus in the Latin; but the Hebrew word namer, which serveth both for Pardus and Leopardus. But we pardon him this small oversight, and will not insist upon it.

2. But his Latin scapes are not so many, for it were a stark shame for a man to mis • e in his ordinary trade: it would pi • tie a man to see how he 〈◊〉 in the Greek. 2. b. p. 178. He translateth, Job. 38. 17. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the gates of hell: whereas both the interpreter of the Septuag. the Latin translator, with Vatablus and others, read the gates of death.

3. 3. b. p. 82. Twice he setting down the Repliers words, readeth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , whereas the word is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , as Limbomastix hath it. p. 32. 33. This error falling out twice within 10. lines, may argue ignorance rather in the penman, then oversight in the Printer.

4. So in another place, he writeth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , to save alive. 1. b. p. 29. in the margen; and that his ignorance may appear, he still retaineth the same word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . 3. b. p. 86. and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , for viuificare, to revive, or save: whereas, there is no such word at all in the Greek, much less in that sense. For the Greek word which signifieth to save, is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which maketh in the future 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : the other word, which beginneth with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which maketh 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the future, which signifieth to live: and this for a taste of his Greek.

5. As unsavory a relish hath his hebrew smattering: for instead of the hebrew word carah to live, he writeth caia, with aleph instead of he, there being no such hebrew word. And lest he might excuse it by oversight, he writeth the same word again after the same manner. 2. b. p. 159. and the third time so likewise. 3. b. p. 86.

6. The hebrew word keber, he according to his skill will have taken for hell, Psal. 88. 10. whereas all interpreters, do there read and understand the grave: the Septuag. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : the vulgar latin, Vatabl. Montan. Pagnin. in sepulchro, in the grave. And so our English also.

7. Further, in the very same place, that his hebrew profundity may sufficiently be testified to all men, he noteth another word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , perdition, in the same verse: can any man tell what this word is? the Hebrew word there used is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , abaddon: where he leaveth out the letter vaf with the vowell cholem. What a shame is it for a man so utterly ignorant in the languages, to take upon him to control others, being more blameable himself? By this view of his gross slips in Greek and Hebrew, I am induced to think that report to be true, which hath been given out by some that knew him in Oxford; that what ostentation soever he maketh now, he was thought to have no great skill either in Hebrew or Greek then.

Now it falleth out upon him, according to that saying of a Greek Father, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : nothing maketh a man so unshamefast (he would have translated impudent) as a bad conscience. So this talkative tasker of others, having a bad conscience, not caring what he said or objected to others, though never so untrue, is without measure bold and bragging. I may say of him, as Jerome of his adversary, that professed general skill in whatsoever: tu, fella publice posita, Hermagoram nobis, & Gorgiam exhibes Leontinum: you (your chair being set aloft) do offer yourself as another Hermagoras, and Gorgias; which took upon them to dispute of any matter propounded unto them. So this Crazy Craker would make himself a professed linguist in all the learned tongues, being nothing else then a wrangling verbalist.

The accusation.

1. That Christ hath two kingdoms belonging unto him, one as God, another as God and man: and that his kingdom as he is God, is incommunicable to any. 2. b. p. 201.

2. That the Godhead is invisible, incomprehensible: ibid. He counteth these paradoxes, contrary to the holy scriptures, and wondereth how they could fall from the Repliers pen.

3. Augustine taketh the spirit, 1. Pet. 3. 19. not for the divine nature of Christ, but for the operation of the holy Ghost: which two you most erroneously confound, saith this error finder. 3. b. p. 127.

4. He calleth it a strange position, that the true joys of heaven are in this world. 2. b. p. 207.

The justification.

1. THis Erring Censor, at the first erreth in misreporting the Repliers words, which are these; that kingdom, whereof Christ promiseth to make the thief partaker, is not that kingdom, which belonged to him as God (for that is not communicable to any creature) but which is due to him, as Messiah. Limbomast. p. 18. It is not affirmed here, that Christ hath two kingdoms, but that it being one and the same kingdom, yet hath a diverse respect, one as it belongeth to Christ as God, another as he is the Messiah, both God and man.

And that this diverse relation and respect of the kingdom of Christ, is not contrary to the Scripture, (as this ignorant scripturian saith) but most consonant and agreeable to the same: it appeareth evidently by that divine testimony of S. Paul, 1. Cor. 15. 24. Then shall the ende be when he hath delivered up the kingdom to God, even the father, when he hath put down all rule, and all authority and power: v. 25. for he must reign till he hath put all his enemies under his feet: v. 28. and when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him, that did subdue all things under him, that God may be all in all.

But because the deciding of this question, consisteth in the right understanding of this Scripture, I will deliver diverse expositions thereof, and approve the best: I find eight several interpretations of these words: then shall the Son himself also be subject.

1. The Sabellians, which denied the distinction of the three persons of the glorious Trinity, and the Marcionites joining with them, did thus understand it: Ista filij subiectio futura est; cum in patrē filius refundetur: this subjection of the son shall then be, when the son shall be resolved into the father: meaning that the person of the son, shall run into the person of the father. But Ambrose confuteth this wicked opinion, by this reason: Tum omnia, quae filio subiecta erunt, in filium & patrem resolventur: Then all those things, which were subject to the son, shall also be resolved into the son and the father: as they say the son shall be resolved into the father: which were absurd to say: which was one of those gross errors, imputed to Origen: that upon those words of S. Paul, that God may be all in all, groundeth this erroneous fancy: vniuersa creatura redigetur in eam substantiam, quae omnibus melior est, divinam scilicet: that every creature shall be brought to that substance, which is the best of all, that is, the divine.

2. An other exposition as bad as this, was, that the human nature of Christ should be converted into his divine, & penitus absorbendā à divinitate, and should be wholly swallowed up of his deity: so Augustine reporteth. But this heretical sense is overthrown by the Apostles direct words: for in that the son is said to be subject, it showeth, that there remaineth somewhat to be subject, otherwise there could be no subjection.

3. Some refer it to the body of Christ the Church, and understand it of his faithful members, in whom there yet remaineth some sins and imperfections: which till they be subdued unto God, Christ in his members is not subdued: so Origen: donec ego non sum subditus patri, nec ipse dicitur patri esse subiectus: while I am not subdued to the father, neither is he said to be subject to the father.

4. Others take it to be understood of unbelievers, not yet converted to the faith, which are not yet subject: so that pars membrorum eius non est subiecta fidei, part of his members is not subject to the faith: but in the ende, when as they also acknowledge the kingdom of Christ, then Christ with his whole body, shall be subject unto God: so Jerome. But both these expositions are taken away by the Apostles words: for he is made subject unto the father, to whom he subdued all things, but to the son are all things subdued, therefore he speaketh of the subjection of the person of the son.

5. Some take this subjection to be spoken of the person of Christ, that thereby is meant nothing else, but that the son had his beginning and was begotten of the father: so Theophylact and Oecumenius upon this place: and Ambrose to the same effect saith, Deus caput Christi dicitur, quia ab eo genitus, that God is said to be Christ's head, because he was begotten of him. But there can be no subjection in the godhead: seeing the father and son are of the same nature in the Godhead; so one cannot be said to be subject to another.

6. Others do understand this subjection, in respect of Christ's human nature, as Ambrose: fecundum humanae naturae assumptionem erit illa subiectio: according to the assumption of the human nature shall be that subjection. But then why should Christ be said to be subject now more, then in the days of his flesh: if it be answered, that it may appear, that the man Christ, even being glorified; is subject unto God: yet this doth not satisfy, for even now Christ is entered into his glory, and yet this time of the subjection of the son is not come.

7. There remain then two expositions of Augustine's▪ the first is, that Christ is said to deliver up the kingdom to his father, non quod tunc incipiet, sed cognosci incipiet: not that then it beginneth to be, but beginneth to be acknowledged: now also the father reigneth, but then the kingdom of the father shall be made manifest. But neither doth this explanation fully satisfy: for neither now is the kingdom of Christ made manifest to all the world, but then shall appear unto all at his coming: if then the manifestation of the kingdom of the father, be the delivering of it up unto him; then also the manifestation of the kingdom of the son, in that day, should also be the delivering of it unto him: and so in effect, he should be said to deliver it up, when it is (in that sense) delivered to him.

8. The last therefore and best exposition is: that the Apostle speaketh of surrendering up and resigning that kingdom of Christ unto his father, which was given him, as he was manifested in the flesh, until all his enemies be subdued: as Calvin very well saith, Pater eum hac conditione ad dextram suam collocavit, &c. The father placed him upon this condition at his right hand, that he should not leave the government, which he had received, before his enemies were brought under. Likewise, learned Junius▪ Illud puta 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , quod filio imposuit pater, nam illud divmum, &c. He shall deliver up his Economical kingdom, which the father hath laid upon his son, not that divine and eternal (kingdom) common to the father, the son, and the holy Ghost: which was never laid down by any person of the Trinity, no not for a moment.

This diverse respect of the kingdom of Christ, Chrysostom long since touched, in these words: Regna Dei Scriptura duo novit, alterū adoptionis & familiaritatis, alterum creationis, &c. The Scripture acknowledgeth two kingdoms of Christ, the one of adoption and familiar (care,) the other of creation: he is therefore by the law of workmanship and creation the King, of Jews, Ethnikes, Devils, and adversaries; but of the faithful, and such as willingly commit and subject themselves, by familiar care. This kingdom also is said to have a beginning: for of this it is spoken in the second Psalm, Ask of me, and I will give thee the nations for thine inheritance. And he himself said to his Disciples: all power is given unto me of my father: referring all as received of his father: not because he was not sufficient, but showing that he was the son, and not unbegotten: this (kingdom) therefore he will deliver, that is, restore.

Here this learned father maketh two kingdoms of Christ (which are rather diverse respects or relations of one and the same kingdom) Christ is king over all creatures, as God and creator: and he is king of his Church, as redeemer. This respective kingdom he shall render unto God.

Augustine treadeth in the same steps: that as Christ ruleth the creatures, he shall reign forever: vt autem militat, &c. but as he warreth against the devil, there shall be an ende of his kingdom. And this is agreeable to the Apostle, He must reign till he hath put all his enemies under his feet. This is that kingdom which was given unto Christ, as the Messiah. But it will be objected, that the kingdom of the Messiah shall be everlasting, as the angel said to Marie, Of his kingdom shall be no ende, Luk. 1. 33. The answer is, that the kingdom of the Messiah, in respect of the glory and power thereof is everlasting, the humanity of Christ being by an everlasting & inseparable union joined to his godhead in one person: but in regard of the manner and execution it shall determine: as Calvin excellently toucheth this point, Deum quidem agnoscimus rectorem, sed in facie hominis Christi, &c. Now we acknowledge God to be the ruler, but in the face of the man Christ: but then Christ shall restore the kingdom which he received, that we may perfectly adhere unto God: neither by this means shall he abdicate his kingdom, but shall draw it after a manner from his humanity to his divinity. And again, then the veil being removed, we shall manifestly see God reigning in his Majesty. Neque amplius media erit Christi humanitas: neither shall Christ's humanity need to come between (or to be a mean) &c. His meaning is, that in the kingdom of God, when Christ hath brought us to his glory, there shall not then be such use of the mediation and intercession of Christ, for remission of sins, for the subduing of our enemies, and such like, because then, as Augustine saith, fides cessabit, & pleno aspectu Deum intuebimur: faith shall cease, and we shall behold God with full sight. Now then, if this place of the Apostle be well weighed, where he speaketh of Christ's kingdom, which shall be delivered up unto God: a kingdom wherein he that gave it shall put down all things under him: a kingdom that is but until all his enemies be put under his feet: a kingdom, the governor whereof, shall himself be subject to his father: no man can without blasphemy understand this of the everlasting kingdom of God, which he neither received of any, neither shall it have end, neither is he himself subject to any. It is therefore gross error, and foppish ignorance in this new fangled novice, to deny that the kingdom of Christ is to be respected one way, as it belongeth unto him as God; and another, as it is given him, as the Messiah.

2. As grossly ignorant doth he show himself in deciphering of the next error: in that the Replier holdeth the deity of God to be invisible and incomprehensible: which this deep divine in his new Theology counteth paradoxes. And hereupon insulting, he goeth on, flying from the point in question, whether the deity shall be, or can be of the creature comprehended. He busieth himself to prove, that though not in this mortal and s • nnefull life, yet in the next, we shall behold the glory of God. To this purpose he allegeth scriptures, that we shall see him as he is, 1. John. 3. 2. of Fathers, as of Augustine, that the blessed Trinity can no ways be seen with human eyes, but with those eyes, &c. of Ambrose, that we shall then see with uncovered face the glory of God. 2. b. p. 203. He telleth us of certain heretics that held, that they which awake at the last day, shall not see God at all in his divine essence and nature. Of which opinion was one Abailardus, against whom Bernard writeth. p. 207. And thus he fighteth with his shadow, leaving the point in controversy, whether the Godhead may be comprehended.

Briefly therefore to open this point, I find that there have been two principal opinions concerning the vision of God, and the one contrary to the other. It is noted as one of Origen's errors by Jerome, that he should think the Godhead of the father to be so invisible, as that it could not be comprehended of the son. As this opinion maketh the Godhead altogether invisible in one extreme; so some were so gross and carnal, as that they held, Verbi Dei naturam, non solum mutabilem, sed etiam visibilem: that the nature of the word of God, was not only mutable, but visible; as Augustine reporteth their opinion: unto these the heretics Anomoei came near, of the which sort, Eunomius was a principal, who held, se naturam Dei comprehendisse, that he comprehended the nature of God: as Theophylact testifieth.

Now out of this question of the Comprehending of the Deity, Christ, even as touching his human nature is to be excepted: of whom the divine nature, because of that hypostatical union, was fully seen and comprehended. Yea, Gennadius in his catalogue maketh mention of one Servus which writ against those who denied Christ when he lived here in the flesh, Deum carneis oculis vidisse, to have have seen God with the eyes of his flesh.

Concerning then this point, a distinction is here to be received, touching the knowledge of the Godhead: there is cognitio simplex, & comprehensiua, a simple (that is absolute) and comprehensiue knowledge: & cognitio pro modulo & apprehensiua, and a knowledge in a certain measure, and apprehensive (only.) This latter way God may be seen and known: But upon these two conditions, as Augustine well observeth, Humano visu nullo modo potest, &c. That first God cannot be seen by any human sight, but with that whereby they that see, are no men, but beyond men. Secondly, nemo vidit per seipsum, &c. No man hath seen by himself, that is, by his flesh and blood, but by the revealing of the father, and enarration of the son. As the Evangelist saith, No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten son hath declared him. Thus God may and hath been seen and known of the Saints in this life, as of Moses and Paul; but more fully in the next, whē we shall see the sight of God as he is. But (as Augustine in another place) quantum eum capere creatura rationals & ctualis potest ) as much as a reasonable and intellectual creature is capable of.

But touching the other kind of knowledge, though God be cognoscibilis ex gratia, to be known by grace, comprehensibilis tamen a nemine quam seipso, yet he is comprehended of none but himself. The reason is, because the deitle is infinite, the creature finite: so that which is of a finite nature, cannot comprehend that which is infinite. Augustine saith, si sanctis Angels iam equales essemus, non vtique ita nota esset nobis diuina essentia, sicut ipsa sibi: if we were equal to the Angels, the divine substance should not be so known to us, as it is to himself.

But here cometh in this quaint distinguisher with this gloss; God is not called incomprehensible, as if there were anything of his, which his Saints shall not see, but because they see him not so perfectly, as he is visible of himself. 2. b. p. 204. Wherein he speaketh contradictions; for if God cannot be seen of us, as he is of himself, then there is somewhat in the Godhead which we cannot see, which himself seeth. Then by grace apprehend him we may, but comprehend him we cannot: Plenitudinem diuinitatis nemo de coelestibus etiam virtutibus conspexit: The fullness of the divinity none of the celestial powers hath seen: but if there be nothing of his, which the Saints shall not see, then they should see his fullness.

Now then it is evident, which of the twain holdeth a paradox: the Replier, that saith the deity of Christ is incomprehensible, or the erroneous Reprehender, which inclineth to the contrary. He saith further, that the Repliers peremptory words seem to incline to those Errors, or rather heresies, of certain Armenians, which denied that the Saints in the next world should see God at all in his divine essence. p. 207. But as the Replier detesteth from his heart that erroneous opinion: so let this newfangled Dogmatist take heed, least in his comprehensiue fancy, he apprehend not and lay hold of the heresy of the Anomaeans before spoken of, that affirmed, they comprehended the essence of God.

3. As good success hath this trifler in the third pretended error: for first, he misconceiueth (himself would here have said, after his unmannerly phrase, belieth) Augustine, that he taketh not the word spirit, for the divine nature of Christ, but for the operation of the holy ghost: for Augustine's words are these: saepe antea veniebat in spiritu ad quos volebat, he came often before (that is, his incarnation) in the spirit to whom he would: doth he speak, I pray you, of the operation of the spirit here, and not of the spirit himself: to confound the spirit, and the operation of the spirit, is both great error and ignorance. Again another untruth is, that Augustine by the word spirit, taketh not the divine nature of Christ. If Augustine may be credited, he himself saith otherwise: Et ipse quidem filius in substantia deitatis spiritus est;& quid facit silius sine spiritu sancto vel sine patre, cum inseperabilia sunt opera trinitatis? Both the Son himself is a spirit in the substance of the deity: and what doth the Son without the holy Ghost, or without the Father, seeing the works of the Trinity are inseparable? Doth it not now appear that Augustine indifferently taketh the spirit here, either for the divine nature of Christ; or for the holy Ghost? say also then that Augustine doth ignorantly confound them.

Further, doth not the Scripture indifferently sometime ascribe the same work to Christ, sometime to the holy Ghost: as our Savior saith, The spirit of my father speaketh in you, Math. 10. 20. which Mark nameth the holy Ghost, Mark. 13. 11. and S. Paul saith, Seeing ye seek experiment of Christ, that speaketh in me, 2. Cor. 13. 3. So the Apostle saith, that Christ offered himself, Hebr. 7. 17. and thorough the eternal spirit he offered himself: chap. 9. 14. which Ambrose understandeth of the holy Ghost. Say also that the Apostles ignorantly confound the divine nature of Christ, and the holy Ghost.

But that it may fully appear, who is both the ignorant, and errant too, (to use his own words) what a dangerous and suspicious speech is this, taking the word spirit, for soul, I might have divided Christ, and his spirit, without all suspicion of ignorance, and his imputation of error: 3. b. p. 97. yea, and dare any presumptuous spirit divide that, which God hath inseparably united, the deity, and humanity, (to the which belongeth the soul 〈◊〉 spirit) in one person in Christ. Our Savior said upon another occasion, Let none put asunder that which God hath coupled together, Math. 19. 6. which rule holdeth in general, that it is no less presumption, to divide the human soul from the person of Christ, which is hypostatically united forever: I may here say with Jerome, Nescio quid veneni in syllabis latet: I cannot tell what poison lieth hid under these syllables. But to return his own words, it may be that these things have slipped from you, thorough heat of contention, rather then persuasion of heart: 2. b. p. 207. yet I say again with Jerome, Non bonae suspicionis est, cum in eodem sensu verba dissentiunt: it is no good suspicion, when in the sa • e sense the words do dissent. If he hold the hypostatical union of Christ's soul and body with his Godhead, why doth he in words divide them?

4. Concerning the fourth position, which he calleth strange, the words of the Replier are these: the joys of heaven may be truly, though not fully felt in this life: whosoever counteth this position strange, showeth himself indeed a strange fellow, and a stranger from such true feeling of heavenly joys. What thinketh he of those three, Peter, Stephen, and Paul, whom Ambrose giveth in instance: Petrus in monte Domini aspiciens gloriam Christi: noluit descendere, Stephanus cum Iesum vidit, lapidari non formidabat: Paulus raptus in Paradisum, vsum proprij non sentiebat corporis: Peter in the mount of the Lord beholding the glory of Christ, would not descend: Stephen, when he saw Jesus, feared not to be stoned: Paul, being wrapped into Paradise did not perceive the use of his own body. Thinketh he, that they even in earth felt not the true joys of heaven, though not so fully as they enjoy it now? Yea this wrangler himself confesseth upon these words of Peter with our eyes we saw his majesty: that they enjoyed the sight of his glorious majesty in this life. Could he then be so forgetful, as to call it a strange position, that the true joy 〈◊〉 heaven may be felt in this life: is it not a true heavenly joy to see the Majesty of God? how say you, (Sir Medler) speak out, is it not? your own mouth doth condemn you: What if the Replier had said with Augustine, that heaven may be in this life, in the soul of the righteous: or with Ambrose, that the spirit of grace maketh the regenerate heavenly and celestial: he would also have thought in his vnheauenly blindness, that he had spoken straungely also: for where heaven is, and men are become heavenly, what should let them, but to have a feeling also of heavenly joys.

The Recrimination.

Now let us turn aside a little to take a view of his blind errors.

1. He holdeth, that the original text of the Scriptures is corrupt, in these words; And say we must go to the originals: I will run with you to those fountains, whose pure waters if the foul feet, and unclean hands of some had not corrupted, &c. there could never be so many gross and filthy errors drawn and derived thence. 1. b. p. 26.

2. The Syriac together with the Greek he holdeth to be the original tongues of the New Testament: ibid. whereas there can be but one original tongue to the rest: if he grant the Greek be the true original, then the Syriac is not, which was translated out of the Greek. So in an other place he reproveth the Replier for rejecting the Syriac, as contrary to the original.

3. He preferreth the Latin text before the original Greek. Act. 2. 24. reading, the sorrows of hell, for the sorrows of death, as the original Greek hath: saying, I see no cause, why I should not approve the old Latin text: 3. b. p. 30. so also, 2. b. p. 154. showing hereby of what house he cometh, and whose disciple he is, justifying the Latin translation against the original: of the which further, he thus unreverantly writeth: As for that vulgar Greek now extant, whether it be the true Authentike original or no, is a question, because it is neither the most ancient, nor that which was most used in the Auncient Church: and beside that it is not free from corruption in diverse places. 3. b. p. 14. What could be spoken more to the derogation of the authority of the Scriptures, then thus to abase that original, wherein the Apostles themselves did write. And in this profane, and (little better) then Popish assertion, he hath uttered three great untruths: that the Greek original, which we now have, is not the most ancient; that it was not most used in former times; that it is in some places corrupt: none of these slanders of the text, shall he ever be able to justify.

4. He calleth the book of Ecclesiasticus, which the Church of England counteth among the Apocryphal books, the word of God: 2. b. p. 70. and in the next page before, he calleth it Scripture, I think it fit to join Scripture with Scripture, making mention of Ecclesiasticus. And that we may see, he is no chaungeling; in another place having alleged a place out of Ecclesiasticus, he addeth, by which Scriptures it is plain. 2. b. p. 136. Such a divine as he is, such is his Scripture: how audacious is this fellow, that contrary to the judgment and determination of this Church, dare make Ecclesiasticus a book of Canonical Scripture?

5. The question being demanded, why the soul may not be taken for his (that is Christ's) whole person, as well as holy is understood to be his flesh? answer is made, because cause it (that is, the soul) is no part at all of the whole person, while it remaineth separated from the body: for of these two the whole person consisteth, when they are joined together living, &c. 2. b. p. 162. Where, seeing the demand is made concerning Christ's soul, the answer containeth two manifest errors, or rather heresies: the one, that the soul separated from the body, was no part of Christ's person: which savoreth strongly of the heresy of the Apollinarists, that made the man Christ without a soul: the other, that the soul and body joined together (that is, in Christ, for of him the question is proposed) make his whole person; which inclineth to the heresy of the Nestorians, that made two persons of Christ; one, as he was the son of God; the other, as he was the son of man: which was the heresy also of Theodorus, condemned in the 5. Synod. ca. 12. I am right sorry, and it pitieth me for this poor man, that so windeth himself in his own words, as that he hath made a maze and labyrinth for himself, out of which he cannot get out. He, if he had met with the like advantage, would have cried out with open mouth (heresy, heresy) as he doth notwithstanding in diverse places untruly object. But we forbear him that term, as having slipped here rather of ignorance, and as one, to use Jerome's words, qui magis misericordia dignus, quam invidia: which had more need to be pitied, then envied.

6. Alleadging the corrupt translation of the Septuag. Job. 38. 17. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Did the porters of hell at the sight of thee shrink for fear, or rather were astonished? whereas the true reading according to the original is this: hast thou seen the gates of the shadow of death? he saith, they were here propheta • verius, quam interpretes, Prophets more like then interpreters, and justifieth their faulty translation against the original. 2. b. p. 178.

7. He saith that Jehovah is the essential name of God, or rather the very essence it self, because his name and nature are all one. 2. b. p. 196. Who but this blind archer would shoot such blind bolts? if he had said Jehovah signified the very essence of God, he had said well; but that it is the very essence of God, is an absurd speech: for then the essence of God may be seen and uttered, as this word Jehovah can: then should it be lawful to adore this name wheresoever we see it painted or written, if it were the very essence of God.

8. This is the guerdon laid up for God's children, to participate even with his Godhead, for to this ende he took upon him our human nature, that we might be capable of his divine substance: and to this ende he allegeth Saint Peter, that by them we should be made partakers of the divine nature. What strange speeches are these? that we shall participate and be capable of the godhead and divine nature, as Christ was of our human? How much differeth he now from the Origenists error, that vniuersa creatura redigetur in diuinam naturam, that every creature shall be resolved into the divine nature; noted before: or frō the family of Love, that say they are godded with God. It is held to be a great error in Osiander, that man is justified by that justice, not which Christ had as man, but whereby he was essentially just as God: and this is well confuted by that Popish champion, both by scriptures and fathers: as Augustine expoundeth what this justice is; qua nos eius gratia iusti sumus, &c. cum just viuimus, &c. non qua ipse iustus est, aeterna sua & incommutabili iustitia: whereby we are just through his grace, when we live justly, &c. not by his eternal and immutable justice, whereby he is just himself. This error, this wandering discourser cannot be free from, for if God's children shall participate with the godhead and divine substance, then also with the essential justice, which is inherent in that divine substance.

As for that place of Peter, it serveth not to prove any such participation of the divine substance, unless he will say, that even in this life we are also capable of the godhead: for the Apostle speaketh of that conformity to the divine nature, which is in the Saints in this life; namely, in flying the corruptions of the world, as the next words show, which do serve to expound the former: so that (as a good interpreter saith) it is to be noted, that the name of nature here doth not signify the substance, but the quality: yea, that great defender of the Pope-catholic faith (whom it may be he more respecteth, then our Ecclesiastical expositors) doth hit the right meaning of this place, expounding it by the like: as, I said ye are gods, and ye all are children of the most high: and, behold (saith the Apostle) what love the father hath shown on us, that we should be called the sons of God: and, everyone that liveth i • borne of God. This partaking then of the divine nature, is not in the communication of his substance, but our conformation in holiness and love: so that we are as it were deified, in being made conformable to God: as M. Calvin speaketh, and long before him Bernard used the same phrase, thus writing: Oportet nos in eundem affectum transire, vt quomodo Deus omnia propter seipsum esse voluit, sic & nos ipsos propter ipsum esse volumus: sic affici, deificari est. We must pass into the same affection with the creator, that as God would have all things for himself, so that we be willing to be our selves for him: so to be affected, is as it were to be deified. This our deifying, is not in passing into the same identity of nature with God, but in imitating the divine quality: not in being transformed into the same condition of substance, but in being changed into the like affection. It was the wicked opinion of the Manichees, that as we were made out of God's nature, so we should return to it again. Let this brain-sick concluder take heed that he fall not down into this pit, standing so near the brink: saying, that we shall be partakers of the divine substance & Godhead: in which sense also if he understand the blissful fruition of the godhead, to be made partakers and capable of the divine nature and godhead, as it seemeth his meaning is: it is also an erroneous speech, and neither agreeable to the scripture, nor antiquity, as hath been shown: what that fruition of God shall be, Bernard well showeth: tripliciter in aeterna illa beatitudine fruemur Deo, &c. we shall three ways enjoy God in that eternal blessedness, beholding him in the creatures, having him in our selves, and knowing the very Trinity in it self.

9. To descend, is a voluntary action, whereas to suffer torments, is a violent passion. 3. b. p. 201. In which unadvised speech, he must either confess, that Christ endured no torments for us upon the cross, contrary to the Prophet; he was wounded for our transgressions, and broken for our iniquities: or that he suffered them violently, and so not voluntarily, contrary to our Saviors own words: No man taketh it (that is, my life) from me, but I lay it down of myself.

10. He calleth certain points of doctrine (exempli • ied by the Replier in another book, for strange and unsound positions) most true and sound positions. 2. b. p. 20. and yet afterward he confesseth, that the very first thereof, which is this, that Christ is not originally God, is the most damnable heresy of Arius, ibid. p. 21. Thus he ignorantly maketh himself an Arian; for thus may his own speeches be retorted against him: whosoever saith that Christ is not originally God, is an Arian: this proposition is his own: but so holdeth this confused confuter, in calling it a true and sound position: this also is his own, for he calleth all those true and sound positions, there excepted against, whereof this is the first. Ergo: by his own confession he draweth himself into suspiciō of Arianism. Indeed, this (heresy-mouther) that hath often in his mouth, heresy, heretic, objecteth Arianism, but very simply to the Replier, because alleging the words of S. Paul of our Savior, justified in the spirit, he by the spirit, understandeth his divine spirit and nature: as quickened, saith he, in your sense signifieth to be made alive, so must justified to be made just, which is rank Arianism: 3. b. p. 60. poor silly fellow: and doth he know what Arianism meaneth: for though the Replier meddleth not here with the signification of the word justified, but allegeth this sentence, for the use of the word spirit: neither doth he take the word justified, in the active signification, as we are said to be justified: but passively, as when wisdom is said to be justified of her children, Math. 11. 19. that is, approved and declared to be just: yet if it be referred to Christ's humanity, it is no Arianism to say, that he as man was justified, not from sin, which he had not, but preserved by the inhabitation of the spirit from all sin. If this be Arianism? then is Chrysostom an Arian, who delivereth these two expositions of this place: Sive hoc intelligi potest, &c. whether this may be understood, because wisdom is justified of her children, or because he did none deceit, as the Prophet testifieth, saying: Who did no sin, neither was any guile found in his mouth: he understandeth this justification, of his preserving from sin. And what is it more, to say that Christ as man was justified, or that he was sanctified: but our Savior saith of himself, whom the father sanctified, John. 10. 36. if for Christ to be made just, be Arianism; then also to be made holy? Then he seeth who is charged with Arianism in his sense, which once to think, were horrible blasphemy. I therefore say unto him, concerning this imputation of Arianism, Vides ne quomodo ista non sententia, sed vescia, non solum mani sonitu, sed in capite vestro crepuerit: See you not, how this, not sentence, but bladder, not only with a vain crack, but is broken upon your own head.

11. He affirmeth, that the baptism of Infants, is not to be found in Scripture, by any (express) literal mention: 2. b. p. 170. for though he leave out that word express, yet he of whom he borroweth this opinion, useth that term: and he may put literal in his purse: his meaning is, that it is not expressly delivered in Scripture: for there he impugneth that conclusion, that nothing is to be admitted, that is not expressly delivered in Scripture. Now then that baptism is expressly grounded upon Scripture, and not upon tradition: which must follow upon the other, it is diversely evident. As because Christ commandeth little children, not to be forbidden to come unto him: the Church is cleansed by the washing of water through the word: of which Church, infants are members: Christ commandeth to baptize all nations, among the which children are counted. And seeing infants were circumcised, instead whereof baptism succeedeth, which the Apostle likeneth to circumcision: it is evident that the baptism of infants is founded upon Scripture: it is also the doctrine of our Church, that the baptism of infants is most agreeable with the institution of Christ: but where is the institution of Christ to be found, but in express Scripture: what shameless dealing then is this, to say that they which hold the contrary, namely that the baptism of infants is not expressly found in Scripture, do maintain the doctrine of the Church, when they directly impugn it. And this uncertain and wandering opinion, giveth occasion to the wicked heresy of the Anabaptists: that affirm the baptism of Infants to take beginning from the Bishops of Rome, and not from the Apostles.

12. He further among those things, which are not expressly delivered in Scripture, giveth in instance, our belief in the blessed Trinity: 2. b. p. 170. whereas the ancient Fathers of the Church, have principally out of the Scripture proved this Article concerning the Trinity: as Origen urged that place in the 51. Psal. where mention is made of three spirits: principalis spiritus pater, &c. the principal spirit is the father, the right spirit the son, and the free spirit the holy Ghost. But more pregnant is that place which Ambrose selecteth; the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the communion of the holy Ghost, be with you all: Trinitatis hic complexio est, & vnitas potestatis: here is a conjunction of the Trinity, and the unity of power. Augustine doth conclude the Trinity from that heavenly vision in the baptism of our Savior: Apparuit manifestism Trinitas, &c. The Trinity appeared manifestly, the Father in the voice, the Son in man, the holy Ghost in the dove. But of all other those places are most full for the Trinity: Math. 28. 20. Baptizing them in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the holy Ghost: and that other, 1. John. 5. 7. There are three which bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the holy Ghost: who of any judgment reading these places, can deny for shame, but that the blessed Trinity, is expressly delivered in Scripture.

13. The coeternitie of the Son with the Father, is an other point objected, not expressly delivered in Scripture: which is evident by the words of the Evangelist, that the word was in the beginning with God. Augustine out of those words of our Savior, I and my father are one: concludeth his equality with God: & so consequently his coeternitie. Bernard inferreth it out of those words of the Prophet: Who shall declare his generation. And further he thus saith, Commendant nobis sacrae literae Christum ex patre, in patre, cū patre, &c. quod dicitur ex patre, ineffabilis est nativitas, quod in patre, consubstantialis vnitas, quod cum patre, equalitas maiestatis: The sacred letters do commend unto us Christ of his father, in his father, with his father: that which is said of his father, is his ineffable nativity, in his father, his consubstantial unity, that with his father, the equality of his majesty.

These fathers held, that these mysteries were not to be learned else where, then in the Scriptures, as most plainly therein expressed.

14. The proceeding of the holy Ghost, he thinketh also not to be expressly delivered in Scripture: 2. b. p. 170. whereas notwithstanding, our Savior saith directly, Whome I will send unto you from the father: and, whom the father will send in my name. Augustine would prove it out of those words in the Gospel, virtue went out of him: for it is clear that the holy spirit is called virtue: but that other place is more evident, which Augustine urgeth also: He shall not speak of himself: and, he shall receive of mine: Audire illi scire est, scire ess • , à quo ergo illi essentia, ab eo scientia: to hear, is to him to know, to know, is to be: from whom his essence is, from him his science: seeing then he heareth and receiveth from the son, he also hath his essence and proceeding from the son.

These holy mysteries of the Trinity, the coeternitie of the Son with the Father, the proceeding of the holy Ghost, the fathers take to be expressly set down in Scripture, as Bernard, speaking of the mystery of the Trinity: Non potuit expressius commendari, &c. It could not be more expressly commended, then it is necessary to believe. To say therefore, that these points of doctrine, are not expressly delivered, is to give way unto those wicked heretics, the Sabellians that denied the first, the Arians the second, the Macedonians the third.

Beside these errors, add as many more, which he calleth true and sound positions, being indeed unsound and corrupt doctrines, as is partly touched before: slaund. 10. and more at large else where: which I will not now repeat, because I am only to deal here with this froward spirit, leaving to provoke those of more modest carriage, though in some things otherwise minded.

Now, what hath this blind obiecter of error gained to himself, but his own shame, who reckoneth that for error and falsity in others, which agreeth with truth and verity; and seeth not his own gross and erring ignorance. He with a curious eye observeth others slips, and tripping (nor that neither) while himself stumbleth, and falleth down flat: the Prophet saith, Woe unto them that speak good of evil, and evil of good, which put darkness for light, and light for darkness: I pray God he be not of that number. Ambrose saith well, talis consiliarius sit, qui nihil nebulosum habeat: He that adviseth others, must not be (darkened) or overcast with clouds himself. And Jerome well admonisheth, Non confundant opera sermonem tuum: Let not thy works confound thy words. And this blind guide, while he noteth other men's wanderings, should not have gone himself out of the way: he telleth the Replier most disdainefully, and withal untruly, that he hath never a good thought of his own. 2. b. p. 106. while his own heart is pestered with erroneous and malicious cogitations: and no marvel, for as Josephus well saith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : a temperate heart is the haven of (good) meditations: while the heart therefore boileth with intemperate envy, the spring head being troubled, the waters issuing from thence cannot be clean: I wish he may have grace to see his errors, and to confess his ignorance. Tully hath a good saying, Cuiusuis est hominis errare, nullius nisi insipientis perseuerare in error: Any man may err, but none but unwise men continue in error. Let him not think it folly to reverse with judgment, what he hath written with error: It is a wise man's part rather to amend what is amiss, and to straighten that which is crooked, & to rectify by the line of truth, that which hath been set down against the rule of truth: and so again I commend unto him, that worthy sentence of Cicero, Optimus est portus poenitenti, mutati. consilij: the best haven to repentance, is to change the (heart and) purpose.

The accusation.

1. The heaviness which Christ felt in his soul, was not through the horror of eternal death, as you and others do blaspheme, &c. 2. b. p. 193.

2. Why do you not exempt it ( that is, the soul of Christ ) from all kind of death whatsoever, but then your blasphemous hell torments, which you make a third kind of death of the soul, cannot stand. 2. b. p. 91.

3. Let the godly judge whether those your inward afflictions, reach not to the height of sin and damnation, and so consequently prove your doctrine in this point to be blasphemous, even by your own confession. 3. b. p. 67.

4. By this time, I trust every well disposed Reader doth see, how this your exposition of this prophesy of David, hardeneth the Jews, encourageth Atheists, justifieth old damned Heretiks, confirmeth Sadducees and Epicures, which deny the immortality of the soul, &c. and finally openeth the way unto blasphemy, paganism, and all impiety. 3. b. p. 51.

The justification.

1. HOw injuriously this belcher out of blasphemy dealeth with the Replier, his own conscience, if it be not seared with an hot iron, knoweth; & there need no other judge: for the Replier in as plain terms as he could utter it, denieth that there was in Christ any fear of eternal death, in these words: We willingly grant, that Christ feared not hell fire, nor everlasting destruction: these authorities press not us, but rather help our cause; for Christ neither feared temporal, nor everlasting death, as these fathers witness, and the Apostle saith he feared, Heb. 5. 7. what then remaineth, but that he feared the cup of God's wrath mixed with death: and as Cyprian saith, before cited, difficultatem extremi exitus, The difficulty or hardness of his last passage, that is, in respect of God's wrath tempered with it. And in the other place quoted, these are the words; Though Christ neither felt, nor feared everlasting death, yet he both felt and feared his fathers displeasure that causeth it. What impudency is this, to use his own term (for I may call a spade a spade) to charge the Replier to affirm that which he instantly denieth: let the charitable reader judge of him in the rest, as he findeth his faithful dealing here: when he quoteth any place out of the Repliers books, not rehearsing the words, suspect the like fraud. This false charge then of blasphemy, returneth upon his own head, and by the law of retalian and equality, he should be censured as a blasphemer, for being a false witness therein against another.

2. The Replier freeth Christ's soul from all kind of death of the soul, which is either by sin, or damnation; though beside these, a kind of death may be affirmed to have been suffered by Christ in his soul, in respect of the inward afflictions and perplexity which he endured, wrestling even with the wrath of his father: yet he wisheth this phrase of speech to be forborne and discontinued; therefore he freeth the soul of Christ in effect, from all kind of death of the soul properly so called. Further, if it be blasphemous to say that Christ suffered some of the sorrows and torments even of hell in his soul, what thinketh he of that prophetical saying of David, Psal. 18. 3. The sorrows of hell have compassed me: and Act. 2. 24. he loosed the sorrows of hell: as the Latin interpreter readeth: doth he also say, that these are blasphemous speeches? nay doth it not come nearer blasphemy, to deny Christ to have suffered in his soul for our souls, and so to rob him of the most glorious part of his passion?

3. And doth he count it also blasphemous, to say that Christ suffered the inward afflictions of his soul? then he most blasphemously must charge the Prophet David with blaspemie, who saith in the person of Christ, Thy terrors have I suffered from my youth: or as the Latin interpreter whom Augustine followeth, terrores tui conturbauerunt me, thy terrors have troubled me: For that diverse sayings in this Psalm are prophetical, as that verse. 5. free among the dead. Augustine confesseth, who saith also of this whole Psalm, Christi vocem, &c. Let us hear the voice of Christ singing in the prophesy. Further, when the Prophet saith, he shall see of the travail of his soul: or, as the Latin interpreter, because his soul labored: what other travails and labors of the soul were these, then the spiritual and internal? And is he not ashamed to say, that these inward afflictions are blasphemous, even by the Repliers own confession, as reaching to sin and damnation: when as in direct words he freeth Christ's soul from all sin and damnation: but not from inward afflictions. Further, if all inward afflictions include sin and damnation, then he will fasten upon S. Paul's soul sin and damnation: who confesseth he had fightings without, and terrors within: and so was not void of inward and spiritual afflictions. This then is the issue, upon his own words, either to deny, that Christ suffered the inward afflictions and terrors of the soul, which to him is inglorious, in denying the most honorable part of his sufferings, or if he did, that he incurred either sin and damnation, which to think were blasphemous.

4. If to understand by nephesh, the soul, that is, the life, in that prophesy of David, Psal. 16. do breed all those supposed inconveniences; then belike the Prophet David, in saying, My life draweth near to hell, gave way and occasion to Atheism, impiety, blasphemy: for, he there calleth it life, not soul: if those absurdities follow upon the construction of the one place, it cannot be avoided in the other. Again, what an absurd consequent is it, that the immortality of the soul should fall to ground, and so the Sadducees and Epicures be confirmed, if it be not proved from this place? As though there be not many more places pregnant in Scripture, to prove the immortality of the soul? And as for justifying of old damned heretics, let him take heed, least by casting Christ's soul into hell, the place of the damned, he make not a way for them himself: for two heresies there were, one that Christ's soul descended into hell, there to suffer the pains and torments, which the damned spirits abide: another, that Christ by descending into hell, delivered all which were there in torment: to these heresies they come nearer, which affirm Christ's local de • cent in soul to hell, then they which deny it.

Then to return his own words: by this time I trust, every well disposed Reader doth see, how this your objection of blasphemy reboundeth upon your own head, with shame enough: while he would set fire on an others tower, his own brains are pasht out with Abimelech: and his serpentine objections are devoured of a contrary serpent: His uncharitable charge, is discharged upon himself: it no more hurteth the Replier, then the viper, that leaped upon Paul's hand: and as Diogenes wittily said of one, whom he heard to rail upon him: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , let him also beat me being absent: so false calumniations shall no more fasten upon the innocent, then blows upon him that is absent. And as for these so improbable and unreasonable accusations of blasphemy, I may say with the Orator; Opinor eum non tam fuisse sceleratum qui fingeret, nec tam furio sum qui crederet: I did think he had not been so lewd to imagine them, nor so without wit to believe them.

The Recrimination.

I am loath to set upon this (chafing Challenger) and to charge him in the same kind: It is no small matter to lay upon any the imputation of blasphemy; seeing the greatest sin in the world is called by this name. But seeing he which provoketh, is the beginner of the battle, and the defender doth but take the challenge, I hope the fault is the less, if I shall answer him in his own kind, and beat him with the weapon, which he hath chosen. It was a good excuse, which Tully useth in answering Salusts invective: Si mihi forte offendimini, iustius huic quam mihi succensere debetis, qui initium introduxit: If ye perhaps be offended with me, ye ought to be more justly incensed against him, then me, because he began the quarrel.

1. His presumptuous speeches, and some of them tending to blasphemy, in part are these: 2. b. p. 8. I will comfort myself with that saying of our Savior: de bono opere lapidor, I am stoned for my good work: what presumption is this, to compare himself a sinful man, with the holy person of Christ; and his intemperate, slanderous, railing, and uncharitable writings, with Christ's most heavenly sermons and miracles?

2. He confesseth that Christ loo • ed the sorrows of hell for himself: 2. b. p. 37. then it must follow, that he was in the sorrows of hell before he loosed them, whether he saith in soul he descended: (for the knot must first be tied, before it be loosed:) but this he himself in many places counteth a blasphemy to affirm: before blasph. 2. 3.

3. The word (openly) proveth, that it was no triumph at all upon the cross: for that conquest upon the Cross, was openly an overthrow, and therefore no triumph. And again a little after: If Christ triumphed on the Cross, as you say he did, it was according to the proverb: triumphus ante victoriam, a triumph before victory. 2. b. p. 188. What a derogation is this to the triumphant and victorious cross of Christ, thus contrary to the Scriptures to say, that it was an overthrow, rather then a triumph: seeing the Apostle thus witnesseth, that he might destroy thorough death, him that had power over death, that is, the Devil. If the Devil were destroyed by the death of Christ, then was he conquered, and overthrown: how then did he not tremble to say, that the conquest upon the cross, was openly an overthrow: and did not our Savior himself say upon the cross, It is finished: what else was finished, but the redemption of mankind, in delivering of mankind from the kingdom of Satan. And was his heart so profanely carried with the spirit of derision, to scoff at Christ by that usual proverb, triumph before victory: this is a more heinous offense, then Ishmael's was to scoff at Isaac. He may remember, whom he scornfully calleth Ishmaelites: 2. b. p. 18. Such an Ishmael's trick shall he not find in all their writings: it were better they were all set on a light fire, then that their pens should be stained with such impiety. God mollify his hard heart, that he may in time repent him of this so great iniquity.

4. As the thief was partaker of Christ's humanity, in suffering with him on the cross • so he was partaker with him in all his deity: 2. b. p. 199. to this ende he took upon him our human nature, that we might be capable of his divine substance: p. 203. if we should not communicate with Christ in all his glory, &c. we should be no better then the wicked. 2. b. p. 205. What harsh stuff is this, and fit to be weighed in the balance of blasphemy, that we shall be partakers of Christ's divine nature, as he was of our human: and so the Saints shall become God's with Christ, as he was made man with us.

5. Resurrection is attributed by Peter, as well to Christ's soul returning out of hell, as to his body rising out of the grave. 3. b. p. 38. What a strange paradox is this? In the Creed we are taught to believe the resurrection of the body, but the resurrection of the soul in the next world, was yet never heard of: neither hath Peter any such meaning: for that was raised of Christ, which rested in hope: but it was his flesh (not soul) that rested in hope, Act. 2. 26. that is raised, which before was sown by death: but the body only was so sown, not Christ's soul: both these propositions are S. Paul's: that which thou sowest is not quickened except it die, 1. Cor. 15. 36. so also is the resurrection of the dead: 24. it is sown a natural body, and is raised a spiritual body. v. 44. How far now is he from bringing death upon Christ's soul, (which could not be quickened in the resurrection, except it first died) which he himself counteth blasphemy.

6. Is there not a most plain distinction between the holy Ghost, who foretold, and Christ, who endured these afflictions; and that not in person only (which is the point I stand upon) but in nature also, I mean his diuiue nature, &c. 3. b. p. 94. Doth he not here manifestly affirm, that there is a plain distinction between the holy Ghost and Christ, not in person only, but in his divine nature? was this doting divine well advised thus to write? What Macedonian heretic would have written more in disgrace of the holy Ghost, then to say he is distinguished from Christ, even in his divine nature?

7. And as he dealeth with Christ himself, the like measure he offereth his servants, for thus irreverently he writeth of Peter: you think all men to be unclean & impure in comparison of yourselves, which was partly Peters error, Act. 10. 2. b. p. 107. But doth he speak as he thinketh, had Peter such an opinion of himself, as to think all men unclean and impure beside: Peter only held as yet them of the uncircumcision to be unclean, not of any singularity of opinion, but because it was not yet revealed to him.

8. Thus also he serveth the Prophet David, making him almost in hell: for that place, Psal. 94. 14. If the Lord had not holpen me, my soul had almost dwelt in silence. This place of silence, he ignorantly understandeth of hell. 2. b. p. 149. yet falsely printed 159. But David else-where declareth his hope, that he was sure never to go to hell: when I awake I shall be satisfied with thine image, Psal. 17. 15. This holy Prophet now is much beholding to this (pragmatical Novelist) in placing him almost in hell.

9. The like censure he giveth of that holy man Job, understanding those his word • the grave (or hell saith he) shall be mine house, and I shall make my bed in the dark, Job. 17. 13. of hell: for the grave is never called the place of darkness. 3. b. p. 152. and herein he maketh Job a figure of Christ's being in hell, p. 153. What injury doth this (unholy glossograph) offer to this holy man, who was most sure he should never go to hell, thus professing his faith; I am sure my Redeemer liveth, &c. Job. 19. 25.

10. And to end where I began, with his hard usage, as toward the servants, so against the Lord and master himself: these words of Peter, quickened in the spirit, he applieth to Christ's soul in this sense; that he was not made alive in soul, but kept or preserved alive. 2. b. p. 85. and allegeth to this purpose other places, where the word is so taken: as Nehemiah speaking of the heavens & earth, saith, thou preseruest them: and Saint James saith, receive the word with meekness, &c. which is able to save their souls. Now then, if Christ's soul be said to be preserved alive in either of these senses, as in the first, then was it saved from death and mortality, and corruption, as the heavens and earth are; and so the soul of Christ should not be immortal of it own nature, but by special preservation: if he take it in another sense, to be saved as our souls are, which is from damnation, then it will follow, that Christ's soul was subject to damnation, as ours are without him, and so had need of salvation: which way soever he saith his soul was saved alive, he must needs incur most horrible blasphemy. Here I may now fitly apply Jerome's words uttered against Heluidius: Illud dico praeveniens, gloriae mihi fore tua maledicta, cum eodem, qu • Mariae detraxistiore, me laceres, & caninam facundiam servus domini pariter experiatur & mater: This I say aforehand, that your railing will be a glory unto me, when as you tare me with the same mouth, whereby you backbite Marie: that both the servant of the Lord, and his mother, may together have experience of your doggish eloquence. But I may say more, that the servant need not think much to be slandered, when as the Lord himself is blasphemed.

I am sory in my heart (God is my witness) that this man was so far carried in his uncharitable heat, as not only to break charity toward men, but to violate piety also toward God: and let him remember what the Apostle saith, It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. Augustine hath a severe sentence, Si quis per inuidiam opera diuina blasphemat, quoniam bonis dei, hoc est, donis dei malitia sua resistit, in spiritum sanctum peccare, & propterea spem veniae non habere existimandus est: If any man through envy do blaspheme the works of God, because he by his malice resisteth the good things of God, that is, the gifts of God, he is to be thought to s • nne against the holy Ghost, and therefore to have no hope of forgiveness. Let him therefore take heed, lest while he goeth on, by envy miscalling the gifts of God in others, counting the defense of the truth blasphemy, he be not given over even to blaspheme the truth it self, and the Lord of truth, and so endanger his own soul: he knoweth what the ende of blasphemers is: One may say unto him, as Tully did to Antony, miror te, quorum facta imitere, eorum exitus non perhorrescere: I marvel that you are not afraid of their ende, whose doings you imitate: and let him in time recall his words, and be sorry for the slips of his pen; lest what he hath erred in word, he pay for in deed: and for the blots of his pen, feel the smart of punishment, according to that saying of Theophylact: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , what we have offended in word, we shall suffer punishment for it in deed.

The accusation.

1. BEcause the Replier sometime setteth down Synopsis in the margin, referring the Reader to that book for brevity sake; as treating how the article of the descension hath been omitted in diverse ancient Creeds: he addeth, as elsewhere is shown; he calleth it in solent vanity, which I should wonder at, but that I know 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is always 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . 2. b. p. 175. and in another place, arrogant vanity.

2. What arrogant presumption is this in a man of your profession, who should be an example of humility, thus imperiously, if not saucily, to check and control all the learned of former ages, as if none of them knew the original reading in this place, till you came this last day to teach them. 3. b. p. 114.

3. It doth not become inferior persons publicly to check and control their superiors for every private difference in opinion: such malepart sauciness I leave to you, and such other whose common practice it is. 3. b. p. 101.

4. Such is your ambitious humor, that all your geese must be swans, and everyone a present for a prince; in so much that you pitifully complain unto the Kings majesty of the small reward that you, &c. have received, &c. 2. b. p. 103.

The justification.

1. ANd is it such insolent vanity for a writer, for brevity sake to have reference to some of his former books; then he himself must go for an insolent craker, that usually blotteth his margen, with making mention of his first worthy treatise: as 3. b. p. 54. p. 55 p. 42. and in many places beside. Doth he think also Augustine an insolent man therein, who often hath relation to other of his works? Noui quomodo soleat contristare lectorem, &c. I know how it useth to grieve the Reader, when from the book which he hath in his hand, when he falleth into any hard questiō, he is sent to another, where he may find the solution thereof. As for his insolent terms of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , he himself is both, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 too, a lover of strife and contention. And yet it were better to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , as the Replier is not, then 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , as the Confuter is. And for his objection of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , self love, Jerome's portraiture doth show his lively image: Quidam, qui sibi videntur scioli, pomparum ferculis similes prodeunt in publicum, vt caninam exerceant facundiam: Some, which seem unto themselves to know somewhat, do come forth in public, like messes of state, to exercise their doggish eloquence. There is no such sign of self love, as when one doth brave a bad cause with insolent words, and bendeth his tongue and pen wholly to the disgrace of others: for he which seeth his own faults, will have no leisure to pry into an others.

2. The occasion, which this (brauing bragger) taketh, thus to set up his bristles is, by reason of these words of the Replier: how translators do interpret we are not so much to respect, as how the Original readeth: therefore because in the original Greek there is no word to express [were] we are not bound to retain it. Limbom. p. 38. Is this any imperiousnes or saucines to prefer the Original before all other translations? And have not Arias Montanus, who leaveth the verb out altogether, and Beza, who translateth it in the present tense, according to the native sense of the participle of the present tense, which is to be supplied, and the Geneva translators also, followed that reading, which the Replier preferreth? And are these also for so doing, saucy and imperious, as (this saucy fellow) seemeth to infer: who is justly to be taxed for this malapertnes, with those words of the Orator: Cur eos, quos omnes venerari debemus, solus oppugnas: why dare you only impugn those, whom we ought all to reverence?

3. But who is he that checketh superiors for every private difference in opinion? not the Replier, who thus writeth, that there are most reverend learned men of both opinions. Limbom. p. 5. And how doth he check the judgment of superiors, in the exposition of that place of Peter, seeing a reverend Prelate of our Church (as this arrogant Controller himself confesseth) did incline to that opinion of Noah's time: how doth he check authority, that consenteth with men of authority? But he himself is the man, that controlleth superiors: who chargeth the great Bible set forth by the authority and consent of all the Bishops of the land, with maintenance of blasphemy: as shall afterward be more fully shown in the Recrimination. Indeed this fawning flatterer seemeth every where to insinuate himself to authority, thinking under that pretense, to find passage for his errors: as I fear me some in these days, speak in defense of the place of Bishops, that hate the persons of Bishops. But in true love and reverence to that honorable calling, the Replier thinketh great scorn to be compared with such a painted Parasite, (to return his own term.) He may be thought to be such a friend unto them, as Jerome speaketh of: Pulchre adulator apud philosophos definitur, blandus inimicus: A flatterer is well defined among the Philosophers to be a fawning enemy. And as he speaketh of another: Verba ei de alieno stomacho fluunt: His words are framed to please other men's humors: he speaketh not out of his own heart.

4. As is the building, such are the props thereof: the accusation is here salse, and the grounds thereof are untrue: for neither hath the Replier dedicated all his books to the Prince, nor yet the third part of them: nor yet doth he in that place, which he misreciteth, complain of his small reward for his books, but layeth open the general complaint of students, and the common vilipending of books. And doth not he the same, complaining that books are in so small request with many, that they esteem them no otherwise, then gentlewomen do their fancy flowers, which in the day time they carry in their heads, and in the night cast at their heels: doth he think himself also worthy to wear a goose feather for thus writing. But as for the Repliers geese (for so he disdainfully calleth some of his books) they shall be able to compare with his supposed swannes, which by the hissing may seem at the first to be swannes birds, yet by the gagling, show, they were but hatched in a goose nest: for he is like unto him, whom Jerome taxeth, Pisoniano vitio laborat, cum loqui nesciret tacere non potuit: he hath Piso his fault, he knoweth not how to speak, and yet he cannot hold his peace. As the goose cannot sing, and yet she will always be gagling. Erasmus spake it modestly of himself, but it may be truly said of this intempestiue writer: Multi hoc morbo laborant, mei similes, qui cum scribere nesciant, tamen à scribendo temperare non possunt: many have my fault, who not knowing how to write, yet cannot refrain from writing. When he hath cast all his cards, and taken his accounts, and seeth how little he hath gained by thus writing, he will beshrew himself, that he followed not Jerome's counsel: Ne ad scribendum cito prosilias, neque levi ducaris insania: Do not hastily fall to writing, and be not carried away with cockbraine fits.

The Recrimination.

But seeing he putteth the Replier to it, to find out the arrogant spirit indeed, who cannot better clear himself of this injurious imputation, then in returning it thither, where it shall find best entertainment: he shall be set forth in his own colors, and by his own words I will sound the depth of his high and haughty spirit.

1. I will ascend by degrees, and give in the first place the least taste of his own proud humor, how disdainfully he carrieth himself toward the Replier: he objecteth unto him, want of learning and judgment. 2. b. p. 46. you unlearnedly mistake. 2. b. p. 101. you impertinently and unlearnedly bring the example of Lazarus, &c. 2. b. p. 141. how unlearned and erroneous is it, to distinguish the person of Christ, and the Messias. 3. b. p. 7. And I pray you, who doth so? he is more unlearned, that so imagineth. Your examples are impertinently and ignorantly alleged. 3. b. p. 67. unlearnedly translated by you, preacheth. 3. b. p. 107. but himself wanteth learning herein, as is shown before. He taketh exception also to the Repliers person and degree: If you know no difference, &c. you are ill worthy of those school degrees, which you have taken. 3. b. p. 161. And to his books: one he calleth a base pamphlet, 2. b. p. 19. I had for a good space cast it aside into a corner, being in truth the fittest place for it. pref. p. 4.

Such ignorance and want of learning it had been enough for this (Paidomastix) to have objected to his schooleboyes. The Replier, as he confesseth his knowledge not to be great, so he is sure, the others is less: it is a pitiful thing, as one said, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : when one that is not wise, seemeth to be wise: and so it is, when one that is unlearned, doth arrogate to himself the name of learning. Tully spake sharply to Antony, and yet but the truth: Implicata inscitia impudentia est, si nescit, quod augurem, nec facit, quod pudentem decet: his encumbered inscience will prove but impudency, if he neither know, what becometh a divine, nor do what beseemeth a shamefast man. The Repliers Antony may take this if he will, as spoken of himself.

Concerning his person and degree, as the Replier doth modestly acknowledge himself unmeet for the same, so he seeth no cause, why he may not be thought as worthy thereof, as this brauing Pedantius, of his mastership: and he may say unto him in Tullius words, without any great boasting: Non video, nec in vita, nec in gratia, nec in rebus gestis, nec in hac mediocritate ingenij, quid despicere posset Antonius: I see not, neither in life, nor in grace, nor in exploits, nor in this mediocrity of wit, what Antony hath reason to despise.

As for the Repliers books, even the most vile and base of them (he doubteth not) but may compare with his most vain-glorious writings: it had been good indeed for him, if Limbomastix had been laid aside, for then this Paidomastix had not shamed himself: and if a corner had been the fittest place for that, I think his will prove as a bundle of rotten sticks fit for the fire: there are some books, which though they avail not to virtue, yet otherwise do bring some profit with them for knowledge; as Seneca saith, ad alia multum conferunt, ad virtutem nihil: Some there are, which though they yielde no profit, yet show art and cunning in the framing of them; which may be likened to the Spiders webbes, which are very artificial, but nothing profitable. But this scholemasters scribbling, in truth is of neither sort, the Reader shall find it neither to edify for the matter, and much to offend in the manner: vt onerent legentem magis, quam instruant: they will cumber the Reader rather, then any wise further him. But I will proceed, and show how by higher degrees his own arrogancy riseth still, till it come to the height.

2. He chargeth Tremellius, that in his translation concerning the word sheol, he dealt neither so ingenuously, nor so religiously as he ought. 2. b. p. 130. His translation, of grave for hell, Psal. 6. he calleth false and foolish. 3. b. p. 25. Tremellius and Junius reading, Psal. 139. 8. is called false and immodest. 3. b. p. 151.

3. Pagnine, Arias, and Tremellius translation, he calleth false; adding, that whose late error herein must not overrule the ancient truth. 2. b. p. 148.

4. Beza, beside that everywhere rejecting his interpretation, he calleth him in scorn, your interpreter. 2. b. p. 171. and 3. b. p. 111. he further chargeth him, by his interpretation to confirm the heresy of the Arians. 3. b. p. 15.

5. It is no marvel that he thus hardly censureth the private translations of some particular men, when he spareth not to condemn the public translations of the Bible, which are used among us: as first, beside his light regard of the Geneva translation, calling them in scorn, your Genevian translators. 2. b. p. 131. and 3. b. p. 27. he thus in most vile terms disgraceth them: For your Geneva Bibles, &c. it is to be wished, and I trust, God will work it in his Majesty's most religious heart, that either they may be purged from those manifold errors, which are both in the Text, and Margent, or else utterly prohibited. 3. b. p. 49.

6. Neither doth he thus deal only with the Geneva translation, but even the great English Bible also, authorized publicly to be read in the Church, cannot escape his virulent censure: as 2. b. p. 48. thus he saith, I cannot conceal a foul & intolerable corruption, which is lately crept into a late edition of our Church Bibles. And further thus peremptorily he proceedeth in condemning the said translation together with the notes: for that diverse of your Geneuian notes, especially such as tend to the maintenance of that blasphemy of hell torments in Christ's soul, are foisted into the margent of the said Bibles, and some other before them: which you urge, as if they were the very word of God, making them the pestilent premises of your blasphemous conclusions. 3. b. p. 50. he meaneth the annotation, Luk. 22. 24. he felt the horror of God's wrath, and judgment against sin. and another, Heb. 5. 8. being in perplexity, and fearing the horrors of death. Who can endure such presumption, to hear our authorized Bibles charged with maintenance of blasphemy, and pestilent premises of blasphemous conclusions.

But he goeth on still in this his arrogant invective, and taketh not only exception to the marginal notes, as 2. Cor. 13. 7. (wherein, though some oversight might be committed by the Compositor in transposing some notes, he had no reason thus saucily to check and control the translation it self) but further saith, neither is the text it self free from error in translation: and here he noteth in the margin, 1. Co. 9. 21. where all the exceptiō he can take is to these words, when I am not without law, as pertaining to the law of God: whereas in the original, it is only, not being without law unto God: the Geneva translation readeth, as pertaining unto God: where who seeth not, that in the one translation, these words, as pertaining to the Law, and in the other, as pertaining, are no part of the text, but inserted by way of explanation, and should be written in other characters. But against that other place, Eph. 6. 12. I wonder with what honesty he can take exception, seeing it agreeth exactly with the original, better then the vulgar latin, which is such a pearlesse translation in his eye: We wrestle not against blood and flesh, saith the English, as it is in the original; against flesh and blood, saith the Latin: against Princes saith the Latin: against rules saith the English, not rulers, as some Bibles have: for the words are 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , against rules or principalities, not princes or rulers.

7. From finding fault with translations, he ascendeth to carpe at the original, saying, whether the Greek now extant be the true authentic original or no, is the question: and he saith further, it is not free from corruptions in diverse places. 3. b. p. 14.

8. He goeth on, and secretly taxeth the fathers; as first Augustine, for he counteth it a badge of presumptuous singularity, and pernicious novelty, to reject the general confession (he meaneth opinion, or exposition) of the fathers. 2. b. p. 131. And yet Augustine hath a special interpretation of that place of Peter, contrary to the current interpretation of most of the fathers of those times; applying it to the times of Noah.

9. He meeteth also with Bernard, calling it absurd to apply descension to the grave. 2. b. p. 155. whereas Bernard maketh direct mention of three descensions of Christ, ad carnem, ad crucem, ad mortem, to the flesh, to the cross, to death, which is to the grave: so that Bernard also must be content to wear his livery of absurdity.

10. Among these fathers may be numbered the reverend Prelates of the Church; towards one of them yet living, a reverend writer, and public defender of religion, he thus vaunteth himself: That whereas he seemed in the first book to incline to that opinion in Noah's time (in the exposition of that place of Peter) he is not so mislead with self-love and singularity, as you and others are (though every way far his inferior) but hath much altered his former judgment, moved as it may appear, upon those reasons laid down by me, and none but me, in the former book. 3. b. p. 101. wherein, how unmannerly he useth so reverend a man, who seeth not? first, saying by way of comparison, that he is not so mislead with singularity, &c. as though he should be somewhat mislead that way, but not so much as others: secondly, he thinketh he hath his schoolboyes in hand, and would put that deep learned father to school, to learn his lesson of him: thirdly, his vanity appeareth, that he, and none but he, hath hit upon those reasons, which changed the Bishops mind; whereas in truth, he hath borrowed the most of his reasons and testimonies from the other, as may appear by comparing their books together: fourthly, beside all this, it is untrue which he saith, for that reverend learned man is still of the same opinion, concerning that place of Peter; for these are his words: I bind no man to my private exposition of the Scripture, but rather stand on those places, which have the full consent of all antiquity to pertain directly to this matter. And again, I thought not fit to press them, when Augustine had once resigned them.

11. But no marvel if particular fathers be thus taxed, when he spareth not whole Churches; as 2. b. p. 180. in saying, The Oriental and Roman Church wanted this clause of Christ's descension into hell, showeth a defect in thē, no fault in the Apostles Creed: But the truth is, there was neither fault in the one, nor defect in the other, in the omission of that article then. Thus he prowdly maketh the whole Oriental and Roman Church defective, unless he will give Ruffinus the lie, or Cyprian (for under both their names that treatise goeth) who so affirmeth, that the article of the descension was not added of old, neither in the East, nor Roman Church.

12. He bringeth a scandal upon the whole Church of England, affirming, that in the same there is dissention about substantial points of doctrine; for he misliketh and condemneth that defense of the Replier against the objection of the Romanists, wherein he affirmeth, that in the Church of England there is no difference in any substantial point of faith: and concerning the descending into hell, givē in instance by the Iudasite, whom he confuteth, he answereth, that the difference is not concerning the truth or substance of the article, but the manner. This answer this (sly fellow) rejecteth, and would needs have protestants dissent in substantial, points of faith: for (saith he) the right sense & meaning of the articles of faith, is of the substance: It is true that the substantial sense of an article is of the substance, but the sense, which concerneth the manner is not of the substance: as the sense or belief of the articles, that the world was created, that Christ was crucified, that the body shall rise again, are of the substance: but how the world was created, and in what form Christ was crucified, and how the resurrection shall be, belongeth to the manner; and is of curiosity rather to inquire, then of faith, And so likewise in the article of the desceusion, that Christ descended, no good Christian denieth, and that is of the substance; but how he descended is a question, as every boy Logician knoweth, that belongeth to the manner.

13. As he thus disgraceth the Church, so he handleth the whole state of the common wealth; thus unreverantly and seditiously writing of the honorable assembly of the Parliament: speaking of Limbomastix he saith, published, as the only colorable mean, whereby to convey an appeal from his Majesty and the Clergy, unto the Parliament, in behalf of himself and others: then it followeth, whereby such their Agents might work, as he well kn • we were busiest in hindering the unity of the Church: epist. dedicat. p. 10. In the which words, beside diverse untruths, as that the Replier conuayeth an appeal from his Majesty, whereas there is no appeal at all: and it was not fit in the dedication to join his pearelesse Majesty with his subjects: beside, from the Clergy there is no appeal, the spiritual Lord's being directly mentioned in the inscription of the dedicatorie: neither doth the Replier make any appeal for himself at all, having no agrieuance (he thanketh God.) Beside these manifest untruths, he most saucily, and malepartly (which are his own terms) nay mutinously, maketh the honorable Senators of the Parliament house, busy bodies, & hindrers of the unity of the Church: which presumptuous speech, how that grave Senate will take, at such a light & base Cornercreepers hand, I refer to their godly grave wisdoms to consider.

Thus in some particular and special instances, we have seen this vain-glorious Thraso play his part upon the stage: he spareth neither new writers nor old, in his proud censures, neither few nor many, neither inferiors nor superiors, he giveth them all the check mate: I may here use Augustine's words, Cernis quam tibi perniciosum fit crimen obijcere talibus, & quā mihi gloriosum sit quodlibet crimen audire cum talibus: you see how pernicious a thing it is to object a crime unto such, and how glorious unto me, to hear of a crime with such. This showeth nothing else but his own arrogant spirit, thus to censure better men then himself: he speaketh of one in his rude discourse, whose books (in his opinion) the Replier should not be worthy to bear: but he himself hath trampled upon some with his fowl feet, whose shoes for learning and piety, he is not worthy to wipe. Aristotle is said thus to have taxed a proud young man: O young man, I would I were such an one, as thou seemest to thyself to be; but such an one as indeed thou art, I wish mine enemies were. Plutarch useth this handsome and fit similitude, The husbandmen do better accept, and more willingly behold those ears which hang down their heads; those that stand upright they hold to be light and empty: so humility is a sign of worth; but hautinesse and arrogancy bewrayeth lightness and vanity. And so I ende this place with that wise saying of Euagrius: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : It is an unworthy thing, that he which can perform little, should brag much. And as unseemly a thing is it for this ambitious humorist, so to set others at light, that is so empty himself.

The accusation.

1. In that the Replier maketh this the question, that Christ descended not into hell to deliver the Patriarchs: he saith, you wound yourself incurably. 2. b. p. 4. for the former, which every Aristotelean knoweth, must of necessity be granted, before you can dispute of the l • tter. 2. b. p. 3. and so in effect, he chargeth the Replier to affirm that which he denieth, the descension to Limbus.

2. That the Replier doth in other places as earnestly maintain it (that is, that Christ loosed the sorrows of hell for himself) as here you impugn it. 2. b. p. 37.

3. These words nephesh and sheol say you, do properly signify sometime ( soul ) and ( hell ) and do also properly sometime betoken ( life ) and ( grave: ) they cannot properly signify both, being two distinct things. 2. b. p. 121. in other places you contend, that these words may in no wise be taken for ( life ) and ( grave ) but for ( soul ) and ( hell ) only: this is the certainty you keep.

4. You affirm, that no figure is to be admitted in these words soul and hell, and yet you fall presently to figuring upon figuring. 2. b. p. 141. Hitherto you have borne us in hand, that soul doth properly signify ( life ) and that no figure at all is to be admitted; and yet you here affirm, that it is so taken by the figure Metonymia; what gross contradiction is this?

5. Again, in another place you will needs have this word soul, not to be taken 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for the life, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for the whole person. 2. b. p. 144. again you say, that soul is here taken for the whole person, whereas a little before you contend by examples of scripture, that in this place it signifieth life.

6. In these two examples alleged by you, you grant that the particles ( not and neither ) do show a difference of the clauses & diversity of matter, &c. because the greatness or littleness of a difference is but an accident, &c. and thus in wielding the weapon against me, you wound your self with the blow: And yet after you have yielded thus much, you presently revoke it, compelled thereunto by the evidence of holy Scripture, and so convince yourself of falsehood, in condescending to a truth. 2. b. p. 163.

7. You contradict yourself palpably, in calling that Limbus patrum here, which you called before in se • ting down the question ( hell: ) whereas you yourself affirm in express words, that Limbus patrum is no part of hell. 2. b. p. 165.

8. Your self in the next page affirm directly, that after that ( consummatum est ) uttered by Christ upon the cross, his glory, victory, & triumph remained ( vnaccomplished: ) wherein you do not only grossly contradict yourself in saying here, that Christ triumphed over death, hell, and the devil upon the cross, but also derogate from his blessed death and passion, &c. 2. b. p. 189. the same contradiction is again objected, 3. b. p. 156.

9. You affirm in another place, that the thief made request to Christ as man, and not as he was God, &c. now your self dare not defend your former opinion, but say, that Christ spake this, as he was the Messias: wherein, as you delight in contrariety, &c. 2. b. p. 195.

10. Herein you contradict yourself: for in the former • ection you say, that Christ is with us in respect of his Godhead, but we with him, as he is our Messias. 3. b. p. 9.

11. You contradict yourself herein many ways, for before p. 9. you acknowledge this reading (of the sorrows of hell) to be the true reading, &c. how then can you say here, that Christ only suffered the sorrows of the first death? 3. b. p. 25.

12. The Reader may see how unlearnedly you condemn that for an error in Bellarmine (for saying, that Christ loosed the sorrows of hell for others, not for himself) which yourself defend for a truth.

13. We say not ( saith the Replier ) that Christ's body felt sorrows ( in the grave ) but was under the sorrows or bands of death: and yet yourself ( meaning the Replier ) in the former section, make it all one, to be under the sorrows of hell, and to suffer them.

14. Your ( minor ) or assumption containeth gross error, and contradiction, in that it implieth David's soul to have been sometime in hell, because it was not left in hell: it is your own reason, and indeed most true.

15. Your contradiction is, in that you say in your proposition, that this prophesy (of David, Psal. 16.) was wholly performed in Christ. Again, in another place you say, that this prophesy is so applied to Christ, as it must first be true in David▪ upon which supposition you infer thus: well then, first David's soul is in hell, and then it must be in the lowest hell, &c.

16. You say the whole is a peculiar prophesy of Christ, not partly of him, partly of David: and presently after, that this prophesy typically agreeth to David.

17. There is no more necessity here by flesh to understand the whole humanity of Christ his soul and body, then in that place of S. Paul, Rom. 1. 3. Christ was made of the seed of David according to the flesh, &c. if the soul should necessarily be comprehended under the name of flesh, it would follow, that Christ received his soul of the seed of David, and so anima should be ex traduce. 3. b. p. 61. And yet in an other place the Replier speaking of the very same place, saith: Here whole Christ is described unto us as God and man: the soul then of Christ is comprehended under the name of flesh, or else it is excluded, and so the Apostle should set before us an imperfect Christ. 3. b. p. 62.

18. You contradict yourself herein in justifying that for a verity ( because the Replier saith, to what purpose rather should Christ be thought to preach to the spirits in hell, then for their comfort? ) which you condemn a little before for a most gross heresy: namely that by Christ's descending into hell, the incredulous persons believed.

19. You grossly contradict yourself in another place, where you affirm, that the doors opened, and gave way unto Christ, when he entered: and yet you say here, that they were shut in the very instance of his entrance.

20. In every place you defend, that by prison in this place (of Peter) hell and the infernal place of darkness is to be understood, and do you now recant it, and bring us another signification of sins and errors?

21. The Replier saith, having cited that place of the Prophet David, Psal. 139. 15. (thou hast fushioned me in the lower parts of the earth) I trust they will not say, he was borne in hell. 3. b. p. 134. And yet in the first testimony, you (that is, the Replier ) bring S. Ambrose to prove, that by these very words of the Prophet David, we ought to understand Christ's descending to hell. 3. b. p. 140. see the same contradiction urged, 3. b. p. 183.

22. Bearing us in hand, that Bernard acknowledgeth no further descension of Christ, then to death, &c. and yet in another place you are driven in the ende utterly to forsake and reject him, (as one carried away with the error of his time) in thinking that Christ in his soul after death went locally down into hell.

22. In the former place you say, that Bernard goeth not beyond Christ's death, nor findeth any further degree of descension after that: and yet that he maketh here one degree, to be his descending to the grave: for I am sure, that you will not say he was buried, before he was dead. 3. b. p. 160.

23. Before in this place you will needs have the lower parts of the earth, to be meant of the cross, death, and grave: 3. b. p. 170. and yet here you say, that the parts of the earth are not compared with it self, but considered as parts of the world, in respect whereof, they may be called lower or lowest parts. 3. b. p. 163. And again: to descend to the lower parts of the earth, is to descend from he • en to earth: and yet other where you defend, that ( by descending into the lower parts of the earth) is meant Christ's descension to death and the grave: so that you do here notably contradict your self, unless you make this world to be all one with death and the grave.

24. You told us before, that there is none of the ancient fathers, which speaketh of the descension of Christ's soul to hell, but addeth withal, that it was to this ende, to deliver the souls of the fathers from thence: 3. b. p. 193. and yet you say; neither did all the fathers agree in judgment, that Christ descended into hell, to redeem the souls of the fathers. p. 190. what truth can there be in your words, when you thus blow hot and cold with one breath.

25. You change me before to have misalledged (Calvin) for Christ's descension into hell in that place of Peter, whereas you allege him here yourself to the same purpose.

The justification.

1. THis (Contradicter) hath found out a new kind of reasoning, never heard of before: that in a proposition, where two questions are included together, the second cannot be denied, before the former be granted. As, the question being, whether Christ descended to ( Limbus ) to deliver the fathers: one (in his logic) can not deny, that he descended to that ende, unless first he grant, that he descended to Limbus: by the same reason, he that saith, that an Idol must not be bowed unto to worship it, doth grant, that it may be bowed unto, but, not to that ende: and he which holdeth, that the Scriptures must not be abused to enchantment, confesseth, they may be abused, but no to that ende: or it is not lawful to swear falsely by the creatures, as the heaven, the earth, therefore it is lawful to swear by them, but not falsely: which indeed was the doctrine of the Pharisees, Math. 5. 33. but our Savior reacheth the contrary, that it is not lawful to swear at all by any creature. And what thinketh he of this proposition, It is not lawful to swear to the Pope, to assist him invading the land, before the King: doth it follow therefore, that it is lawful to swear to the Pope, so that it be not to that ende?

And may not this argument be returned upon himself: Christ descended not to ( Limbus ) to deliver the Patriarchs: I think he will deny this proposition, then he must grant by his own consequent, that Christ descended to ( Limbus. )

Indeed in an affirmative proposition it holdeth: as it can not be confessed, that Christ descended to Limbus to deliver the Patriarchs, but first it must be granted, that he descended to ( Limbus ) but in the negative it is not so.

2. The Replier in that place groundeth his argument upon the Latin text, that Christ loosed the sorrows of hell, showing that seeing he loosed the sorrows of hell for himself, they could not be the sorrows of the local hell: for he felt not the sorrows of hell after death: and here he saith, he was never in the sorrows of hell after death: here is no contradiction at all. If he can find any place, where the Replier affirmeth, that Christ loosed the sorrows of hell for himself after death, he will grant a contradiction: but to say, that Christ loosed not the sorrows of hell for himself after death, and yet that he loosed the sorrows of hell for himself, are not contradictory, but do imply, that he speaketh of other sorrows of hell, which Christ loosed, then those after death: seeing then he speaketh not of the same sorrows of hell, there is no contradiction, and that this Cauiller knew right well.

3. As though the same Hebrew word may not properly signify two distinct things, contained in one general sense: as gez, signifieth anything that is cut, and therefore some translate a fleece, Psal. 72. 5. as the Latin, and Montanus: some, the mown grass, as Vatab. Iun. because they both use to be cut. And concerning this word nephesh, his great Master confesseth, significat sine vllo tropo, tam animam, quam animal, immo etiam corpus: it fignifieth without any trope, as well the soul, as the living creature, yea the body: these I hope are all distinct things: yea this (palterer) confesseth, that it is one of the words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and that it signifieth all those three things given in instance by Bellarmine, lib. 2. p. 159. 160. But that the Replier saith, these words, are taken for the soul and hell only, is a manifest untruth: for in the place quoted, he confesseth in direct words, that in some places, the soul is taken for life, but contendeth, that Isa. 53. 10. it is properly taken for the soul.

4. The Replier, when he saith these words do properly signify life, and the grave, speaketh of the Hebrew words, nephesh and sheol: when he saith, that the soul is here taken 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , for the life, he meaneth this word, Englished soul: like as anima in Latin indifferently signifieth, the soul, or life: therefore this is no contradiction to say, that the Hebrew nephesh, sometime signifieth life, without a figure: as, Levite. 17. 14. the nephesh, the life of all flesh is his blood: it were improper, to say, the soul of all flesh: and that the Englished and translated word soul, is not taken for life, without a figure: for this trifler confesseth, that the Hebrew word nephesh, is more general in signification, then either the Latin word anima, or the Greek word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , as his Ringleader confesseth, of whom he borrowed it: and yet either of these are more large, and general, then the English word, soul.

5. The Replier in that place, doth not so much as use that term 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : he both there, and in other places allegeth that, as a reasonable and fit exposition, to take soul for the person: but he rather preferreth the other sense, to take soul, for life: Limbom. p. 9. to bring two probable interpretations of a place, as indifferent to be received, and of the two to prefer the more likely, is no contradiction.

6. To deny, that not, and neither, do not always show two distinct clauses, and that sometime, they argue no great difference or diversity, he that saith they are speeches contrary, showeth himself to be contrary to reason: unless he thinketh there is no difference, between a plain distinction, and a small diversity: hath he so much forgotten his Logike, that he knoweth not diversa to be defined, which dissent only in some reason, and respect: and opposita to be such as differ, re & ration, both in respect, and in deed and effect. And whereas the Replier saith, be it admitted that these particles do infer a distinction in the sentence, &c. doth he revoke anything? is he so blind, that he cannot discern between a simple assertion, and that which proceedeth upon a supposal and conditional grant. But what new wine had intoxicated his brain, when he let these words fall from his pen, You presently revoke it, and convince yourself of falsehood, in condescending to a truth: I thought it had been simplicity rather, and integrity, to condescend to a truth, and not falsehood: if this be falsehood to condescend to a truth, then it is simplicity and plainness to contradict the truth. This may be the reason, that he is so adverse to the truth, it is one of his virtues: but such falsehood to yield to the truth, God send me, and let him take his plain dealing to himhimselfe: whosoever hath the blow, I am sure he hath the wound, and feeleth the smart too: as the Orator saith, Luculentam ipse plagam accepit, vt declarat cicatrix: he hath received a sufficient venie, as the scar declareth.

7. The Replier in that place, saith out of Augustine's judgment, that Abraham's bosom is no part of hell, he nameth not Limbus: it seemeth he himself hath a conceit that ways, in making Abraham's bosom, and Limbus all one. But for his own opinion, the Replier thinketh that Limbus patrum, is neither part of hell, nor of any place else, no more then Purgatory is: yet he is not ignorant, but that his great Master, maketh it a member of hell. So then the question being propounded in the Romanists sense: to say sometime Christ descended not to hell, and otherwhile that he descended not to Limbus to deliver the fathers, is no contradiction.

8. The Repliers words are these: his glory, victory, and triumph only remained: so that, he fraudulently putteth in ( vnaccomplished ) of his own. The Replier saith, that Christ triumphed over death, hell, and the devil upon the Cross: that is, the victory and triumph was then obtained: and yet his glory, victory, and triumph remained; that is, it was not yet manifested, and published: for this word triumph, though it properly signify, the public solemnity that followeth after the victory: as the Roman Captains had their honorable triumphs publicly solemnized in the City after their victorious return: in which sense he that so triumphed, was called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , a triumphant man: yet in Scripture they are said to triumph, that do overcome, as Paul saith; Thanks be to God, which always makes us to triumph in Christ: where the same word is used: and yet the glorious and proper triumph of the Saints, is in the kingdom of heaven. As Christ now triumpheth in his members, in prevailing, and overcoming: so he triumphed upon the Cross, in obtaining the victory. And if any derogate and detract from the blessed death and passion of Christ, it is this Contradicter and detracter: who a little before said, that Christ's conquest upon the Cross, was openly an overthrow, and therefore no triumph. And again, If he triumphed on the Cross, it was a triumph before the victory. 2. b. p. 188.

9. And are these speeches, to make request to Christ, as man, and as the Messiah, contrary? is there in them any contrariety at all? are the manhood of Christ, and the person of the Messiah contrary? or when it is said as man, is he so absurd to think, that Christ is considered as man without his Godhead, and not as united with it in the person of the Messiah? or when, himself saith: that the thief made request to him as God, doth he mean, his Godhead without his humanity. And is S. Paul contrary to himself, when not in diverse, but in one and the same place he joineth both together, there is one God and Mediator, between God and man, the man Jesus Christ, that is, the Messiah? Doth not the Replier in direct words expound himself: that these words must not be understood of the presence of Christ in heaven, in respect of his Godhead only, but of his whole person, as the Mediator? But it may be he took this exception, because he inclineth to his cousin germanes opinion, that Christ exercised his mediatourship as man only, not as both God and man: and therefore noteth this as a contradiction and contrariety.

10. It is not the former sect. which is the 16. but the 15. sect. where the Replier saith, we are said to be with him as the Messiah: and doth he not say the self same thing here? for having rehearsed those words of our Savior, John. 17. I will that they which thou hast given me, be with me where I am: and then follow the other words, that they may behold my glory which thou hast given me: he addeth in very direct words, Doth he not here speak also of that glory, which was given him as the Messiah? How could then this humorous Contradicter so much as dream of any contradiction here: but it seemeth his wits went a woole-gathering, when he noted this; for in the next sentence before, instead of confuting the Repliers reasons, he repeateth and confirmeth them: for whereas the Replier brought this as one: if Christ, saying (where I am) speak of his Godhead, his request was even then fulfilled, for his Apostles were with him then present as God. 3. b. p. 5. This cōfused Confuter steppeth forth, and saith; secondly, if they were with him as God, then was Christ's prayer unto his father in vain, to grant them that which they presently enjoyed. 3. b. p. 9. Is not this the very same reason urged before by the Replier, to prove that Christ speaketh not of his Apostles being with him as God; for could he not see, how upon his words it may be assumed: but Christ's prayer unto his father was not in vain, therefore he prayeth not, they should be with him as God. And thus he hampereth himself, and woundeth his own cause.

11. It is untrue, that either in that place, Limbom. p. 9. or in any other, the Replier acknowledgeth sorrows of hell, Act. 2. 24. to be the true reading: he only thus saith, the hell that Christ went unto, he loosed the sorrows of, Act. 2. 24. which place he citeth, not for the name of hell, but for loosing of the sorrows: because even in the Confuters opinion, that which is called hell, v. 27. is named death, v. 24. And the Replier is so far in that place from justifying that reading of hell in the 24. verse, that he would convince by this reason, that hell is not meant, no not in the 27. verse, because it would then follow, that Christ loosed the sorrows of hell there, which had seized upon him. As untrue it is, that the Replier in that place goeth about to prove, that Christ suffered the sorrows of hell (in his sense) but rather declineth it as an absurdity. But in another place he inferreth that conclusion, grounding his argument upon the latin text, which the Romanists make their only authentic translation; and therefore it is a good text against them.

12. To say that Christ loosed the sorrows of hell (the place of the damned) for himself, the Replier counteth it absurd; and yet to say that the sorrows of death, which Saint Peter speaketh of, and Bellarmine readeth (hell) were not loosed for Christ, is contrary to the text, as there he showeth by diverse reasons: hereupon no contradiction can be inferred, but this followeth, that the death which Saint Peter speaketh of, the sorrows whereof were loosed for Christ, cannot be understood of hell.

13. That it is all one to say that the soul is under the sorrows of hell, and doth suffer them, being full of sense and feeling; and yet that it is not all one, for the body in the grave, to be under the sorrows and bands of death, and to feel or suffer them, because it is senseless, implieth no contradiction.

14. Not to be left in a place (the word being taken properly for to be forsaken) implieth a being first in the place; and in that sense the Replier thus reasoned: Christ was not left or forsaken in hell: ergo, he was in hell: but in this other place, by not leaving, he understandeth not being: but the not being, or leaving of the soul in hell, &c. And so is the word sometime used, as John. 14. 17. I will not leave you comfortless: that is, you shall not be comfortless: for otherwise, in the other sense of this word it might be inferred: Ergo, they were comfortless, but were not so left or remained. And so in a certain place Origen taketh the not leaving in hell, for the not being in hell: sine dubio neque nostras animas derelinquet in inferno, &c. without doubt (as he left not Christ's soul in hell) so shall he not leave our souls in hell, &c. and he which called him from hell after the third day, shall also call us in due time.

15. 16. To say that this whole prophecy of David was only historically true of Christ; and yet typically agreed to David, is no contradiction: hath he so forgotten his Logike principles, as that he remembereth not that every contraritie and opposition must be secundum idem, & ad idem, in regard of the same part or place, and in one & the same respect? But where the Replier inferreth, first David's soul is in hell, he reasoneth ex concessis, because the Romanists do hold that David's soul, with the rest of the fathers was in hell.

17. It is evident by the reason here set down concerning the original of Christ's soul, which cannot be said to be ex traduce, to be derived by propagation, as the body is, without great inconvenience, and in a manner impossibility, that the Replier reversed his former judgment, concerning the exposition of the word flesh, Rom. 1. 3. that howsoever in some other places it is taken for the whole nature of man, consisting of soul and body, yet it cannot be so taken there, for the former reason: And herein the Replier followeth Augustine's judgment, who against the Apollinarists, that held Christ only to have taken human flesh, without a soul, grounding their error upon those words, John. 1. The word was made flesh, abiecteth that place of Scripture, all flesh shall see the salvation of God, and the like, where flesh comprehendeth the whole nature of man: yet against Felicianus the Arian, which asked the question, why the habit of the son of God might not animate Christ's flesh instead of a soul, reasoneth after this manner; that if Christ took not also an human soul, one of those four must follow, it was either for that he thought the soul of man to be innocent, but that could not be, because sin is voluntary, and so incident properly to the soul: or that it belonged not unto him, which also is otherwise, seeing God is the creator of souls: or for that he could not heal the soul, thē should he not be omnipotent: or because the soul was abject and vile; but that is not so, as he addeth in the same place to this effect: that the flesh was not formed by the breathing in of God, as the soul was, but of the slime of the earth. Here then is no contradiction, but a revocation, or qualification rather of his former opinion, concerning the interpretation of one word in one place, which the Replier taketh to be no disgrace unto him, having altered his mind therein, before this caviller found it out; seeing he himself affirmeth the like (but untruly) of a Reverend Prelate of this land, that he retracted his judgment in a weightier matter, in the expounding of that difficult and obscure place of Saint Peter. This is the only place which he had any color of reason to object.

18. The Replier affirmeth not out of his own opinion, that Christ preached in hell to the disobedient spirits, for their comfort; but he urgeth it as an inconvenience which followeth upon their interpretation, that say, that Christ went and preached in hell: and the same absurdity is pressed by Augustine epist. 99. what gross blindness then is this in him, not to discern when the Replier delivereth his own judgment by way of position, and when he presseth the adversary, by way of objection?

19. The doors were shut up in the very instant of Christ's entrance: that is, not only before, but at that very instant, when Christ began to enter: and yet the doors opened and gave way to Christ, when he entered: here is no contradiction; for first it is said, in the instant of his entrance, that is, he found them shut when he began to enter: then it is said, when he entered: that is, while he was going in: is it not evident that a difference of the instant time is here noted; one, wherein he found the doors shut, being to enter: the other succeeding, when the doors opened, as he entered: it is lost time that is spent with such a trifler.

20. The Replier still without altering of his judgment, understandeth by prison in that place of Peter (hell: ) yet he produceth expositions of some of the fathers, which by prison understand, the bands of sins and errors, out of the which the prisoners were delivered; to show that herein, though not in every point they make for the Replier, understanding the delivering of prisoners, of preaching to the living for their conversion, not to the dead, as the Confuter doth: Is there not here now great contradiction?

21. The Replier allegeth the testimony of Ambrose, that so expoundeth the lower parts of the earth, of hell, not to that end, but only to show, that he understandeth Christ's descension to hell, of the presence of his divine power there. 2. b. p. 12. Is it necessary when a testimony is produced to one ende, that whatsoever is contained there beside, should be acknowledged: Then he himself cannot avoid it, but he must needs go for a maintainer of Limbus, for he bringeth in Ambrose, 3. b. p. 169. and Augustine, and Origen, p. 193. affirming the same; as appeareth by their testimonies, as he allegeth them: such measure as he meateth, shall be measured to him again.

22. To affirm that Bernard in one place findeth no further descension of Christ, then unto death; and yet that in another, being carried away with the error of those times, he holdeth the descension of Christ's soul to hell, is no contradiction: neither would this (jangling sophister) have thought so, if he had remembered the laws of opposition and contradiction, whereof I touched two before; secundum idem, & ad idem: where, as he failed in the latter, (I affirming Dau. prophecy to be true of Christ one way, i. historically, & of David another, i. typically: and therefore it was without any contradiction:) so he faileth here in the other, because Bernard is said to affirm diverse things, but not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , in the same part and place.

23. As though, when Bernard maketh the third degree of descending to be admortem, unto death, his descending to the grave be not there implied: for otherwise, he descended not from the cross to die, for he yielded up his spirit upon the cross. And this Bernard showeth, by the words following; nunquid amplius potuit? Behold how far he descended, could he do anymore? but if he meant nothing else but his death upon the cross, excluding the grave, our Savior Christ both might have done more, and did more for us, not only in dying, but in being buried for us.

24. And doth not the descending of Christ to the cross and grave, include also, and imply his descending to the earth? unless you think that his cross and grave was not in the earth: thus much also the Replier noted, foreseeing and preventing this objection; the other two expositions (that is, of Christ's descending to the earth, & then to the cross and grave) may well agree and stand together, and he that affirmeth the one, denieth not the other. Limbo. p. 52. These two then were two degrees of Christ's humiliation and descension, his taking upon him the form of a servant, and being obedient to the death of the cross, as S. Paul observeth, Philip. 2. 7, 8.

25. The Replier saith again, that there are none of the fathers which speak of Christ's descension to hell, but held it was to that ende to deliver the fathers: and yet some of the fathers differ in judgment, for they hold that place where the fathers were, not to have been any part of hell, but Paradise; as Origen, Chrysostom, Augustine: is here now any contradiction? for they which hold the Patriarchs to have been in Paradise, and not in hell, speak not of Christ's descension to hell, but to Paradise, to illuminate the fathers.

26. What a strange fellow is this, to say that I allege Calvin myself, for the same purpose for which he alleged him; namely, to prove the local descension into hell: whereas I allege Calvin, Beza, and Junius to the contrary. 3. b. p. 191. Limbom. p. 59. Thus hath this busy body troubled himself to spy faults, where he could find none. Such Seneca compareth to the wrestles Ants, quae in summū cacumen, deinde in imum aguntur: which creep up & down upon trees from the top to the bottom, and find no resting place. And Aristo in Plutarke, to the winds, which do uncover our garments, which of all other are most troublesome. Such are they which hunt up and down to seek others disgrace, and to uncover their nakedness, not being able to hide their own uncomeliness: Augustine doeth fitly resemble the envious man, to the worm which did breed in Jonah gourd; so still he gnaweth upon others credit, and fretteth at their well-doing▪ and where he cannot overcome with wrestling, seeketh to supplant by fraud: and as Augustine saith, Aliorum gloriam facit suam poenam, Maketh another's fame his own • ane: as shall now appear in the returning of this accusation.

The Recrimination.

1. This Contradicter findeth fault with the Replier, as though he should say, that eternal continnance in them, is not of the essence and nature of hell torments. Synops. p. 1014. 3. b. p. 77. whereas he only saith, the inseparable adjuncts, and necessary members of hell are these: 1. the place, which is infernal. 2. the time, which is perpetual. 3. the darkness, unspeakable: And he himself confesseth as much, whose ( that is, of hell ) inseparable adjuncts, are utter darkness, and endless pains.

2. He saith it is Judaism to apply the prophecy of David, Psalm 16. to any, but to our Savior Christ. 3. b. p. 41. And yet he himself granteth, that the prophecy of the ascending of Christ, and leading captivity captive (which is as peculiar to the ascension of Christ, as the other concerneth his resurrection) is literally spoken of King David himself, &c. but prophetically meant of Christ our Savior. 1. b. p. 57.

3. He saith that the Creed was made and composed by the Apostles themselves. 2. b. p. 182. but else where he saith, it was made either by the Apostles themselves, as the ancient fathers do think, or by Apostolic men, as all divines confess. 1. b. p. 5. If it were made by Apostolic men, then not by the Apostles, which he certainly affirmed before.

4. Having recited that place, Psal. 6. 4, 5. O Lord deliver my soul, for 〈◊〉 death there is no remembrance of thee: who shall give thee thanks in the pit: which word, he whom he confuteth translateth hell: he thus inferreth; by the which last word all our late interpreters; both latin and English, do with one accord understand the grave, as being the ordinary sequel of temporal death. 1. b. p. 12. Here he understandeth in this place temporal death, whereof the grave is an ordinary sequel: and yet in the next page following, he affirmeth the contrary; wherefore ( death ) in that place cannot signify the separation and dissolution of the soul from the body, which is only temporal: but the divorcement and sequestration both of body & soul from God. 1. b. p. 13.

5. Neither can this word (grave) signify any other place, then the place of corruption, and mortality. 1. b. p. 12. And yet the word avad, Psal. 88. 10. which the Septuag translate 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the Latin, in sepulchro, in the grave, he saith is meant of hell. 3. b. p. 28.

6. Who shall give thee thanks in the pit? Psal. 6. 5. by which last word, all our late interpreters do with one consent understand the grave, &c. which can signify no other place, then the place of corruption and mortality. 1. b. p. 12. And again, no English translators turn ( sheol ) grave, in this place, but pit, which most fitly and truly agreeth to hell. 3. b. p. 26. thus in the same place, the same word shall signify both the grave, and hell.

7. He fondly reproveth the Replier, for running from the New Testament to the Old, and from the Greek to the Hebrew. 2. b. p. 120. you well perceived the Greek was utterly against you, and therefore cunningly, but cowardly you forsake it, and fly to the Hebrew. ibid. p. 121. yet he himself doth the same: which to be so in this place, if you will grant the Hebrews to have had any skill in their own natural language, you must needs confess. 1. b. p. 16. Is it lawful for him to have recourse unto the Hebrew writers, and a fault in the other to run unto the Hebrew Scriptures?

8. Now if you take exception (saith this Contradicter) against this reading, as mistranslated in all our Bibles, which I see not by what right you can do, being publicly authorised. ) 1. b. p. 26. and 2. b. p. 130. he calleth it an authorised translation: yet he himself most scornfully rejecteth the great English Bible authorised publicly to be read, as hath been shown before, Imputat. 8. recriminat. 6.

9. He findeth fault with the Replier, for translating 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , tell him his fault, as the Geneva translation, and great Bible readeth: 2. b. p. 67. & yet he himself translateth the same word, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , tell thy neighbor roundly of his fault. ibid. p. 71.

10. He saith, that faithful perseverance in piety, is the final possession of the land of promise▪ 2. b. p. 113. and yet else where he denieth, that the true joys of heaven may be in this world. 2. b. p. 207. for if a man by faithful perseverance, hath in this life a sure hope, and by hope possession of heaven, how hath he not some true sense of the joys thereof?

11. That sheol was always taken to signify hell only: 2. b. p. 119. and yet else where he confesseth, that the same word, Psal. 6. 5. translated the pit, is taken for the grave the sequel of temporal death. 1. b. p. 12.

12. He readeth thus, Exod. 21. 23. He shall pay life for life, not soul for soul. 2. b. p. 14. the Hebrew word is ( nephesh ) which in another place he saith, was always taken only to signify soul. 2. b. p. 119.

13. In that the Replier saith, that the glory, victory, and triumph remained, (that is, the manifestation and accomplishment of it) after Christ had said, Consummatum est, it is finished: this Contradicter saith, you do greatly derogate from his blessed death and passion: for if he obtained not victory over those enemies upon the cross, then are they yet vnconquered, and consequently man's redemption unperformed. 2. b. p. 189. And yet a little before he denieth, that Christ triumphed upon the cross: for that conquest (saith he) upon the cross, was openly an overthrow: and again, so that if Christ triumphed upon the cross (as you say he did) it was according to the proverb, a triumph before victory. ibid. p. 188. who could imagine, that he should have such a sihttle and crazy brain: as in the compass of ten lines to affirm and deny the same thing.

14. It is the Obiecter, not I that so taketh it, that is, the soul 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for the whole person: and yet a little after, forgetting himself, he saith: I grant that the word soul, being joined with the body, may be taken for the whole person.

15. Whereas the Replier understandeth those words of S. Peter, that Christ shall be the Judge of the quick and the dead, 1. Pet. 4. 5. of those which are now dead, but shall be alive at the coming of Christ: he thus friuolously objecteth, that then we must correct an article of the Creed: and say, that Christ shall come to judge the quick, and not the dead. 3. b. p. 71. And yet afterward, within two lines he saith, as the dead shall be living then, so the living now, shall be then dead: where beside his absurdity and contradiction to Scripture, that the living now shall be dead at Christ's coming, whereas the Apostle saith, that the living shall not prevent them that sleep, &c. and the dead in Christ shall rise first: he crosseth himself, in altering and changing the article after his own fancy: that Christ shall be Judge of the dead and quick.

16. He saith that these words of Origen, do they not read, what is written of their hope, that perished in the flood, 1. Pet. 3. cannot convince him of that most gross heresy recorded by Augustine: that some thought, by Christ's descending to hell, the incredulous persons believed, and all were delivered thence. 2. b. p. 76. And yet he himself chargeth Origen in the next page following, with a more gross heresy; that he thought the very damned in the ende should be saved themselves. ibid. p. 77.

17. He would confute the Replier for defending, that the true joys of heaven may be perceived in this life. 2. b. p. 207. and yet he saith, that Paul being wrapped into the third heaven, beheld the very essence of God. 2. b. p. 205. I hope then he saw the true joys of heaven: and S. Paul at that time, had not resigned this life.

18. The Saints shall not see God so perfectly, as he is visible in himself. 2. b. p. 204. And yet afterward he saith: they shall see him in plain manner, and in perfect measure. ibid. p. 205. thus they shall see him perfectly, and yet not perfectly.

19. None of his elect are with him, during their abode in this life; otherwise what meant S. Paul to say, I desire to be dissolved, and to be with Christ, if he were with him without dissolution, &c. 3. b. p. 4. yet in another place, he misliketh that saying of the Replier: that Christ is said to be with us in respect of his Godhead, &c. but we are said to be with him, as our Messiah: as S. Paul saith, I desire to be dissolved and be with Christ: he calleth this assertion, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : 2. b. p. 198. and yet in the other place approveth the same himself.

20. What shall the simple and unlearned do, when they hear those Bibles, which have been allowed by public authority of this Realm, and openly read in our Churches these 46. years, to be condemned by some Ministers and Preachers among us, for false, erroneous, and injurious to the word of God, &c. 3. b. p. 46. And yet he himself chargeth the same Bibles with errors in the text, and with blasphemy in some of the annotations. 3. b. p. 49.

21. He saith, that Noah was no preacher at all in any other sense, then all other godly men are, namely in doing the works of righteousness: 3. b. p. 109. and yet a little after it followeth: with this construction the Latin word praeco, used by all translators in that place, doth most fitly agree: which doth properly signify him, that maketh open proclamation of a thing, as an Herald or trumpetter: as Alexander called Homer the trumpetter or sounder out of Achilles prowes. ibid. p. 110. If Noah were in this sense a proclaymer of righteousness, as Homer was of Achilles valure, it was not a mute and dumb, but a vocal proclaiming and preaching thereof: which he denied before.

22. You will never prove, that there was any other descension but this: he meaneth the descension into hell, whereof he spake immediately before. 3. b. p. 155. And yet afterward he confesseth two descensions: descensions of Christ in the New Testament are none mentioned, saving these two only. ibid. p. 157. he meaneth the descension from heaven to earth, and from thence to hell.

23. Those words of the Prophet, ( in thy presence is fullness of joy, ) Psal. 16. 11. are not meant of the Godhead of Christ, but of the glory, which his manhood was to receive at his resurrection. 3. b. p. 165. here he confesseth, there was glory due unto Christ as God; and glory, which he received as man: but else where he denieth, that there was one kingdom (that is, glory) due unto Christ as God, an other, as he was the Messiah. 2. b. p. 201.

24. He saith, that there is a plain distinction between the holy Ghost, &c. and Christ, not in person only, &c. but in nature also, I mean his divine nature: 3. b. p. 95. but afterward, he better remembering himself, saith: I distinguish only the person of Christ from the holy Ghost ibid. p. 96.

25. He saith, man's perfect redemption was purchased by his precious death upon the cross. 3. b. p. 155. And yet in an other place, he thus writeth: our whole and entire freedom was wrought and effected by our Savior Christ's descention into hell, and not only by his death and passion. 3. b. p. 143. how could there be a perfect redemption upon the cross, without a perfect freedom?

26. You dissemble the Apostles words immediately following in the same place, let us proceed by one rule, &c. And yet within a few lines after, he confesseth thus: you speak I grant of this proceeding by one rule, &c. 2. b. p. 12. If the Replier speaketh of it, how then doth he dissemble it?

27. He denieth that Christ had a kingdom (that is, power, authority, glory) belonging to him as God, and another, as he is God and man. 2. b. p. 201. And yet these words he hath in another place: those words of the Prophet repeated by the Apostle (thou wilt show me the ways of life, &c.) are not meant, as you mistake them, of the Godhead of Christ, &c. but of that glory, which his manhood was to receive at his resurrection and ascesia • , He here manifestly affirmeth, that there was glory due to Christ as God, and another glory due to his manhood. But by the way he himself grossly mistaketh the Replier: for those words he referreth not to the Godhead, but to the soul of Christ: for these are his words: to say that Christ's soul did not enjoy his fathers presence in heaven all the while it was absent from the body, is contrary to the Scriptures, (thou wilt show me the ways of life, &c.) 3. b. p. 162.

Thus this impure imputation of contradictions is returned also upon the Contradicters own head. The Scribes and Pharisees shown themselves more wise, who were ashamed to cast one stone at the adulterous woman, being guilty themselves. And this contentious brabler should have been better advised, then to object difference and contradiction unto others, seeing he agreeth no better with himself. That was a wise saying of Theophr •• stus to a young man that blushed: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Be of good cheare (saith he) for virtue hath such a color. If this bold outfacer of others, had first blushed at his own faults and oversights, it had been more commendation to him. Ambrose saith well: An eum putabo idoneum, qui mihi det consilium, qui non dat sibi, & mihi eum vacare credam, qui non vacat sibi: shall I think him meet to give me counsel, that cannot give himself, or that he can find leisure for me, that hath no leisure for himself: that is, to find his own faults. It had been good, if first he had viewed the ruins and droppings thorough of his own house, before he had surueied an others. The contradictions which he hath dispersedly in his contentious plea obtruded, do rather show the humor of contention in the wrester, then the spirit of contradiction in the writer. Greater advantage a man cannot lightly have against his adversary, then the Replier in this vain accusation against his ( Contradicter: ) to whom in that behalf that saying of the Orator against Antony most fitly agreeth, as if it had been first spoken of him: Tam eras excors, vt tota in oratione tecum ipse pugnares, vt non modo non cohaerentia inter se diceres, sed maxim disiuncta & contrariae, vt non tanta mecum, quanta tibi tecum esset cont •• ti • : were you so witless, that thorough your whole discourse, you were at odds with yourself: so that you did not only utter things not hanging together, but most different and contrary, that you were at greater strife with yourself, then with me?

The accusation.

1. He cutteth off those my words, (much less in heaven, where there is fullness of joy) which follow immediatley, and contain part of my reason, &c. 2. b. p. 37. and 3. b. p. 36.

2. You conceal my meaning, and corrupt my words: for it is the obiecter, not I, that so taketh it (namely, the soul for the whole person.) 2. b. p. 143.

3. You cut off all the first part of my sentence here enclosed, (it is a general axiom of Theology among all divines,) &c. thereby to cover your legerdemaine, least the Reader should see (to your shame) your contemptuous rejection of one common received axiom in divinity, &c. 2. b. p. 120.

4. You clippe my words in the latter: and thus ancient, godly, and learned fathers have expounded it. 3. b. p. 6.

5. What dishonest dealing is this in you, first to corrupt my words, and then to affirm, that I make no opposition between Christ and David, save only in incorruption, resurrection, and ascension. 3. b. p. 41.

6. You clippe my words, in leaving out the Antecedent, whereof this reading is a consequent, &c. 3. b. p. 58.

7. After your wonted manner, you misreport my words, &c. for these my last words, (turning the human soul of Christ, first into his divinity, &c.) are not as I make them any part of that period, where I blame the obiector for confounding the persons of the Trinity, but are referred to his contradicting of himself. 3. b. p. 96.

8. Where do I affirm, (that by the lowest parts of the earth, hell is always signified) but that it is your custom always to charge me falsely. 3. b. p. 140.

9. It is denied ( say you ) that Christ's descension in soul to hell, doth more set forth his love and favor, then his cross and passion: you are still forging one falsehood or another against me: for where do I affirm any such thing? 3. b. p. 148.

10. My words are not in that place, as you report them. 3. b. p. 150.

11. You still detort and deprave my words, as if you had been hatched in the nest of the Harpies, &c. the indifferent Reader may see, that I do not attribute the victory to Christ's descension into hell, but to his blessed passion on the cross. 3. b. p. 154. 155.

12. Thirdly it is untrue, when you say, that I make but one degree of Christ's exaltation, for I speak only of his ascending into heaven. 3. b. p. 161.

13. Lastly, touching the Greek article ( 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ) I do not precisely affirm, as you untruly make me, that it doth particularize, & distinquish the parts of the earth, &c. 3. b. p. 171.

14. You still misreport my words, and pervert my meaning, I speak in that place of the diverse glosses, which those of your opinion make, of this descending of Christ, &c. 3. b. p. 175.

The justification.

1. WHereas the Replier urgeth these words of the (Confuter) S. Peter mentioneth sorrows which were loosed at Christ's resurrection, &c. thereby inferring that the Confuter in these words implieth Limbus patrum; because those sorrows (of hell) were not loosed for Christ, but for others: to what purpose should he allege that impertinent addition, much less in heaven, where there is fullness of joy? for the question is, for whom those sorrows were loosed: I think, he will not say, for any that were in heaven: there is then no injury done unto the Confuter, in the omitting of those words: the Replier should have had more advantage in setting them down.

2. The Obiector indeed first saith, that the soul by a synecdoche is taken for ( me: ) but the Confuter also hath these very words, the state of the questiō is not, whether the soul joined with the body, may be taken 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , for the whole man living (in which sense it cannot be denied, but it is taken in diverse places of Scripture. ) 1. b. p. 7. The Replier then corrupteth not his words, but the (Refuter) denieth his own words: and that word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , is only used in that place by himself, not by the Obiector.

3. The whole sentence is this, ( it is a general axiom in Theology among divines) that the words of holy writ are always to be taken and understood, according to their native and proper signification, but only when there followeth some manifest and apparent absurdity: what fraud now or legerdemain is there in omitting of the first clause, which is but a flourish to the sentence, no substantial part thereof? The Replier was not bound to rehearse all his idle words, but such as were material to the purpose. But the legerdemaine that here is, is found only in the Confuter, who falsely chargeth the Replier for rejecting of this axiom, whereas he admitteth it: and upon that ground proveth these two points; that the words ( sheol and nephesh ) do sometime properly signify, the ( life, and grave ) and if they did not, yet by reason of the absurdities and inconveniences ensuing, a figurative sense of those words should be acknowledged.

4. To what purpose should the Replier have added that clause, and thus ancient learned, &c. seeing the Refuter only nameth certain fathers in the margin upon this point, as Augustine, Euthimius, Damascene, but produceth not their testimony; for the hunts-man looseth but his labor in tracing the hare, unless he find her sitting in her form, or can find her out by her sent: and as wearisome a thing it is to follow the fathers in the large field of their writings, the particular places being not noted.

5. True it is, that the Confuter maketh a double Antithesis between Christ and David: a general between their persons, in these words, thou wilt not leave my soul in hell (as he readeth:) and a particular, in his incorruption, resurrection, and a scension: which last (the Refuter) calleth the true antithesis: The Replier then had no reason to make mention of that general antithesis, 1. because he speaketh of the true antithesis: which the Refuter himself saith, doth consist in those three points before mentioned: and this he affirmeth, not only in his simple text, but in his frivolous marginal notes, that herein the true antithesis consisteth, between Christ and David, in his incorruption, resurrection, ascension. 2. Neither will his general antithesis help him, which he saith is not between the soul of Christ, and the soul of David, but between their persons. 1. b. p. 19. But the Replier giveth an instance in the soul of David, that it neither was at all in hell, nor yet left there, as likewise Christ's was not; and therefore therein the antithesis was not.

6. The whole place is this: ( if by flesh you understand the humanity, and by spirit the divinity,) you must read the text thus: Christ was mortified in his humanity, &c. What needed here the needless repetition of this frivolous antecedent, seeing the very sum and substance of the objection is expressed? the Replier labored for brevity, to comprehend much in few words; not to speak much, and say little as the Refuter doth, who by loathsome prolixity wearieth the Reader, that he should not see his vanity.

7. The Refuter chargeth the obiector directly with two things together, ignorantly to contradict himself, and erroneously to confound the distinct persons of the Trinity: and both these he shufleth up together: and do not those words, you turn the soul of Christ first into his divinity, &c. in his collection, as well show a confounding of the persons, as contradiction? Therefore the Replier summing the objection together, missed not an hairs breadth of the (Refuters) meaning, if he understood himself.

8. And where doth the Replier charge him so to say directly? his words are these: It is evident that the answerer more boldly then truly saith, that by these words (the lowest parts of the earth) hell is always signified: for unless he be able to prove that, he doth but trifle. Is it not evident by these words, that the Replier chargeth the Refuter by a disiunctiue speech, that either he must say so, or he doth but trifle?

9. Neither doth the Replier affirm that he saith so, but whereas the Confuter setteth forth the greatness of the love of the Prince, in not disdaining in his own person to go down into the prison, where the captives were: the Replier denieth (as a consequent of this assertion) that the descension to hell should more have commended Christ love, then his death and passion: for if the comparison be not between Christ death, and descension, it is impertinent.

10. To what ende should the Replier trouble himself and his Reader with setting down all his frivolous words: if there were any silver or gold in them, or matter of worth, they might be delivered by number, & weight: but being as they are, full of droffe, I thought it best to refine them, and not to take refuse and all. I appeal unto the indifferent Reader, if the very sense of his long periods be not exactly kept, though all his words are not given by tale. And he himself is the man, that mis-reporteth his own words: for whereas in the first book he said, here is a plain opposition of the personal motions of ascending and descending: now he saith (to mende the matter) here is a plain exposition, &c.

11. These are the Refuters own words: The conquest was not obtained and effected by his coming down from heaven, nor yet by his incarnation, &c. but by his passion on the cross, and his descension to hell: wherein now are his words depraved? doth not likewise the Replier, in propounding his objection, join both his cross, and passion, and his descending to hell together? But seeing he ascribeth Christ's victory jointly to both these, is he not ashamed to say, he doth not attribute this victory to Christ's descension to hell, but to his blessed death and passion? And doth he not elsewhere say, that our whole and entire freedom was wrought and effected by our Savior Christ's descension into hell, and not only by his death and passion upon the cross. 3. b. p. 143. There is then no other Harpy here but himself, that scratcheth his face with his own nails: he need to fear no other talents but his own, to use the Orators words; Num expectas, dum te stimulis fodiam, haec te, si vllam partem habes sensus, lacerat, haec cruentat oratio: Do you look while I should gore you with pricks: if you have any part of sense, this ( your own ) speech doth tear and wound you.

12. The very words of the Refuter are these: His ascending being but one exaltation, proveth invincibly, that this descending was but one humiliation. 1. b. p. 58. whence the Replier inferreth, that he maketh but one degree of Christ's exaltation: The first is his own assertion, without any mis-reporting; the other is a collection upon his words, without any wresting: for in saying his ascending was but one exaltation, he saith in effect, that his exaltation was but one (namely his ascending) and so consequently there should be but one degree of his exaltation. And as by descending, he understandeth generally the coming down of Christ from heaven, unto the lowest point of his humiliation: and not for the local descension only to hell: as appeareth by that opinion which he confuteth, of them which understand Christ's descending into the lower parts of the earth, of his descending from heaven to earth: so by ascending in this opposition he must understand the whole return of Christ from the lowest point of his humiliation, unto heaven again: for that there were not many debasements in Christ's descension, is proved (saith he) by the contrary motion of ascending, which was but one exaltation, &c. who seeth not, by this inference, that as he denieth many debasements (i. degrees) of Christ's humiliation, so he denieth many degrees in his exaltation.

13. The Refuters words at large are these: The article 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , added here to the words ( 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ) which is not always expressed in the Greek, but commonly when it is put ( 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ) to particularize some singular or special thing, seemeth here plainly to distinguish the parts of the earth in general, from those notorious infernal parts. 1. b. p. 58. Now the Replier abridgeth the objection thus: the article ( 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ) added here doth particularize and distinguish, &c. Is here any untruth? seeing these are his own words, seemeth here plainly to distinguish: what great difference is there between distinguishing, and seeming plainly to distinguish: that term of affirming precisely, is his own, and not the Repliers.

14. The Refuters words are these: his ascending being but one exaltation, proveth invincibly, that this descending in like manner was but one humiliation. 1. b. p. 58. The Replier reporteth them thus: his ascension being but one exaltation, proveth that his descending likewise was but one humiliation: for ascending ( he hath ) ascension, for (in like manner) likewise: and leaveth out invincibly, the omitting whereof, if it make anything at all, is against the Replier. Is he not ashamed now to cry out, that his words are misreported?

Now this false accuser of falsification, what hath he gained, but the reproach of a false witness? the Scripture saith, that a faithful witness will not lie: if he had dealt faithfully, he would not have forged such an untrue & unjust accusation. Jerome well saith, Testimonium pro se, nec Catoni creditum: that, no not Cato was credited in his own testimony. And this Refuters accusation hath no other ground but his own surmise, and bare word. He said well, that being asked what advantage came by a lie to him that made it, that they shall not be believed when they speak the truth. And I doubt not, but this fabler shall find the less credit with every judicious Reader, having so often failed in his accusations. There was an a uncient law among the Romans, that he which told a false testimony, should be cast in bonds with him against whom he spake it. And this reward shall this false witness have, that he himself, as bound and entangled with his own false accufation and slander, shall be delivered up to the party innocent and accused, as shall now appear in the returning upon his head his own suggestion.

The Recrimination.

1. This falsifier himself thus mis-reporteth the Repliers words, and perverteth his meaning, that whereas he thus writeth; Some would have all purged, not the superfluous humors only, but some profitable parts, &c. And then a little after it followeth: But the better sort, desire neither with Herodicus nothing to be purged, nor with Heraclitus, all things to be euacuated and purged: but rather approve Hippocrates method, that what is evil may be purged, the rest to be comforted and strengthened. And afterward alleging that place of S. Paul, 1. Cor. 5. 7. concerning the old leaven and new lump: he addeth, we would not, the leaven, lump of dough, and all to be cast out; but the lump to be renewed, the old sower leaven to be rejected. Now see how this (perverse mis-construer) playeth his part: But the better sort ( he meaneth himself, and such other ) think that there (be superfluous humors) which have need to be purged, that the (new sweet) lump (of their laicall prosbyterie) hath need to be renewed, and the old sower leaven (of our Ecclesiastical policy) to be rejected. 2. b. p. 20. where beside the addition of all those words enclosed in the parenthesis, he chargeth the Replier, against his own conscience, and contrary to the words of the Replier, as being an enemy to the Ecclesiastical policy; who a little before, in the same place, maketh the calling of reverend pastors and Bishops in itself, one of the profitable parts of the church.

2. Whereas the Replier thus writeth, We rejoice to hear of your honors Christian consultation for the propagating of the gospel, in planting everywhere of good pastors, that the people may be brought from darkness of their ignorance, to the light of knowledge, that they be no longer children in understanding, and as babes and sucklings in religion. Epist. dedicat. to Limbom. He thus corrupteth his words: Our people of England (saith he) for want of good Pastors (such as himself) live in darkness and ignorance, are children in understanding, &c. 2. b. p. 21. making the Replier to speak of the people of England in general, whereas he meaneth only such places, where good Pastors are wanting, and the word not preached, where the people cannot choose but be ignorant, and as children in understanding, as God he knoweth. But it seemeth, that this enemy to God's glory, & the people's salvation, could be contented, they should live in ignorance still.

3. The Replier readeth; But we do all hope, that this your honorable Session shall rather deserve to be so called: the Falsifier addeth, But we (the well-willers of Zion) do all hope, &c. 2. b. p. 24.

4. Thus also he maketh the Replier to write: (that all Ministers that cannot preach, may be removed, and such Ministers provided in their rooms, (as heretofore for their zeal and diligence have been excluded) which have store of milk in their breasts, & which seek in peace, and in a good conscience to nourish the people of God (being like babes ready to star • e for want of such Nurses.) All these words enclosed, as the Reader seeth, are added by the Falsifier.

5. The Falsifier thus forgeth: that he (i. the King) acknowledgeth the Roman Church to be our mother Church, it is (saith Limbomastix) a foolish conceit, and imagination. 2. b. p. 28. The Replier thus writeth; a foolish conceit & imagination it is, that Rome should be the mother Church, and Nurserie of all the world: where there is no reference at all to the Kings Majesty, neither are the words as he repeateth them: for it is one thing to say the Roman Church is our mother Church, in respect of the antiquity of the place; because the Roman faith and religion (before it yet declined) did spread into these western parts: & another, that it should be our mother Church, as it now standeth corrupted in religiō: it is one thing to say it is our mother Church, another, that is the mother Church, and nursery of all the world.

6. The Confuter thus forgeth: doth it follow, because I say it ought to be translated, to the spirits which were, & not which are in prison, that therefore they were in hell, and are not, I deny your argument. 2. b. p. 39. whereas he leaveth out this other part of the Repliers argument, or else he striveth about words.

7. He imagineth the Replier to say, that Christ loosed the sorrows of hell for others (detained in hell) and that to think otherwise is very absurd. 2. b. p. 42. whereas the Replier so affirmeth, not out of his own judgment, but urgeth the Confuter with that inconvenience: and concerning the inference of absurdity, these are his words, and not as he repeateth them; I think he is not so absurd, as to think he loosed them for himself, who was never in the sorrows of hell after his death. 2. b. p. 36.

8. You affirm some Popish books to have been written by Protestants, whereas these are the Repliers words, There are books abroad maintaining offensive doctrine, too much declining to Popery.

9. The Replier saith, Durand maintaineth contrary to the opinion of the rest: but he thus falsifieth the place; Durand maintaineth an opinion contrary to (all) the rest: where (all) is added, & the order of the words inverted.

10. You grant, that these two particles ( not ) and ( neither ) do show a difference of the clauses, and a diversity of matter, whereas these are the words of the Replier; here these two negatives ( lo, lo, ) are used, & yet there is no great difference in these two clauses, &c. nor they show no great diversity of matter: he setteth it down negatively, & the other repeateth his words affirmatively.

11. His glory, victory, and triumph remained ( vnaccōplished:) this word (vnaccomplished) is added of his own.

12. That Christ hath 2. kingdoms belonging unto him, one as he is God, and another as he is God & man: but these are the Repliers words, that kingdom whereof Christ promiseth to make the thief partaker, is not that kingdom which belongeth to him as God.

13. The sorrows of hell or death, had fastened on Christ: but the Replier hath, the sorrows, of death and the grave.

14. You most grossly ouerreach yourself, so prophanly and unchristianly to censure the • , (i. the fathers) to prepare the way to a most gross heresy • whereas these are the Repliers words, rather this sense of the place, to interpret it of the descending of Christ to hell, where the disobedient persons and unbelievers were, giveth way, and openeth a most wide gap to a most gross heresy. He doth not simply charge the fathers, or any other, but speaketh only by way of comparison.

15. Your books ( saith the falsifier ) should be in so base esteem of all hands, that many would not vouchsafe the reading of them, &c. nay that the labors of your sacred wit were only used to beautify walls: whereas the Replier only hath, books were grown into such small request, &c. and the labors of sacred wits • he speaketh not of his own books: for he (thanked be God) had no cause to complain of his own, which he doubteth not but will live in the memory of the world more years, then his shall months or days.

16. The Repliers words are these: this phrase is neither strange nor unusual to say, that Christ went in spirit, or the spirit of Christ went, seeing Noah went in the spirit of Christ: which the Confuter corrupteth thus: Christ went in spirit: that is, saith he, Noah went in the spirit of Christ: and yet he denieth, that he corrupteth the words: whereas he leaveth out this clause altogether: or the spirit of Christ went▪ which the Replier insiste •• upon: making these in a manner all one; that Christ's spirit preached in Noah, and Noah preached in the spirit of Christ.

17. It followeth not (say you) Christ died not the death of the soul by sin or damnation, Ergo he cannot be said to have died in soul▪ But the Replier hath, cannot be said ( any ways ) to have died in soul: which words (any ways) he clippeth off.

18. He chargeth the Replier to say, that many of the ancient fathers affirm, that Christ was crucified in his soul: where he clippeth off the Repliers words which immediately follow, that he gave his soul a price of redemption for our soul. So he saith not that many of the fathers affirm the first, wherein Ambrose only is produced: but both must be put together.

19. The Replier saith: this article of the present tense, being here to be supplied, and the sense not enforcing a change of time, doth rather give to be translated are, then were. The falsifier clippeth off all that clause: ( and the sense not enforcing a change of time: ) and repeateth the words thus: because you make a difference between the sense of a word (expressed,) and a word (supplied: ) not making any mention, of the enforcing of the sense: and therefore all these 14. examples produced by him, wherein the necessity of the sense enforceth a participle of the time past, as Matth. 1. 36. 2. 25. 5. 40. They that (were) with him: and so in the rest, are impertinent: for the sense doth necessarily give, that it must be understood of the time past.

20. The Repliers words stand thus: doth he think, that these disobedient spirits were in hell, and are not? if he do not, he trifleth: for the word (were) will help him nothing. Now cometh this deceitful forger, and thus turneth the sentence: whosoever thinketh, that those disobedient spirits were in hell, but are not, is a trifler: whereas the Replier saith the contrary: if he do not ( think so ) he is a trifler.

21. He chargeth the Replier thus to say: that the bodily death of Christ was not sufficient for man's salvation: yea, that his bodily sufferings made not properly to our redemption: and because his forgery should not appear, he confusedly shuffleth diverse places together in the margen, quoted out of Synopsis: in the which, no such words can be found. The Replier saith:

12. Your self make three descents of Christ: to the cross, to hell, to the grave: and yet beside these, you make three more in another place: whereas the Repliers words are these, Bernard maketh the same degrees of Christ's descension, which we do, his descending to the flesh, to the cross, to the grave. He calleth them not three descents, but three degrees of his descension. Now may not his own words with better reason be returned upon his own head: If you know no difference between descension, and the degrees thereof, you are ill worthy of those school degrees, which you have taken. But concerning himself, howsoever he might go out master of Art in the crowd; for forgery, railing, untruths, falsifications, and such like, he may well be admitted to be a professor. Beside, the Replier speaketh not in that place of descending to hell, but to the cross. Neither in that other place quoted, doth the Replier make three more descents: his words are these, We also confess, that Christ by his death overcame hell, and shaked the powers thereof, that he humbled himself to the ignominious death of the cross, and descended from thence to the grave, and there continued in the state of the dead till the third day: and whatsoever else may be comprehended in the article of Christ's descension. Here are not many descents affirmed, but diverse senses and explications of one and the same descension delivered, all agreeable to the Scriptures.

23. You imagine that Christ's soul was deprived of his fathers presence, while it was in hell: but this is his own imagination: for the Repliers words are these; to say that Christ's soul did not enjoy his fathers presence in heaven, all the while it was absent from the body, is contrary to the Scripture: thou wilt show me the ways of life, &c. he speaketh not of the depriving of his fathers presence in 〈◊〉 but of the enjoying thereof in heaven.

24. You hold he descended into hell, yea into all the torments, that hell could yield: whereas the Replier affirmeth the contrary in that place: the whole punishment, is the whole kind of punishment, that is in body and soul, which Christ ought to have suffered, though not in the same manner, and circumstance, neither for the place of hell locally, nor for the time, eternally, nor for the manner, sinnefully.

May not now this (Momus) justly beshrew his vnblushing cheeks, and bold face, in accusing the Replier, of falsifying and corrupting his words: seeing it is so ordinary a thing with himself, to falsify, pervert, and corrupt the Repliers both sense, and sentences. He little remembered in this lewd course, the saying of our Savior: whatsoever you would that men should do unto you, even so do you to them. He would be loath himself to have his words thus clipped, and curtalled, chopped, and changed, which measure he hath meated with to the Replier: who if he had somewhere failed in his sayings, the Confuter might well have spared him, being so unconscionable himself in his doings: and he might have used toward him, that saying of the Greek Poet: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : as you dare not praise my sayings, so neither can I commend your doings. If herein he would have been without blame, he should in repeating of the Repliers words have observed the same rule, which Seneca prescribeth in citing of authors: tota inspicienda, tota tractanda sunt, per lineamenta sua i • genij opus nectitur, ex quo nihil subduci sine ruina potest: the whole must be looked into, the whole must be handled, the work of wit is tied together by lineaments, from the which nothing can be withdrawn, without the ruin of the whole. It was therefore an easy matter for this vnderminer, to ruinate the Repliers whole building, in supplanting of it by parcels, and racking and dismembering one piece from an other. Wherein he may complain that he hath been dealt with, as Origen sometime was, who saith, Alij tractatus nostros calumniantes easentire nos criminantur, quae nunquam sensisse nos novimus: some do cavil with our treatises, and do blame us to think those things, which we know we never thought. And so playeth this (Catchpole) ascribing unto the Replier such things as he holdeth not: and showeth himself to be of that number, whom Jerome complaineth of: non meritum stili, sed suum stomachum sequentes, not following the merit (and manner of the Repliers) style, but his own (humor) and stomach.

The Accusation. 1. Origen pretended to be falsified.

1. Whereas the Replier saith, that one bond of faith in the diversity of some private opinions, may contain and keep us in peace: that same, vnum fidei linteum, quod vidit Petrus quatuor Euangelijs alligatum: that sheet of faith, which Peter saw tied with the four Gospels in the corners: The Confuter crieth out: he applieth it not, (as you untruly report him) unto the diversity of opinions in matters of faith, &c.

2. Who would translate, cum ligno crucis, in the tree of the cross.

3. He saith, he clippeth Origen's words, because the Replier leaveth out ( fere. )

4. So in another testimony cited out of Origen, he saith, that Origen's words are clipped.

5. The Reader may see, what little care you have of credit or conscience, thus to abuse so ancient, and learned a father.

6. So another place of Origen ( he saith ) is abused in like manner. p. 188.

2. Other Greek Fathers pretended to be falsisied, Athanasius, Cyrillus, Chrysostom.

The accusation.

1. That Athanasius words are not truly alleged, & that the Replier goeth about to make him contrary to himself.

2. For S. Cyril ( saith the Confuter ) I find no such thing in the place quoted by you, but those words in the 49. chap. v. 9. after, being in effect the same with the other, he most plainly expoundeth of Christ's local descension to hell.

3. Chrysostom in the same place saith plainly, that both Dives and Lazarus were apud inferos, in hell.

3. Ambrose pretended to be falsified.

The accusation.

1. Saint Ambrose is no less injuriously handled by you.

2. The other place you corrupt shamefully, &c. S. Ambrose speaketh of no such matter, as you would make your Reader believe.

3. Another place maketh as clearly against you, as nothing more.

4. Jerome pretended to be falsified.

The Accusation.

1. The like dealing you use with S. Jerome misqueting the place, and misapplying the words: for it is not in his Epistle to Fabiola, the argument whereof is de vest sacerdotali, as you note being the 128. but in his epistle unto Marcella being the 130.

2. Whereas the Replier allegeth Jerome, who understandeth by prison spoken of in Isaiah, 42. 7. the bands of sins and errors: the Confuter, to make the Reader believe, that there is no such thing in Jerome, supposeth another place out of him, where he should say, that Christ descended to hell, where the rich man was.

3. Valerius also being cited, whose epistle to Ruffinus is found among the works of Jerome: he saith, the author, whence he had them, (for I cannot find it) hath not the words, as he reported them: but thus, reprobata est fatu • vex tanquam anseris inter olores.

5. Augustine pretended to to be falsified.

The accusation.

1. Augustine much misvsed & corrupted: for he saith, si quid aliter sapio, &c. Limbom. readeth si quid erraueris.

2. The place of Augustine mis-quoted, the third book for the second: some of his words are cut off, some mistranslated.

3. To translate (trophaeum) a devise or policy, is but your own politic deuiseithe cross of Christ is rather called trophaeum, because it was the ensign and monument of his victory.

4. S. Augustine's words falsely translated, and corrupted, for triduo illo corporeae mortis, is not three days by his bodily death: but the three days of his bodily death.

5. You corrupt Augustine's words, turning blasphemy, into error.

6. These words of Augustine, which are the two ways, whereby the soul can be said to die; you cut off.

7. S. Augustine's words you allege corruptly, by leaving out half of the sentence.

8. His other words to the same purpose, whereof, as your manner is, you take but a piece, are these, &c.

9. S. Augustine's words untruly alleged, for you leave out the word (forte.)

10. S. Augustine clearly against ( Limbom. ) in the place alleged by him.

11. And because the Replier saith, Why may we not as well expound Christ's descending into hell with Ambrose, of the presence of his divine power, as with Augustine his ascending up to heaven? The disgraceful Confuter thus insulteth; Where doth Augustine expound Christ's ascending up to heaven, of his divine power? dare you upon your own bare word, without any proof or show of reason, so contumeliously traduce so holy a man, as an ouerthrower of an article of our Creed? for you quote no place, neither will any Christian man believe, that ever he dreamed of any such exposition.

6. Other Authors pretended to be falsified.

The accusation.

1. These nine words (of Bernard's sentence) are left out by you; and so we shall always be with the Lord.

2. Bellarmine ( he unmannerly saith ) you have belied now the second time; for leaving out this clause, for the enlightening of the Fathers with the vision of God.

The recrimination.

The accusation.

1. Because Ecclesiastic. 19. 10. the Replier leaveth out these words, & confidens esto, and be sure.

2. In the place, Gen. 37. 31. these words are omitted: Reuben moreover said unto them.

3. In that place, Act. 2. v. 31. you falsify the Syrian Translators words in mistranslating them: the Latin Translator you abuse in like manner.

4. These words, (which had ceased upon him) are not in that place, Act. 2. 24. as you pretend them.

5. You falsify the word of God it self: for in that place of Exodus c. 22. 23. the word (nephesh) is and ought to be translated (life,) not (soul.)

6. For, the souls that went down with Jacob into Egypt; you make the Scripture to say, their souls went down into Egypt.

7. The place to the Coloss. 2. 15. (triumphing over them in the same) is falsely translated: our authorised translator readeth (in himself.)

8. So, Psal. 88. 10, 11. is mangled, and corrupted: patching two distinct verses in one: see afterward, recriminat. 6.

9. You falsify the Scripture it self, in translating 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , to hold fast, Mark. 7. 8. whereas our Church Bibles read, (ye observe the traditions.) 3. b. p. 31.

10. Limbom. inverteth the text, Act. 2. 31. to serve his turn. 3. b. p. 37.

11. You commit a double fault in your translation of S. Peters words: the one in confounding hell with the grave, which is heathenish; the other in burying the soul of Christ in it, which is impious.

12. You falsify the prophesy, in leaving out the words (in hell,) wherein the main of the controversy consisteth. Act. 2. 31.

13. This is your dalying with the word of God in this place: where having translated it, (thou wilt not leave my soul in hell) you interpret it clean contrary, (thou wilt not leave my life in grave.) 3. b. p. 44.

14. You cut off the words (of sanctification) which are annexed to the word spirit, &c.

15. The word (by) is violently intruded by you, 1. Pet. 3. 19. (by which spirit.)

16. The words are not, as you cite them, 1. Pet. 2. 18. he hath suffered for our sins: but (Christ hath also suffered for us.)

17. Where Peter saith it was Christ that preached, you say it was Noah, and so make him a liar.

18. When you say, you know no ende of Christ's preaching to the disobedient in hell, but for their comfort and deliverance, you contradict the Scriptures, which teach, that the ministry of the word consisteth as well in denouncing retention in sin to the obstinate, as in pronouncing remission of sins to the penitent.

19. Those words (that speaketh in you) though they be added in S. Matthew, are not here expressed by S. Mark. 3. b. p. 104.

20. The words of the Evangelist are not as you report them, (when the doors shut up,) but when the doors were shut.

21. Neither is the text, (no man ascendeth,) but (no man hath ascended.)

22. Psal. 139. 13. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , is ignorantly left out by you.

23. Because the Replier allegeth those words of S. Paul, 1. Cor. 15. 31. I die daily, understanding them, of inward afflictions: the Confuter taketh a double exception, both, that some of the words are omitted: As by our rejoicing, which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord: and that the Scripture is misinterpreted: which Chrysostom expoundeth of the readiness and promp •• of mind, that he was every day more and more ready to suffer death, &c. 3. b. p. 64. And therefore he crieth out, that dishonor is offered to the Apostle, and contumely to the spirit of God, to say, that Paul died the death of the soul: whereas contrariwise, that which you call (inward afflictions ) was thorough inward joy, and consolation in the holy Ghost, &c. p. 65.

The justification.

1. THe whole sentence is this: if thou hast heard a word, let it die with thee, and (be sure) it will not burst thee: the Replier abridging this sentence, keeping the sense, did not take himself tied to repeat every word, seeing he bringeth it not in as a testimony, specially out of Scripture, but hath reference unto it by way of allusion, quoting no place. But it is a greater fault in him, to add unto the text: if thou hast a word (against thy neighbor, ) which words enclosed, though retained in the English translation, yet are not in the original. Beside, he himself clippeth off many words: citing the beginning only of the 13. and 17. v. reprove thy friend, reprove thy neighbor, leaving out all the rest. 2. b. p. 71. in marg.

2. Those words, moreover Reuben said, were not material, or pertinent to the Repliers purpose, and therefore he omitted them.

3. The Syrian Translator: I mean he which translated the Syrian text, readeth thus; quod non sit derelictus in sepulchro, that he was not left in grave: is here any mistranslation? And the Latin translator is not alleged for the word infernus, but because instead of his soul, as it is in the original, he readeth, neque derelictus est, he was not left: the Replier then is here no Corrupter, but the Confuter is a Trifler.

4. These words, which had seized of him, the Replier allegeth not as the words of the text: but only these, he loosed the sorrows, Act. 2. 24. Here then he is charged with a plain untruth.

5. Then the Latin interpreter, Montanus, Pagnine, Vatablus: all these falsify the word of God, which translate there, not vitam, life, but animam, soul: and the Septuag. also, which read, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , shall give soul for soul.

6. The Repliers words are these: as in like sense it is said, Gen. 46. 26. the souls that went with Jacob into Egypt: is he not ashamed therefore so notoriously to charge him with an untruth. But he himself corrupteth the text in that place, reading the souls, that went down, &c. whereas the word is, habiah, which signifieth only coming or going.

7. Beza so readeth, following Origen's reading, hom. 4. in Exod. hom. 17. in Numer. and hom. 9. in Joshua.

8. Call you this patching, to put two verses of Scripture together? what think you of S. Paul, which doth the same, Rom. 3. 10, 11. joining together, a part of the 1. and a part of the 2. v. Psal. 14. as the Reader may see by comparing the places together: you had best count him a patcher of Scripture.

9. Say also that the Latin translator, and Beza, which in that place readeth, tenetis, you hold: and the Syrian interpreter, retinetis, you hold fast: Montanus, that readeth, prehenditis, you lay hold, &c. that all these do falsify Scripture: and is he indeed so ignorant, as he maketh himself, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 doth not signify to hold fast: how else will he interpret that place, Heb. 4. 14. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , let us hold fast the profession: as both our English translations read.

10. The Replier inuerteth not the text, but the Confuter perverteth his words: for he allegeth the text right, Act. 2. 31. He spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul should not be left (in hell) or the grave: whereupon the Replier reasoneth thus; the Prophet speaketh here of Christ's resurrection, but the descending of Christ's soul to hell, belongeth not to his resurrection, but the not leaving of his soul in grave implieth the resurrection: Ergo: unto this, the pitiful Confuter maketh this answer: your reason should have been this; David spake of the resurrection of Christ, &c. but not leaving of Christ's soul in hell, doth no way belong to his resurrection, &c. therefore, &c. here the minor is apparently false, &c. Contra. This poor Logician is much to be pitied: 1. doth he not see, that the conclusion of his argument must be this: therefore David speaketh not of the not leaving, &c. which is clean contrary to the text. 2. If he in deed might make the Repliers argument for him, he would make him as senseless and absurd as himself. 3. He grossly mistaketh the Repliers argument: which was this, the descending of Christ's soul to hell belongeth not to his resurrection, but the not leaving of his soul belongeth: ergo the not leaving, &c. proveth not the descension. This argument though he invert and pervert at his pleasure, he is not able to euert with all the skill he hath.

11. The Replier confoundeth not hell and the grave, (which is more heathenish in him so to imagine, then in the other so to write) but joineth together two usual acceptions of the word sheol, neither doth he bury his soul, but his life thereby signified in the grave. And yet to take infernum for the temporal death, and grave, is neither heathenish nor absurd: unless you will count Augustine heathenish, who expoundeth that place, Psalm. 88. 3. My life draweth near to hell, by those words of our Savior, My soul is heavy unto death: Quod enim aijt, tristis est anima, &c. For that he saith my soul is heavy unto death, this is the same that is said, my soul is filled with evil: and that which followeth, unto death, the same is said, my life draweth near to hell, &c.

12. These words ( in hell ) are not expressed, because the Replier groundeth no argument upon them: but only by setting down the first words, hath reference to the whole prophesy there contained: for in other places, where there was cause, he omitteth them not, as Limbom. p. 74.

13. Though the Hebrew word sheol, is indifferently taken sometime for hell, sometime for the grave: yet in this place, Act. 2. 27. the Replier contendeth throughout that whole discourse, that it signifieth the grave: and therefore to say, he translateth it hell, is according to his usual manner, to fitten and forge of him.

14. The Replier citeth not the words of the text, Rom. 1. 3. but only showeth, that there is an opposition between the flesh and the spirit: and therefore there was no cause to add those words ( of sanctification ) no more then other words of the text.

15. As though it be not an usual phrase in Scripture, to say, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , in spiritu; when it must be understood, by or through the spirit: as Eph. 2. 22. In whom ye also are built together, to be the habitation of God (by the spirit: ) so road, not Beza only, but Vatablus, the Syrian interpreter, the Geneva, and the authorized English translation: let him accuse these also of violent intrusion.

16. But the Apostle also saith in another place, that Christ once suffered for sins, 1. Pet. 3. 18. the figure 2. might easily be mistaken for 3.

17. Christ by Noah preached: the one as the author, the other as the Minister: so both may well stand together, S. Peters text that speaketh of Christ, and the interpretation, that applieth it to Noah. If any make the Apostle a liar, it is himself that corrupteth his sense by a false interpretation: and maketh him to speak that, which he never intended.

18. Though the preaching of the word unto unbelievers is thorough the hardness of their heart, the savor of death unto death: yet the principal and only ende in respect of God, is the comfort and conversion of men: the hardening of the heart is effected accidentally by the word, and is not the proper ende thereof. This is evident by that prophesy of Isai of Christ; The spirit of God is upon me, &c. he hath sent me to preach good tidings to the poor. And this is Augustine's reason, that if there be preaching in hell, some may be converted and believe in hell: to say therefore, to what purpose should Christ be thought to preach to the spirits in hell, &c. then for their comfort and deliverance, is no contradicting of the Scriptures, but a manifesting of his ignorance, that knoweth it not.

19. And is it not sufficient if one Evangelist have those words? and is it not lawful, what is wanting in one, to supply out of another? But it can have no excuse, to clippe the Evangelists words as he doth: whatsoever is given unto you at the same time, that speak, saith Saint Mark: but he citeth the place thus: that which shall be given you, that speak.

20. And is he so captious, that he could not, or would not see, that the omission of this word ( were, ) was a mere oversight in the setter, and therefore the Replier hath amended it among the Errata before Limbomastix. And this (poor-blind pryer) might have observed the like scape in his own blotted lines: where he thus writeth; where the souls of sinners wont to be tortured, for, were wont, &c.

21. This is a small exception to the Geneva translation, to take the present tense for the preterperfect: especially, seeing the Apostle so readeth, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , ascending, Eph. 4. 8. and the same tense with the Hebrews, serveth both for the present, and time past: as Psal. 68. 19. from whence S. Paul borroweth that testimony.

22. These words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , are englished in the translation: but the words in Greek it was not pertinent to repeat; because all the force lieth in the other words, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .

23. 1. The Replier citing those words of the Apostle, to prove the inward afflictions, had no cause to repeat the rest, which speak of his glorying and rejoicing in Christ: but only so much, as was to the purpose. 2. He refuseth not Chrysostom's exposition, though by him much mis-alleged; neither doth it make against him: for that inward resolution and preparation of the mind, daily being in expectation of death, was it not an inward affliction and temptation? to suffer death, I hope he will not deny to be an affliction: then the daily expectation of death, being inward, must be an inward affliction. 3. Neither are those words cited, to prove that Saint Paul died the death of the soul, but for the similitude of the phrase. He might else-where have further seen the Repliers meaning, expressed in this manner: As the body is not said only to die, when the soul departeth from it, but when it is pressed with deep and dangerous afflictions, which threaten death: as Paul saith, I die daily: so the soul may be said after a sort to die, not only when it is finally separated frō God, but perplexed with the horror and feeling of God's, wrath. 4. It followeth not, because Paul had inward joy and consolation, therefore he had not inward afflictions: for speaking of terrors within, he addeth, God which comforted the abject, comforted us, &c. His inward afflictions, and terrors, were tempered with inward joy and comfort also: here is neither dishonor done to Paul, nor contumely to the spirit, unless it be by his contumelious and slanderous mouth.

Such are this Cauillers exceptions, to the Repliers allegations of Scripture, as we have seen; wherein I doubt not, but that he hath rather shown himself a wrangler, then the other a corrupter: for although in the citing of other foreign testimonies, greater liberty may be used; as Jerome saith he did in interpreting of Greek Authors, Non verbū de verbo, sed sensum exprimere de sensu: not to express every word, but the sense by the sense: yet in alleging Scripture, we must hold us to the very words: where, as he again saith, Verberum or do & mysterium est: there both order and mystery is in the words. But had he been sincere himself in alleging of Scripture, he would not have been so suspicious of another; according to that saying, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : A wit free from evil, is slowest to suspect evil. Now then it followeth to show, what a pregnant wit, and ready facility he himself hath in corrupting of Scripture.

The Recrimination.

1. That place, 2. Timoth. 2. 5. he citeth thus: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : no man is crowned, unless he strive lawfully: whereas these are the Apostles words; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. If any man strive, he is not crowned, except he strive lawfully: where for any man, he putteth no man.

2. For 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : perrils among false brethren: he readeth, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , false brotherhood: beside, he quoteth 2. Cor. 12. 26. for 11. 26.

3. He thus unreverantly speaketh of the Scripture: which shows your state wholly dependeth upon shifting; first from the new Testament to the old, from the old to the new, and from the new to the old again: thus he profanely calleth the comparing of the new Testament with the old, shifting.

4. He corrupteth the sense of the Apostle, understanding his words, of being partakers of the divine nature, of participating with his godhead: which is only meant of a similitude and likeness unto God, not in substance, but in quality, in flying the corruption of the world, as the words following show: which thing was well expressed by Justinus Philosophus, that the end which a Philosopher propoundeth to himself, is to be like unto God, as near as may be.

5. Christ saith, Where I am, there shall also my servant be, John. 12. 26. he thus addeth unto it; where I am (now) there shall my servant be (hereafter.)

6. I go to prepare a place for you, (and though I go to prepare a place for you) I will come again, John 14. 2. 3. all this enclosed he leaveth out; and here he joineth himself two verses together, which he before called patching: Accusat. 8.

7. Ye shall lie down in sorrow, Isaiah, 50. 11. he readeth, ye shall sleep in affliction and sorrow.

8. Saint Peter saith thus, searching, when, or what time the spirit, which testified before of Christ, which was in them, should declare the sufferings (which should come) unto Christ, &c. 1. Pet. 1. 11. he clippeth the text, saying, the spirit prophesied before of the afflictions of Christ.

9. For, wisdom calleth or preacheth in the high ways, Prov. 1. 21. he readeth, wisdom is preached, &c. see before Imput. 5. Ac. 3.

10. This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we are all witnesses, Act. 2. 32. he corruptly addeth to the text, this is that Jesus, whom God hath raised up (from death, and hell) whereof we are all witnesses.

11. He quoteth for that place before recited, Act. 1. 9. where there is no such thing.

12. Lest I sleep in death, Psal. 13. 4. lest at (any time) I sleep in death, saith he: where he addeth, at any time.

13. Thou art Lord alone, thou hast made heaven, and the heaven of heavens, Nehem. 9. 6. but he readeth, Thou Lord, hast made heaven, and the heaven of heavens.

14. Again, in the same place, thou preseruest them all, and the host of heaven worshippeth thee: but he addeth, thou preseruest them all (in their being,) and he leaveth out that which followeth.

15. He profanely scoffeth at Scripture; whereas that place of Peter is alleged, Noah the preacher of justice: he scoffingly inferreth, Noah is no sooner formed a Carpenter, but he is presently a reformed preacher.

16. Whereas Saint Peter saith, Noah the eight, a preacher of righteousness, 2. Pet. 2. 5. he clippeth the words, Noah the preacher of justice. ibid.

17. He shall not preserve the ungodly, Job. 36. 5. but he readeth thus, thou wilt not preserve: changing the tense. 3. b. p. 86.

18. Saint James thus writeth, to receive with meekness, the word, that is graffed in you, which is able to save your souls: I am. 1. 21. he audaciously changeth the person, reading thus; to receive with meekness, the word engraffed in them, which is able to save their souls.

19. Again the same Apostle: Let him know, that he which hath converted a sinner, from the error of his way, shall save a soul, &c. I am. 5. 20. but he thus mangleth this place, He that converteth a sinner, from the way wherein he erreth, shall save his soul, &c. In this one place, he clippeth off the first clause, Let him know: he changeth the tense, converteth, for hath converted: and addeth these words, ( wherein ) and ( his. )

20. Our Saviors words are, when they lead you, and deliver you up, take ye no thought afore, neither premeditate what ye shall say, but whatsoever shall be given unto you, &c. Mark. 13. 11. he thus boldly corrupteth the text, when ye shall be lead, & delivered up into their hands, take no thought what to speak, but that which shall be given, &c. 3. b. p. 104. where he both changeth the active for the passive: for they shall lead, and deliver: he readeth, shall be lead and delivered: he addeth (into their hands) and clippeth away (neither premeditate.)

21. Reproouing the Obiecter, for leaving out the word mourning, in citing that place, Gen. 35. 37. he himself committeth the very same fault: the text truly alleged (saith he) is this, I will go down, &c. to my son mourning: where he leaveth out, into the grave.

22. Exod. 1. 22. the text is, Pharaoh charged all his people: he readeth, all the people: leaving out ( his. ) 1. b. p. 30.

23. Esech. 13. 19. the text is, will ye pellute me among my people (for handfuls of barlie, and pe • ces of bread?) &c. where he leaveth out all the last enclosed clause.

24. Esech. 18. 27. the text is, when the wicked turneth away from his wickedness ( which he hath 〈◊〉 ) and doth that which is lawful and right: he in alleging this Scripture, leaveth out (which he hath committed.) ibid.

25. Numb. 22. 33. the Angel saith thus, And the Ass saw me, and turned from me now three times or else if she had not (turned from me) surely I had 〈…〉 , &c. he clippeth the text thus; There 〈…〉 turned from me now the third time, and if she had not, I had surely slain thee, &c. where these words enclosed (turned from me) in the second place, are omitted: and he putteth the (third time) for (three times.) ibid.

26. Beside, all these places are falsely quoted: as Esech. 13. 18. for 19. Esech. 18. 72. for 27. Psal 41. 12. for 41. 2. Numb. 22. 32. for 33.

Now concerning this unfaithful and fraudulent handling of Scripture, I will not give such an harsh sentence, as Ambrose doth upon some: Qui Scripture 〈◊〉 fidem destr •• t, destruitur ipse: he that destroyeth the faith of Scripture shall be destroyed himself: as it is said, he that rem •• ueth an hedge, a serpent shall 〈◊〉 him. or as he •••• ureth them that had rased out certain words of Scripture: Illa litura de libro vitae nomina vestra delet: that blot doth blot your names out of the book of life. But yet that saying of Epiphanius may be applied unto him non it a interpretantur vt scripta sunt, sed id volunt significare, quod ipsi sentiunt: they do not so interpret (Scripture) as it is written, but they will have it to signify, as they imagine: Of this number is the Confuter, who by this time may perceive his own fault, which he hath not healed, by supposing another to be like faulty with himself: for it is a good saying, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : that no man healeth one evil by another: neither is one man's fault redressed by another's.

But it is now high time to leave weeding another's ground; time is better spent in setting of good plants, then in weeding of thistles: I passed (saith the wise man) by the field of the slothful, and by the vineyard of the man destitute of understanding, and l • e, it was all grown over with thorns, &c. I looked upon it, and received instruction. And this instruction may we receive, by viewing this thorny field, wherein this simple workman hath solaced himself, that such bad tillage showeth the husbandman not to be very good: It is odious and a thankless office, still to be scoring out men's faults; therefore I say with Tully, against Sallust. finem dicendi faciā, saepius enim vidi grauius eos offender animos aeuditorum, qui aliena vitia aperte dixerunt, quā eos, qui crimen cōmiserunt: mihi ratio habēda est, non quid (Sallustius) merito debeat audire, sed vt ea dicam, si qua ego honest effari possum: I will make an ende of speaking, for I have often seen, those more grievously to offend the hearers minds, which openly told of others faults, then they which committed them: therefore I must have regard, not what he is worthy to hear, but what I may with credit speak. Diogenes being reproved for going into an unclean place, made answer, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : that the sun doth enter likewise into such, but is not defiled. But I dare not say so: I fear rather, lest by raking long in a stinking puddle, some evil savor should remain. Hitherto I thought it needful to shape a wrangler an answer, that he might know himself, and reform his error; not to that ende, as Sallust said to Tully, Si quam volupatem maledie endo caepisti, eam male audiendo amittas: that if you have taken any delight in speaking evil, you may loose it again in hearing evil: for my care hath been, not, in reproving him, to commit that my self, which I note in him worthy of reproof, his own terms I might return, and quick and tart speech differeth from railing: but I wish unto him the like sober mind that Gennadius noteth to have been in one Seuerus, who being seduced by the Pelagians, Agnoscens loquacitatis culpam, silentium us{que} ad mortem tenuit, vt quod loquendo contraxerat, tacendo penitus emendaret: did acknowledge his talkative fault, and held his peace till he died; that what he had committed in speaking, he might amend in keeping silence. But if he finding himself nettled shall begin to stir, and being rubbed on the galled back, fling out his heels again, I will rather choose, by silence to set him up as a tired hackney, in his own durtie stable; then to play the iade, in kicking at him▪ I have lost too much time already, from other more profitable studies, though I spend no more so: yet if he mind still to brabble, and contend about words; I say with the Apostle, If any man list to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor the Churches of God. He shall play his prizes alone for me, and move laughter upon his stage of vanity; for if the Replier should set his foot to his, and take up the gauntles upon every raw fencers challenge; it might be said of them both, as Demonactes Cynicus of two wrangling disputers: Alter • ulget hircum, alter supponit cribrum: the one milkes an he goat, the other putteth under a sieve. The truth needeth no defense, and as our blessed Savior best answered Pilate with silence, so he knoweth how to grace the truth in his members, that love the truth, even when they hold their peace: and so I say with Ambr. Ambiat defendi, qui metuit super ar • : let him seek defense, which is afraid to be overcome: Melior est causa, quae non defenditur, & probatur: the cause is so much the better, which is not defended, and yet approved. And so to conclude, if he be disposed yet to busy himself further, I send him that sentence of Epiphanius for a posy, This is naturally graft in such as are given to error, vt contra eos pugnent, qui ipsos redarguunt: to fight against those which do reprove them.