A03833.xml

<TEI xmlns="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0">
   <teiHeader>
      <fileDesc>
         <titleStmt>
            <title>A reioynder to Doctor Hil concerning the descense of Christ into Hell Wherein the answere to his sermon is iustlie defended, and the roust of his reply scraped from those arguments as cleanlie, as if they had neuer bene touched with that canker. By Alexander Hume, Maister of Artes. Heere, besides the reioynder, thou hast his paralogismes: that is, his fallacies and deceits in reason pointed out, and numbered in the margin: amounting to the nomber of 600. and aboue: and yet not half reckoned.</title>
            <author>Hume, Alexander, schoolmaster.</author>
         </titleStmt>
         <editionStmt>
            <edition>
               <date>1594</date>
            </edition>
         </editionStmt>
         <extent>Approx. 440 KB of XML-encoded text transcribed from 97 1-bit group-IV TIFF page images.</extent>
         <publicationStmt>
            <publisher>Text Creation Partnership,</publisher>
            <pubPlace>Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) :</pubPlace>
            <date when="2008-09">2008-09 (EEBO-TCP Phase 1).</date>
            <idno type="DLPS">A03833</idno>
            <idno type="STC">STC 13948</idno>
            <idno type="STC">ESTC S121138</idno>
            <idno type="EEBO-CITATION">99856325</idno>
            <idno type="PROQUEST">99856325</idno>
            <idno type="VID">178019</idno>
            <availability>
               <p>This keyboarded and encoded edition of the
	       work described above is co-owned by the institutions
	       providing financial support to the Early English Books
	       Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is
	       available for reuse, according to the terms of <ref target="https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/">Creative
	       Commons 0 1.0 Universal</ref>. The text can be copied,
	       modified, distributed and performed, even for
	       commercial purposes, all without asking permission.</p>
            </availability>
         </publicationStmt>
         <seriesStmt>
            <title>Early English books online.</title>
         </seriesStmt>
         <notesStmt>
            <note>(EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A03833)</note>
            <note>Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 178019)</note>
            <note>Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1475-1640 ; 1353:04)</note>
         </notesStmt>
         <sourceDesc>
            <biblFull>
               <titleStmt>
                  <title>A reioynder to Doctor Hil concerning the descense of Christ into Hell Wherein the answere to his sermon is iustlie defended, and the roust of his reply scraped from those arguments as cleanlie, as if they had neuer bene touched with that canker. By Alexander Hume, Maister of Artes. Heere, besides the reioynder, thou hast his paralogismes: that is, his fallacies and deceits in reason pointed out, and numbered in the margin: amounting to the nomber of 600. and aboue: and yet not half reckoned.</title>
                  <author>Hume, Alexander, schoolmaster.</author>
               </titleStmt>
               <extent>[22], 157, [1] p.   </extent>
               <publicationStmt>
                  <publisher>Robert Waldegrave,</publisher>
                  <pubPlace>[Edinburgh :</pubPlace>
                  <date>1594]</date>
               </publicationStmt>
               <notesStmt>
                  <note>A reply to Adam Hill's "The defence of the article: Christ descended into Hell". Includes Hume's version of his own letter and Hill's reply as well as Hume's rejoinder. One barrel and 2 firkins of copies were seized from a Scottish ship by warrant of the Archbishop of Canterbury dated 2 December 1594--Cf. STC.</note>
                  <note>Imprint from STC.</note>
                  <note>Imperfect; some lines marked through in ink.</note>
                  <note>Reproduction of the original in the Bodleian Library (pages 100-33 from Trinty College (University of Cambridge) copy spliced at end).</note>
               </notesStmt>
            </biblFull>
         </sourceDesc>
      </fileDesc>
      <encodingDesc>
         <projectDesc>
            <p>Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl,
      TEI @ Oxford.
      </p>
         </projectDesc>
         <editorialDecl>
            <p>EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO.</p>
            <p>EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org).</p>
            <p>The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source.</p>
            <p>Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data.</p>
            <p>Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so.</p>
            <p>Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as &lt;gap&gt;s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor.</p>
            <p>The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines.</p>
            <p>Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements).</p>
            <p>Keying and markup guidelines are available at the <ref target="http://www.textcreationpartnership.org/docs/.">Text Creation Partnership web site</ref>.</p>
         </editorialDecl>
         <listPrefixDef>
            <prefixDef ident="tcp"
                       matchPattern="([0-9\-]+):([0-9IVX]+)"
                       replacementPattern="http://eebo.chadwyck.com/downloadtiff?vid=$1&amp;page=$2"/>
            <prefixDef ident="char"
                       matchPattern="(.+)"
                       replacementPattern="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/textcreationpartnership/Texts/master/tcpchars.xml#$1"/>
         </listPrefixDef>
      </encodingDesc>
      <profileDesc>
         <langUsage>
            <language ident="eng">eng</language>
         </langUsage>
         <textClass>
            <keywords scheme="http://authorities.loc.gov/">
               <term>Jesus Christ --  Descent into hell --  Early works to 1800.</term>
               <term>Hill, Adam, d. 1595. --  Defence of the article: Christ descended into Hell.</term>
            </keywords>
         </textClass>
      </profileDesc>
      <revisionDesc>
         <change>
            <date>2007-03</date>
            <label>TCP</label>Assigned for keying and markup</change>
         <change>
            <date>2007-03</date>
            <label>Aptara</label>Keyed and coded from ProQuest page images</change>
         <change>
            <date>2007-04</date>
            <label>Emma (Leeson) Huber</label>Sampled and proofread</change>
         <change>
            <date>2007-04</date>
            <label>Emma (Leeson) Huber</label>Text and markup reviewed and edited</change>
         <change>
            <date>2008-02</date>
            <label>pfs</label>Batch review (QC) and XML conversion</change>
      </revisionDesc>
   </teiHeader>
   <text xml:lang="eng">
      <front>
         <div type="title_page">
            <pb facs="tcp:178019:1"/>
            <pb facs="tcp:178019:1" rendition="simple:additions"/>
            <pb facs="tcp:178019:2"/>
            <pb facs="tcp:178019:2" rendition="simple:additions"/>
            <p>A REIOYNDER TO
DOCTOR HIL CONCERNING
THE DESCENSE OF CHRIST
INTO HELL. WHEREIN THE ANSWERE TO HIS SER<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>mon
is juſtlie defended, and the rouſt of his reply
ſcraped from thoſe arguments as cleanlie, as if they
had neuer bene touched with that canker. By <hi>Alexander Hume,</hi> Maiſter of Artes.</p>
            <p>¶HEERE, BESIDES THE REIOYNDER,
thou haſt his Paralogiſmes: that is, his fallacies and
deceits in reaſon pointed out, and numbered in the
margin: amounting to the nomber of 600. and a<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>boue;
and yet not half reckoned.</p>
         </div>
         <div type="dedication">
            <pb facs="tcp:178019:3" rendition="simple:additions"/>
            <pb facs="tcp:178019:3"/>
            <head>TO THE RIGHT
HONORABLE, ROBERT ERLE
OF ESSEX AND EWE, VICOVNT
Hereford and Bourchier, Lord Ferreis
of Chartlie, Lord Bourchier and Lo<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>vane,
Maiſter of her Majeſties
horſes, and Knight of the moſt
noble order of the Garter:
LONG LIFE WITH INCREASE OF
Honour, and after this lyfe
lyfe euerlaſting.</head>
            <p>
               <seg rend="decorInit">B</seg>Eing drawne (Right honorable) into
this controverſie by the accidents ex<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>preſſed
in the Epiſtle to the Reader: I
levelled all my labours, to rake vp the
coales, and ſtiflle the flames of con<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tention.
Being priuate, I endevoured
to keepe my ſelfe within the boundes of my condition. I
wrote in ſecrete, acquainting fewe with my counſell. I
tempered my ſtile with the modeſteſt words that I could
deviſe I ſubmitted my ſelf to be led by better reaſons. I
abſtained from offences, &amp; occaſions of choller. I wrote
in latine, that it might not come into the handes of the
<pb facs="tcp:178019:4"/>
multitude: hoping that if anie blowes fell harder, then
I meant them, they might be the better taken, the fewer
ſaw them. But all this ſeed bred no corne: for M. Doct.
hunting after praeferment (if I miſtake not his plot) and
ſetting the foundation of his praiſe on this conqueſt,
hath now publiſhed in print, that I wrote in a corner, &amp;
cried at the croſſe, that I ſent vnder ſeale. If the worſte
were my diſgrace, it might be borne with: or if all rea<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ders
had learning, this reply might be contemned. But
ſeeing this cauſe is Chriſts, and ſlips amongeſt the ſimple
may goe for ſix pence: I will not betray him, that hath
done ſo much for mee, nor ſee them deceaued, whome he
hath bought ſo dearlie. The queſtion is of an article of
our faith, and pertaineth to all, that care what they be<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>leeue.
The doubt is not, whether the article be true, but
in what ſenſe it is true. For, ſeing theſe articles are not
ſcripture, but grounded on the Scripture: the queſtion
is, in what ſenſe Chriſt is ſaid according to the Scrip<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tures,
to deſcend into Hell. And now ſeeing hee is no
more a Chriſtian, that is ignorant of his faith, then he
a Carpenter, that ca<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>not handle his axe: this muſt needs
be a queſtion as neceſſarie, as it is needfull for a Chriſti<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>an
to vnderſtand, what he beleeueth. For that, which
manie ſaie, it ſufficeth to knowe that Chriſt deſcended
into Hell, though they knowe not, in what ſort he was
there; is as if a farmer ſhoulde content himſelf, that hee
hath a leaſe of his fa<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                  <desc>•</desc>
               </gap>me, and neuer enquire how long it
laſteth, nor on what condition hee holdeth. By the
ſame reaſon, it is ſufficie<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>t to know that Chriſt was born,
and that he ſuffered: and needleſſe to ſeeke how he was
<pb facs="tcp:178019:4"/>
borne, and what hee ſuffered. Wherefore, I haue reſol<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ued
to ſtand at my defenſe, and to beare the brunt of
theſe blowes. For, my weapons are ſound Syllogiſmes,
my armour Scripture, and truth my ſhield. I doubt not
of the proofe, and feare not the muſcate. I was brief be<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>fore
as the mediocritie of a private letter requyred. My
breuitie bred obſcuritie, and gaue more probabilitie to
his inverſions<g ref="char:punc">▪</g> and euaſions: to his inſinuations and col<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>lections,
to his making and marring my argumentes in
wrong mouldes. But now I haue made them my ſelf, &amp;
ſhaped them on ſuch blockes, as will not (I hope) be eaſi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>lie
wrung out of faſhion. I haue turned his ordinance
ſome againſt himſelf, and all from vs, ſo farre, as I hope
he will diſpair himſelf, to hit this marke with that ſhot.
Yet becauſe manie mindes are ſwayed with affection of
the man, or with conceit of the matter: and my name
came neuer neere ſo manie eares, as this booke is like to
come in mouths: I haue reſolued to commend it to your
honor. Hoping, that if your name win minds to read<g ref="char:punc">▪</g> the
waight of my reaſons, ſhall turne the ſcales, and winne
heartes to beleeue. I haue manie reaſons of my choiſe.
Your Zeale of Gods houſe. Your loue of Gods glorie, Your
knowledge in Gods worde. And your aeſtimation, in
Gods Church, amongeſt ſuch, as loue his name ſincearly
and her Maieſtie (for his ſake) vnfainedlie. Adde,
that M. D. Reynoldes, (the load ſtarre of Oxenford)
whome your honour hath maintained there, to confute
the Fryar Bellarmine, hauing laid open all the plaites,
and ript the ſeames of this controuerſie: I preſume the
more to vſe your name in this cauſe, which hath beene
<pb facs="tcp:178019:5"/>
maintained vnder your countenance. If there were any
hope, that that worke would come out ſhortlie, I would
burie my papers in the duſte. But ſeeing that time is
like to be long<g ref="char:punc">▪</g> and manie in the meane time are decea<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ved
with theſe bold bragges. I haue thought expedient
(to amaze the adverſaries of this doctrine with the
light of that ſunne, when it ſhall pleaſe God to giue it to
his Church) to ſet out my little candle, wherein (I hope)
there is light inough, to diſperſe the miſtes, and pearce
the cloudes of theſe Sophiſmes. Thus, beſeeching God
(the authour of all honour) to augment your honour, to
your comfort, &amp; his glorie, I commit you to him, whoſe
cauſe I commend to you.</p>
            <closer>
               <signed>Your Honours humble Oratour,
ALEXANDER HVME.</signed>
            </closer>
         </div>
         <div type="to_the_reader">
            <pb facs="tcp:178019:5"/>
            <head>TO THE READER.</head>
            <p>
               <seg rend="decorInit">I</seg> Am forced (gentle Reader) though
I hate contention, to contend with
a contentious man: or elſe, having
the better end of the ſtaffe, to for<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ſake
a good cauſe. It is not poſsible
that the Lordes fielde ſhould want
tares, his net bad fiſhe, or his Church offences: but
wo to them, by whome they riſe. This wo in contro<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>verſies
pertaines to the one ſide. It is hard, (and al<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>moſt
impoſsible, that both bee guiltie. Wherefore,
as I am cleare before the Lord, ſo, to purge my ſelfe
before thee, I will ſet down how this diſſenſion firſt
beganne. The Biſhop of Salisburie that laſt was, be<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>fore
his remooving to Yorke, tooke order, that cer<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>taine
preachers ſhould keepe lecture on the market
daies, in the cheefe market townes of his Dioceſe.
There is a great market euerie Satterday at a towne
called Chippenhame, in North Wilſhire. Within 4.
myles of which, dwelleth one M. Wiſedome, a man
for integritie of lyfe, and exceeding paines in his cal<g ref="char:EOLunhyphen"/>ling
loued of all the godlie, hated of the wicked and
admired of both. This man was one of the prechers
appointed to that place, and preached there once in
a fourtnight, or a month, I know not which. Wher<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>fore
on Satterday the 14. day of Februarie or there<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>about
<hi>Anno</hi> 1589. expounding in that place the ar<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ticles
of the beleef, he deliuered this opinion, which
I defend, concerning the deſcenſe of Chriſt into hel.
Whe<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g> he had done, one Chalfont Vicar of that towne
<pb facs="tcp:178019:6"/>
ſtood vp, and proteſted to the people, that hee had
taught falſe doctrine: and promiſed, that if they
would come that day ſeuen night, they ſhould heare
him confuted by a learned man.. That day ſeuen<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>night
commes. The people flockes to the Church in
great multituds, exſpecting ſome famous man, with
ſome new matter. At length, in came this. M. Chal<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>font
himſelf. Hee climbes into the pulpit, and pyles
vp a heap of books, as high as his head. Then after
a pſalme, and a formall prayer, hee beginnes like an
Oratour at his own perſon and his adverſaries, that
he was M. Wiſedomes ſenior, that he was a Bachelor
when M. Wiſedome was a Scholler: and a Maiſter of
Arte. before he was a Bachelour. That hee had read
more, and knew more, then he. That he had learned
arithmetick, and could reckon the articles of the
creed, better then hee. That there was 12. of them,
made by the 12. Apoſtles. That his memorie ſerued
him to remember, which Apoſtle made which arti<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>cle.
That M. Wiſedome did reckon them wrong, and
made but 11. of them. That al learned Fathers were
on his conſpiracie. That M. Wiſedome did falſefie
Calvine, and other learned writers: That Chriſt
might bee the day when he ſu<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="2 letters">
                  <desc>••</desc>
               </gap>ered, as well both in
Paradice and Hell: as M. Wiſedome was that mor<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ning
at Gritleton (that is the place where he dwel<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>leth)
&amp; then there vnder the pulpit. That he did con<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tradict
the convocation, and therefore had depriued
himſelfe of the Miniſtrie, <hi>ipſo facto.</hi> And ſo was no
more Parſon of G<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="2 letters">
                  <desc>••</desc>
               </gap>tleton, then hee was Biſhop of
London. He lookes downe manie times on M. Wiſ<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>dome,
where he ſat vnder the pulpite, amazed at his
impudencie, like a meeke ſheep, (as hee is indeede)
and calles him by his name. This ſaieth Auguſtine,
this ſaieth Ierome, this ſaieth Cyprian, and you ſay
that. Where was your learning? Where was your
<pb facs="tcp:178019:6"/>
reading? Where was your ſimplicitie and plain dea<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ling,
which you make ſhow of? And turning to the
people he warned them to be ware of falſe Prophets
that going in ſheepes clothing, were inwardlie raue<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ning
wolues, meaning M. Wiſedome becauſe of his
plainneſſe, and ſimplicitie. This exclamation, (for
ſermon I cannot call it) being ended, the people de<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>parted
ſome ſaying this, and ſome ſaying that: and
all, (ſauing ſuch as loue, or malice did carrie more
then truth or matter) condemning Chalfonts impu<g ref="char:EOLunhyphen"/>dencie.
That day ſeuen-night, the people meets a<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>gaine,
hoping to heare M. Wiſdome reply, for that
was his day by the Biſhops order. But M. Hil beeing
then at a towne called Leycocke, within 2. myles of
this Chippenhame by accident, or of ſet purpoſe, I
know not, came thither that morning, and tooke
the place. The ſame man not manie yeares before,
had dipped in the ſame controuerſy almoſt after the
ſame manner at Sarum, againſt one M. Connam, a
man both learned, and Chaplane to my L. of Pem<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>broke.
But to let that paſſe, at this ſermon 28. Feb.
<hi>Anno</hi> 1589. I was my ſelfe, vpon the occaſions ex<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>preſſed
in the beginning of my letter to M. Hill, (for
as yet he was not Doctor) which he hath printed. In
it with painted words, and great names of Doctors
he ſo varniſhed the matter, that at the firſt hearing
it ſeemed not improbable. Towards his aduerſaries
hee behaued himſelfe modeſtlie, geuing them the
praiſe both of learning and godlineſſe, namely Cal<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>vine
and Beza. To blaze their error in this point, he
rubbed the Hebrew words Sheol and nepheſhe, and
the greeke <hi>hades, pſyche</hi> &amp; <hi>pneuma,</hi> as white, as a whet<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ſtone.
Then after a ſolempne challenge to all the
learned men in the world, that did diſſent from him,
he offered his notes to anie that would haue them:
he promiſed faire play, if anie man would anſwere
<pb facs="tcp:178019:7"/>
him: he proteſted loue to him, that coulde confute
him: and vowed a recantation in the ſame place, if
his forces could not bide the battle. I hearing this
braue challenge, and miſtruſting his cardes for all
his facing: wrought a freend that had acquaintance
with him, to help mee to his notes. After two mo<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>neths
or there-abouts, hee ſent them to mee vnder
his owne hand. Peruſing them, I found them out of
their coullours, nothing anſwerable to the ſhewe
that they made in the pulpite. Wherefore, hearing
of no man, that did reply: ſaving M. Wiſdome in a
ſermon that M. Hill was not at: and hoping that his
proteſtations had beene as farre in his heart, as they
were faire in his mouth: I reſolued to anſwere him
for the truthes ſake, though my leaſure was not
much, promiſing my ſelf as much thank for my la<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>bour,
as his great offers led mee to beleeue. To keep
it ſecrete, I wrote in latine. I ſeaſoned my wordes,
with all moderation, that might bee in a contrarie
ſtyle. I offered to confeſſe, if it could be ſhewed, that
my anſweres turned not the edge of his argumentes.
To be ſhort, I promiſed to yeelde to anie truth, that
he could proue. I was in hope that this conference
ſhould haue beene priuate, amongeſt vs, and ſuch
freends onelie, as hee or I, might haue acquainted
with it. Indeed, he offered mee to haue talked of the
matter at a freends houſe. But I conſidering, that in
ſuch diſputations, ſtormes of wordes ryſing out of
hearts, heated with contradiction, doth hinder rea<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ſon,
and ſtop judgement, refuſed any conference, but
with the pen.<note place="margin">The ſecond conſideration is better than the firſt.</note> This reply I finiſhed within few daies:
But miſtruſting mine own infirmities, and knowing
that <gap reason="foreign">
                  <desc>〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉</desc>
               </gap>, I kept it in my hand
till the next May following. Then going home to
viſite my naturall freendes, I left it with a freend or
two to be deliuered him. They beeing doubtfull of
<pb facs="tcp:178019:7"/>
my returne, though it not beſt to ſturre a coale, that
they knew no man in my abſence to put out. At my
returne vnderſtanding that they had not deliuered
it: I tooke it into my handes againe, I added and al<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tered
diuerſe things. I wrote it new: and ſent it him
incloſed in a letter. In time of my abſence, (which
was half a yeare and more) he had receaued by ſome
ſecret meanes, an engliſhe copie of the firſt draught,
which I my ſelfe had tranſlated at the requeſt of a
freend, not aboue fiue daies before my journey. It I
deliuered him with condition to bring it mee againe
He brought it not, and I forgot it. In time of my ab<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ſence,
he lent it to another, &amp; the other gaue a cop<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>pie
of it to one, that put it in M. Hills hands. To that
before my returne, he had fumbled vp this anſwere,
that now he hath printed. I not knowing it, ſent him
(as I haue ſaid) the latine. Vpon receit whereof hee
ſent the other amongſt his freends. It went amongſt
them from one to another, from November (for in
Nouember I ſent mine,) till the September follow<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ing
and then he ſent it mee. In this meane time ſpea<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ches
were giuen out, that I had anſwered his ſermo<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>,
that he had replied, and I recanted. Theſe ſpeeches
grew dailie, and lifted his heart as high as his name.
Whereon hee reſolued to diſpute in Oxenford for a
ſcarlet hood. He promiſed his freends to make that
one of his queſtions. He gaue out, that al Oxford was
on his ſide. But when it came to proof, hee was faine
to promiſe to his friends, and they to others, that he
would conferre with learned men: that hee woulde
yeeld to anie truth,<note place="margin">The admit<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ting of a man to a degree of ſchoole in Oxford is cal<g ref="char:EOLunhyphen"/>led a grace.</note> that could be proued out of the
word: that he would not deall in that queſtion, but
as he ſhould be led by ſuch conference, or els he had
gone as graceles out of Oxford, as he came thither.
Notwithſtanding, when he was ſure of his grace, to
maintain his credit amongſt his friends in the cun<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>trie:
<pb facs="tcp:178019:8"/>
he took that queſtion to maintaine in Oxfoord
on the Viper day of the Act. howe manfully hee de<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>fended
it, I report me to them that heard him. <hi>A fi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>lius
terrae</hi> at the lower end of the ſchoole (a thing ne<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>uer
ſeene before in that place at that time) got a pla<g ref="char:EOLunhyphen"/>cet
of the Doctor of the chyre, to bruſh his skarlet
gowne: who trimmed it ſo neatly, that if his cheeks
wold haue taken the ſtaines of ſhame, he had worne
as much skarlet in his face, as he did on his back. In
this ſtory (thou maieſt ſee good Reader) that my ad<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>verſary
did thruſt his hooke in an other mans har<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ueſt
at Chippinhame: that he took not my reply ſo
wel as he promiſed in the pulpit. That he made that
publick which I wrote in private. That he went far<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ther
abroad, &amp; hunted for contention in Oxfoord.
That hee plaied at the ſame bale before, in Sarum.
That he bare the ſimple in hand, that all the learned
of the Vniverſitie were of his mind. That hee fed an
vntrue rumour, that I had recanted. That he printed
my privat letter without my conſent or knowledg.
And that to trouble the ſimple with it, he publiſhed
that in engliſh, which I wrote in latine. For my part
I hope I did nothing but that which the dutie of a
Chriſtian required. hearing the trueth impugned I
did defend it: fearing that he had bene deceiued on
ſimplicitie, I laboured to reforme him. I wrote in
faire tearmes to avoide offences. I wrote in a ſtrange
tongue to keepe it ſecret. And I hunted not for this
contention: but was drawen into it with faire pro<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>miſes
of great thanks: wherfore I hope if thou haue
but one dramme of indifferencie, that thou wilteſt
wipe this bleamiſh from my face. If I fall nowe into
rougher tearmes impute the fault to him, that kept
not himſelfe within the ſame bounds as I beganne.
Moreover, it is impoſsible to anſwere this booke,
wherein are ſo many errours in al kinds of learning
<pb facs="tcp:178019:8"/>
without tearms of offence. The humour alſo of this
adverſary is ſuch, and his eſtimation amongeſt the
ſimple, that if I ſpare him, I ſhall feede it, and hinder
the trueth. Add that it is impoſsible for me to paſſe
over ſuch vnmanerly diſgraces of lies, impude<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>t lies,
ſhameles lies in matters politicall, damnable lies in
maters theological: diſagreing with Mathew, Mark,
Luke, Iohn, Paul, Peter, Chriſt himſelf, &amp; al the ſcrip<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tures,
and never turne the bale comming ſo faire to
the other end of the tenniſe. In ſome places hee gi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ueth
my words a meaning, that I neuer meant: In
ſome places he giues my arguments a ſhape, that I
neuer made. In ſome places hee bends his proofes
to things not denied: In many places hee ſlipps the
point in controverſie, and paſſes by arguments, as
if he neuer ſawe them. And in no place anſweres one
argument like a ſcholler, much leſſe a Doctor. If I
rippe vp theſe things in their places freely: I hope
good Reader, that thou wilteſt rather lay the fault
on him, that made them ſuch; than me, that cal them
as they are. Thus beſeeching thee to weigh the cauſe
throughly<g ref="char:punc">▪</g> and to giue every colour his own name:
I leaue thee to the Lord.</p>
            <closer>
               <signed>Thine and all theirs that loue the Lord Ieſus.
Alexander Hume.</signed>
            </closer>
         </div>
         <div type="letter">
            <pb facs="tcp:178019:9"/>
            <head>THE COPPY OF MASTER
DOCTORS LETTER SENT
to me with his booke.</head>
            <p>
               <seg rend="decorInit">G</seg>Race and peace. There was brought to me
in Auguſt laſt an anſwere made to my ſer<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>mon
preached at Chippenhame the 28. of
February by your ſelfe, which for that I was
then riding to London, I laid vp in my ſtudie
till my returne. At which time examining
it: I found that you had indeauored to anſwere ſome part of
my ſermon: and ſome things you left vnanſwered. Hereupon
I had thought to make no replie. But <gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                  <desc>•</desc>
               </gap>he: I vnderſtoode,
that ſpeeches were blazed abroad that neither I could, nor
durſt anſwere it: I entered into a reſolution either to defend
my ſelf or els to recant, to ſtay the ſp<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                  <desc>•</desc>
               </gap>eches of the multitude.
And therefore to ſatisfie your requeſt haue made a replie,
wherein I haue proued my former reaſons to be firme &amp; v<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                  <desc>•</desc>
               </gap>
               <g ref="char:EOLunhyphen"/>controleable,
and your anſwer to be weak &amp; vnſufficient: for
that you diſagree with Dauid, Eſay, Ezechiel<g ref="char:punc">▪</g> Mathew, Pe<g ref="char:EOLunhyphen"/>ter,
Paul, yea Chriſt himſelf, as it ſhal appeare in the confe<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>rence.
It is an eaſie matter to ſet your ſelfe againſt M. Hil.
But it is not ſo eaſie <gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 word">
                  <desc>〈◊〉</desc>
               </gap> mater to ſet your ſelf againſt the Pro<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>phets,
and Apoſtles, and Chriſt himſelfe. Hee vvill ſay to
you as he ſaid to Paul, <gap reason="foreign">
                  <desc>〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉</desc>
               </gap>.
Wherefore I pray you, if you vvill proceed in this conference
to lay downe the vvhole as <hi>I</hi> do: and conſider vvhat, vvhe<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                  <desc>•</desc>
               </gap>,
and vvhere you vvrite. You write of an article of our faith,
vvhich muſt be confirmed by Gods word. If therefore it ſhal
<pb facs="tcp:178019:9"/>
appeare, that you haue gainſaid the Apoſtles vvordes and
meanings: vvho vvill beleeue you for an orthodoxall tea<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>cher?
you write in the moſt perrillous times. When therefore,
the Papiſts ſhall ſee your deceiptfull handling of Gods word,
they vvill reioice at it. Laſtly, you vvrite againſt an opini<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>on
imbraced in the Church of England alwaies, and confir<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>med
by our learned ſynod, and convocation in the Parlia<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ment.
Therefore you muſt aſſure your ſelfe, that you cannot
cary this cauſe away without weightie, &amp; irrefragable rea<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ſons.
I receiued alſo the laſt of November, an anſwere in
Latine. I vvill at ſucceſſiue houres frame by Gods grace,
an anſwer to that. In the meane ſeaſon, you may peruſe this,
and ſee by this replie, vvhat good ſucceſſe you may promiſe
your ſelfe, and your friends in the other. Thus deſiring
God to direct this conference, and al other our
labours to his glorie, I end. </p>
            <closer>
               <dateline>Weſt burie
at my houſe, <date>the laſt of Decem<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ber.
1590.</date>
               </dateline> 
               <signed>Yours in the Lord, Adam Hill.</signed>
            </closer>
         </div>
         <div type="letter">
            <pb facs="tcp:178019:10"/>
            <head>TO THE RIGHT WORSHIP-FVL,
ADAM HIL DOCTOR OF DIVINITIE,
Vicar of Weſtburie, perſon of Gooſage, Prebend and
ſubchanter of the Cathedrall Church of our Ladie,
in the Citie of nevve Sarum.</head>
            <p>
               <seg rend="decorInit">I</seg>N May before the Moneth of Auguſt, you
ſpeake of going home to viſite my naturall
friends, I left my reply to your ſermon to be
delivered you. But it was kept backe vppon
the conſiderations, which I haue ſaide in my
Epiſtle to the Reader. What other Coppy
you receiued in Auguſt, I cannot tel: But wel
I am aſſured I ſent you none. Howſoeuer you
came by that coppy, plaine dealing wold haue anſwered that which
I ſent you my ſelfe<g ref="char:punc">▪</g> you tell me, that going vp to London, you rece<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ued
an anſwere to your Sermon, &amp; pervſing it at your returne, you
found it an endeavoure to anſwere ſome peece of it: and within few
lines you will me to ſet downe al as you do. Your ſimile is vnfit, for
you ſet not downe all, that you had of me. Neither could I ſet down
all your Sermon: for I had but the notes of it: and them alſo written
with your owne hand ſo confuſedly, that it woulde haue troubled
your ſelfe, to tell which was the beginning<g ref="char:punc">▪</g> middle, or end. There<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>fore
this quarrell, that I did not ſet downe all, ſeeing I had not all,
is very vnreaſonable. As for your notes I anſwered them all, ſauing
two arguments, which being forced to ſeek hee<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                  <desc>•</desc>
               </gap>e one, and there an
other, I miſſed in that confuſed Chaos of <hi>non bene i<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="2 letters">
                     <desc>••</desc>
                  </gap>ctarum diſ<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>cordia
ſemina verum.</hi> If you had bene diſpoſed to ſpeake properly,
they were too ſmall a qui<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                  <desc>•</desc>
               </gap>let, to make all the reſt be called, but a
peece of your Sermon. Bu<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                  <desc>•</desc>
               </gap> your warineſſe heere is notable. Leaſt
ſome might think too well of my reply: you will not vouchſafe it the
name of an anſwere: but an indeavoure to anſwere ſome peece of
your Sermon. Such it <gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                  <desc>•</desc>
               </gap>eavours as this, may well blind the ſimple:
but amongſt the wiſe wil never purchaſe much credit to your cauſe.
But you would haue let all alone you ſay, if the ſpeeches of the peo<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ple
diſgracing your abilitie had not ſet you a worke: my deſire was
either to winne you to vs, or reaſons from you to drawe me to you.
But nowe it appeareth that your owne eſtimation was more preci<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ous
in your eies, than the defence of the trueth, or winning men
<pb facs="tcp:178019:10"/>
from errours. This will be a foull blot in the face of a Doctor: ex<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>cept
you waſh it with a bale of truth and plaine dealing, confeſſing
that I was in no errour at all. But then you ſay you reſolved to de<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>fend
your ſelfe, or elſe to recant. I thought you had bene reſolute
in Chippinhames pulpit ſix moneths before, if you were not as re<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ſolute
then as now, I will not take your word for ſhoe-buckles: for
I had then more witneſſes to your word, than I haue now to your
hand. But me thinks it is ſtrange, that I oppugning David, Eſay, E<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>zechiell,
Peter, Paul, and Chriſt himſelf, could haue eſcaped the
check of your pen, if it had not bene to maintaine your owne cre<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>dite
amongſt the people. It is without doubt, that you loued that
moſt, that moved you moſt. If you were not as jelous of their main<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tenance
as your owne eſtimation you were not ſo ſure a friend, as
many ſuppoſed. But it is hard for me you ſay, to kicke againſt the
prick. It were ſo if I did ſo. but looke you M. Doctor to your owne
heeles: for my part I haue the teſtimony of a good conſcience. No
other cauſe, than the ſimple loue of the trueth ſet me on worke. I le<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>velled
not at preferment. I commended not my work to great per<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ſones.
I publiſhed not my book till you opened the gate: &amp; I could
do no leſſe than followe. As for Chriſt and his Apoſtles I hope to
make it clear in al indifferent eares, that I haue not oppoſed one
ſyllable againſt them: And that you pull my wordes, as Cacus did
Hercules his Kein into what ſtinking dennes, it pleſeth your wrang<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ling
braine to deviſe. I know both what, when, and where I write. I
write of an Article of our faith, in which I am ſo much more ear<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>neſt,
as the Children of God ſhuld be more diligent to vnderſtand
their faith aright. As for theſe dangerous times it is you that neg<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>lect
them. It is you, that devide the coat of Chriſt: it is you that han<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>dle
the Scriptures guilefully: it is you, that publiſh private things to
make the Papiſts ſport, and trouble the Church. That which divers
learned Papiſts affirme the Scriptures, never ſaide you put them to
the rack to make them confeſſe. Scotus ſaith, that the diſcenſe of
Chriſt into hell cannot be prooued by Scriptures. And radius one
of the learneſt that was in the counſel of Trent, ſaith it, and proues
it. Heſſelius another of the ſame counſell conſtrueth the place of
Peter againſt you. To him accordeth Th<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                  <desc>•</desc>
               </gap>mas Aquinas. and Dio<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>nyſius
Carthuſianus agreeth with Andradius. It were eaſie to quote
many: If the ſeeking of them were not more laborious, than their
teſtimonies will be effectuall in this cauſe. I bring onely theſe to ſet
their ingenuitie againſt your partialitie. As for the Church of Eng<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>land,
it hath not alwaies foſtered your opinion, as you vntruely a<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>vouch.
The times of popery, we yeeld you: becauſe you agree in the
name, and the places be but ſeverall roomes of one dungeon. Nei<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ther
<pb facs="tcp:178019:11"/>
can we denie you the times of King Edward, which creeping
but out of the ſhelles of Popery, had not ſhaken of the buddes of
your errour, about that time the greateſt part of your favorities li<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ued:
and in that time your opinion (for want of better) was confir<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>med
by convocation. But anno 1564. in the beginning of her Ma<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>jeſties
raigne, in a convocation aſſembled to reeſtabliſh the Acts of
King Edward, which Queene Mary had taken away, that article on<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ly
was reformed, and your opinion defaced, no more being left, but
the naked article of the beleefe in wordes equivalent. wherevpon
I build this reaſon. No counſell nor convocation cenſuring a for<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>mer
taketh that away,<note place="margin">Synod. Ed.</note> which it ſelfe alloweth. But this
convocation cenſuring the convocation of King Ed<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ward,<note place="margin">Quemadmodum Chriſtus pro nobis mortuus eſt, &amp; ſepultus: ita eſt etiam cre<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>dendus ad inferos deſcen<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>diſſe. Nam corpus vſ<expan>
                     <am>
                        <g ref="char:abque"/>
                     </am>
                     <ex>que</ex>
                  </expan> ad reſurrectione<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g> in ſepulchro iacuit: ſpiritus ab illo e<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>miſſus cum ſpiritibus, qui in carcere, ſiue in inferno detinebantur fuit, illiſ<expan>
                     <am>
                        <g ref="char:abque"/>
                     </am>
                     <ex>que</ex>
                  </expan> predicauit queadmodum teſtatur Petri locus.</note>
hath taken your opinion away. Ergo, this convo<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>cation
allowed not your opinion. But contrariwiſe, the
ſame Church of England hath made our opinion her
owne, by publiſhing by her authoritie, Thomas Rogers
expoſition of theſe Articles, wherein he agrees with vs:
and countenanſing it with her owne name, in titeling
it the Engliſh Creede. She hath alſo printed and allow<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ed
by her authoritie many books againſt you. The Ge<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>neva
Bible, I know not how many times: The newe Te<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ſtament
with Beza and Villerius his notes: Fulkes an<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ſwere
to the Remiſhe Teſtament: Baro his Lectures vp<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>on
Ionas:<note place="margin">Synod. Eliz. <hi>principium tantum retinuit.</hi> Quem<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>admodum Chriſtus pro no<g ref="char:EOLunhyphen"/>bis mortuus eſt, &amp; ſepul<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tus: ita eſt etiam creden<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>dus ad inferos deſcendiſſe.</note> Calvins Inſtitutions at large, and abridged:
Northbrooks Confeſſion: Fulk againſt Gregory Mar<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tine,
and the Rhemiſts: Whitaker againſt Campion and
Duraeus: Vrſinus his Catechiſme: Baſtingius his Cate<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>chiſme:
Andrewe Willets vewe of Popery, with many o<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>thers:
Some dedicated to the Queene her ſelfe, Some
to my Lord Treaſurer, ſome to my lord of Huntington,
ſome to my lord of Leiſter, ſome to my lord of Bedford, ſome to my
lord of Warwick, ſome to one, ſome to another, all allowed, and all
againſt you, Laſtly our opinion hath bene taught in the Pulpits, de<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>fended
in Schooles, allowed in the Vniverſities, ſo that one Doctor
Huſſe, his grace was denied in Cambridge aboue 20. yeares agoe
for your opinion: and y<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="2 letters">
                  <desc>••</desc>
               </gap>r owne had bene denied you within this
three yeares in Oxford, if you had not promiſed more than you
meant to performe. Whatſoeuer other men hath done, or ſpoken
for their owne: you are the firſt that ever I heard of, that oppugned
ours in the Church of England: ſaving D. Huſſe in Leiſter. Againſt
whome the Biſhop of that Dioceſſe did oppoſe himſelfe, procuring
from Cambridge their Reader, countenanced with the authoritie
of their convocation, to confute that opinion, which the engliſh
<pb facs="tcp:178019:11"/>
name of hel did make more popular, and probable to the ignorant,
by the countenance of that famous, and worthie Vniverſitie. Thus
men may ſee how truely you challenge the Church of England, to
haue allowed your opinion alwaies<g ref="char:punc">▪</g> your alwaies commeth ſhort
of all that time, which you deſired moſt to take your part: for men
of your livery, if you may get autoritie on your ſide, count your ſelf
otherwaies ſufficiently armed. As for me, If I handle the ſcriptures
deceitfully: let not onely the Papiſts laugh at me: but let al Chri<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ſtians
ſpit at me. if I reforme it not, when I am convicted. Howe
ſtrong my reaſons are, to cary this cauſe cleare through the midſt
of the aduerſaries of it: I hope the ſequell will proue: and I referre
it to the adviſed judgment of the indifferent Reader: I cannot tell
how to frame irrefragable reaſons to you. There was a Prophecie
(as Curtius recordeth) that hee who could vndoe the knottes of
Gordius his chariot, ſhould be Emperour of Aſia. Alexander inten<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ding
that conqueſt, came to the temple where thoſe knottes were
kept, to ſee, if hee could open them. But they beeing inſoluble by
mans reaſon, hee tore all aſſunder with his ſword. So you ſerue my
arguments, be they never ſo irrefragable: when you cannot open
them with reaſon: you teare them all aſſunder with violence. As for
my latine anſwere, which I indeed did ſend you, and you in trueth
ſhould haue anſwered me, and not this wandring vagabound: you
haue had it theſe three yeares and more, wherein were ſucceſſiue
houres ynough to anſwere two ſheets of Paper: if you haue not bin
more buſie about greater matters, than you would haue the world
to knowe. In the meane time I haue pervſed this, and put my friends
in hope of good ſucceſſe in the other: when your long leaſure will
ſerue you to anſwere it. Thus beſeeching God to giue vs all one
heart and one minde, I end.</p>
            <closer>
               <signed>Yours in the Lord, Alexander
Hume.</signed>
            </closer>
         </div>
         <div type="summary">
            <pb facs="tcp:178019:12"/>
            <head>THE STATE OF THIS QVESTION
brieflie ſet down, for the capacitie of ſuch as are
not able to carie the drift of all this
diſcourſe before them.</head>
            <p>THe hebrevve vvord <hi>SHEOL,</hi> vvhich the Greekes call <hi>hades,</hi> the
latines <hi>infernus,</hi> and vvee hell, hath three ſignifications in the
ſcriptures.</p>
            <p>Firſt and properlie it ſignifieth the graue, or common condition of all
the dead, expreſſed in the greek <hi>hades</hi> by the priuation of light or lyfe.</p>
            <p>Secondlie, the place of tormentes, appointed for the puniſhment of the
vvicked: for this the hebrevve vvord is leaſt, and our ingliſh vvorde moſt
vſuall, or rather as it is commonlie taken, hardlie ſignifieth any thing els.</p>
            <p>Thirdlie, the torments of hel, vvhich by a Metonymicall hyperbole for
amplifications ſake, is manie times attributed to the ſorrovves of this life.
Theſe things are knovvn to al the learned. And this D. confeſſeth them
ſect. 4. See alſo ſect. 8. ſect. 9. and ſect. 14.</p>
            <p>Novve, vvhere our beleefe hath that Chriſt deſcended into hell: the
queſtion is vvhich of theſe three ſignifications doth beſt fit that article of
our faith: We ſay, that ſeing euery article of our faith muſt haue an vn<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>douted
ſenſe confirmed by the Scriptures, it muſt needs ſignifie the helliſh
torments that he ſuffered for our redemption, or the darkneſſe of death,
vvhich ſvvallovved him the three daies that he vvas in the graue. That
theſe thingt are true, and may be the true ſenſe of that article, our aduer<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ſaries
cannot denie. Yet not contented heerevvith, they vvil ſinke deeper,
and ſend Chriſts ſoule to the damned pit of hell, neither to ſuffer himſelf,
nor to helpe <gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 word">
                  <desc>〈◊〉</desc>
               </gap> that ſuffered there. Novve, becauſe this is a thing that
no man can avouch vpon his ovvne knovvledge, but God himſelf: We re<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>fuſe
to take their vvords vvithout his vvarrant. Wherefore to mend this
crooke, they lay three te<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                  <desc>•</desc>
               </gap> 
               <gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                  <desc>•</desc>
               </gap>s of Scripture in the preſſe. The firſt is out of the
16. Pſalme: the ſecond is out of the 3. chap. of the 1. <hi>Pet.</hi> the laſt &amp; vvea<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>keſt,
out of the 4. to the <hi>Epheſ.</hi> But theſe proofes being doubtfull, that is,
implying other plainer ſenſes We denie them to be ſufficient to make this
doubtfull aſſertion, an vndoubted article of our faith. Our reaſon is, no
doubtfull proofes can make a doubtfull aſſertion an vndoubted article of
our faith: But theſe proofes be doubtfull. <hi>Ergo,</hi> theſe proofes cannot make
this doubtfull aſſertion, an vndoubted article of our faith. That theſe pro<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>fes
be doubtfull, the vvords, drifts, and circumſtances, offering other ſen<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ſes
<pb facs="tcp:178019:12"/>
both plainer, and better fitting the places, and agreeable to the reſt of
the Scriptures, vvill driue anie reaſonable head to confeſſe. Neither doeth
diverſe learned Papiſts denie it. But this aduerſarie more impudent then
they, blusheth not like a vvyer dravver, to pull theſe Scriptures through
narrovve holes, to make them ſmal inough, to tie our faith to his fantaſie.
Moreouer, vvith like violence, hee is forced to break dovvn tvvo other
vvalls that ſtands in his vvay. The one is in the 23 of <hi>Luke,</hi> ver. 46. <hi>Fa<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ther
into thy hands I commend my ſpirit<g ref="char:punc">▪</g>
               </hi> and the other in the 43. ver
of the ſame cap. ſpoken to the theef, <hi>This day ſhalt thou be with mee in
Paradice.</hi> By vvhich tvvo places it is cleare, that Chriſts ſoule vvas then
in heauen, and not in Hell. Vpon the true ſenſe of theſe places riſeth this
diſputation, to vvhich I referre the diſcreet and indifferent Reader, be<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ſeeching
them to read vvith a ſingle eie, and iudge vvith an vpright hart.
Onelie I vvill lance an impoſtume of abſurdities, vvhich breeding in the
bovvels of this opinion, like the vvorme that breeds in the nut, hath putri<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>fied
all the probabilitie of it, and made all men of indifferent iudgement
in this age to caſte it vnder the boord amongeſt the shreddes.</p>
            <p>Firſt, that Chriſt went down to Hell to triumph, contrarie to the
nature of Hell, which yeeldeth nothing but horrour and torments.
And contrarie to the nature of a triumph, which was vſuallie ſolem<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>nized
amongſt them, to whom the joy of the victorie did appertaine</p>
            <p>Secondlie, that Chriſts ſoule did preach in Hell, contrarie to the
nature of a ſoule, that cannot preache: and the condition of thoſe
hearers, who could reap no profite of his ſermon having their juge<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ment
alreadie.</p>
            <p>Thirdlie, that he did preach neither to convert the hearers, nor
to condempne them for the contempt of his word: but to aggrauate
their ſorrowes. Contrarie to the office of Chriſt, which was to offer
mercie to all his hearers.</p>
            <p>Fourthlie, that Chriſts ſoul did preach in Hel reallie, not vocal<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>lie:
that is, did preach in Hel and ſay nothing: contrary to the nature
of the word preach, which neuer man did, without voice &amp; words.</p>
            <p>Fiftlie, that Chriſt meaning to go to Hell, (as they ſay) did not<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>withſtanding
commend his ſoule into the hands of God. Contrarie
to the true and common vſe of theſe words vſed by Stephan, Act. 7.
and all other godlie men, that craue to be i<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                  <desc>•</desc>
               </gap> heauen.</p>
            <p>Sixtlie, that his ſoule was in Hell with<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="2 letters">
                  <desc>••</desc>
               </gap>t torments, contrarie to
the name and nature of Hell, which preſenteth to the care and hart,
nothing but hainous and hideous torments.</p>
            <p>Seventhlie, that in theſe words (Thou ſhalt be with mee in Para<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>dice)
Chriſt ſpake onelie of his God-head. Contrarie to the nature
of the pronoune (<hi>me</hi>) which doeth alwaies note the whole perſon
that ſpeaketh.</p>
            <p>
               <pb facs="tcp:178019:13"/>
Eightlie, that having conquered Hell vpon the croſſe: It was
needfull for him notwithſtanding to goe to hell. Contrarie to the
ſufficiencie of Chriſts ſacrifice, who had paid a full ranſome for our
ſinnes before, and left nothing behinde to be done in Hell. Theſe 8.
cankers are feſtered in the marrowe of this abſurde opinion, for all
which, all the Scriptures hath not one ſillable, and therefore it muſt
be a monſter, that hath bred ſo manie monſters.</p>
            <p>I Had anſwered Maiſter Doctors Sermon (as he calls it) but to a<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>void
prolixitie, and becauſe this is but a repetition of his rea<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ſons
there, I haue left it out, and haue ſent him a breefe ſumme
thereof, to ſhewe him that there is nothing there, better then here:
only in the end of it, he calles al his adverſaries Boyes, ſchiſmaticks,
phantaſticall ſpirits, raſhe without ſtudie, and preſumptuous with<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>out
feare of God. If <hi>Caluin</hi> be a boy, if <hi>Beza</hi> be a boy, if <hi>Marlarot</hi> be
a boy, if <hi>Vrſinus</hi> be a boy, if <hi>Baſtingius</hi> be a boy, if <hi>Ramus</hi> be a boy, if
<hi>Olevian</hi> be a boy, if <hi>Iunius</hi> be a boy, if <hi>Tremelius</hi> be a boy, if <hi>Baro</hi> be
a boy, if <hi>Brenſius</hi> be a boy, if <hi>Hereſbathius</hi> be a boy, if <hi>Sohnius</hi> be a
boy, if <hi>Bullinger</hi> be a boy, if <hi>Bucer</hi> be a boy, if <hi>Danaeus</hi> be a boy, if <hi>Sa<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>del</hi>
be a boy, if <hi>Viret</hi> be a boy, if <hi>Sarcerius</hi> be a boy, if <hi>Suinglius</hi> be a
boy, if <hi>Dering</hi> be a boy, if <hi>Perkins</hi> be a boy, if <hi>Rogers</hi> be a boy, if <hi>Fulk</hi>
be a boy, if <hi>Willet</hi> be a boy, if <hi>Reynolds</hi> be a boy, if <hi>Whitaker</hi> be a boy
if <hi>Hoper</hi> biſhop of Gloceſter be a boy, if <hi>Reynald Peacock,</hi> Biſhop of
Cheſter in the time of <hi>Henrie</hi> the ſixt be a boy: I wil ſtand to it, that
this D. is not worthie to wait on many boyes, and bear their books
to the Schoole, of their diligence, of their learning, of their diſcre<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tion,
of their integritie, of their conſta<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>cie, of their humilitie, though
his mouth runne over in generall, I hope he will bluſh to touch any
of them in particular. This I haue ſet downe to ſhewe thee gentle
Reader, that his cauſe wants not more &amp; greater adverſaries, then
he ſuppoſeth it to haue f<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                  <desc>•</desc>
               </gap>vourers.</p>
         </div>
      </front>
      <body>
         <div n="1" type="section">
            <pb n="1" facs="tcp:178019:13"/>
            <head>THE FIRST SECTION OF
HVME his Letter.</head>
            <p>
               <seg rend="decorInit">I</seg>T fell out vpon ſome occaſions,
that I was with a freend not farre
fro<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g> 
               <hi>Chippenham,</hi> the day before you
preached there. As I was preparing
to depart, word came to my friend
that you had certified <hi>M. Chalfont</hi>
of your intent the day following,
to defende that which hee had ſpoken againſt <hi>M.
Wiſedome,</hi> that day ſennight before, concerning the
deſcenſion of Chriſt into hell: where fore my friend
wrought me to ſtay, to heare what could be ſayd for
a matter, that both hee and I did thinke to haue no
great probabilitie. I did ſo, and it repenteth me not,
for there I heard ſomething, which otherwiſe per<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>haps
would neuer haue entered in my barren brain.
&amp; I was ſtrengthned in the truth, prouing that which
is co<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>monly ſaid, that with &amp; eloquence is not able to
ſhake it. Wherfore, I haue thoght it not amis to write
theſe few lines vnto you, either to win you to vs, or to
win ſome better reaſon fro<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g> you, to bring me to you.
I am not maryed to mine owne opinion, but if any
man can bring mee better proofe<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                  <desc>•</desc>
               </gap>, I am content to
yeeld. I hope the ſame of you, for you told mee ſo in
the pulpit, where the tong ſhould wait vpon the hart,
and ſpeake his affections: &amp; it is the dutye of all men,
eſpecially of miniſters, to imploy their laboures to
knowe the truth, and not contentiouſly to defend
their owne conceits, which many tymes deceiues e<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>uen
<pb n="2" facs="tcp:178019:14"/>
the wiſeſt. As yet your reaſous haue confirmed
rather then converted me.</p>
            <div type="reply">
               <head>HILL his reply.</head>
               <p>IN the entrance of your anſwer, you haue told two
vntruths vpon vntrue reports. The on, that I cer<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tified
<hi>M. Chalfont</hi> of mine intent, which is not ſo:
for neither by meſſenger nor letter, did I euer ſend to
<hi>M. Chalfont.</hi> The other is, where you auouch that
I would make an apology of. <hi>M. Chalfonlts</hi> ſayings
againſt <hi>M. Wiſdome,</hi> which God knoweth was ne<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>uer
my meaning: for firſt, I neuer knew what he had
fayd in that controuerſy, til the morning I preached.
Secondly, I did alwaies loue and honour <hi>M. Wiſe<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>dome,</hi>
but <hi>M. Chalfont,</hi> til that morning I was not
acquainted with al. Thirdly, hearing a ſtrife reuiued
of that matter, which was not long before quieted in
<hi>Sarum</hi> by the laſt Biſhop, now Archbiſhop of <hi>Yorke,</hi>
and being requeſted to deliuer my iudgment in the
matter, not by <hi>M. Chalfont,</hi> but by one <hi>Richarde
Woodlands,</hi> to ſet vnity betwixt my bretheren, and
not to warre againſt <hi>M. Wiſedome:</hi> In the feare of
God, and not to pleaſe you or your friend, or any o<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ther
man, I layd downe my iudgement, and gaue vp
my Sermon in writing to <hi>M. Wiſedome,</hi> crauing an
anſwere to the whole, &amp; not to ſome part of it. Now,
you haue made an anſwer to ſome, how truly it ſhall
appeare: and other things you haue left vnanſwered,
for what cauſe, let the reader iudge. In the end, you
charge me with wit, which is ſmall, with eloquence,
which is none, and with my promiſe, which I will
keepe moſt willinglie, hoping that you will keepe
youres.</p>
               <p>
                  <pb n="3" facs="tcp:178019:14"/>
THeſe hainous accuſations of vntruthes might
haue beene left; ſaving that you would haue the
worlde to thinke that I am a common lyar. To this
end you crie out almoſt in euerie ſect. impudent and
monſtrous lyes. It is in deed, a point of Rhethorike,
but you neuer learned it in Chriſts ſchoole, to build
the credite of your cauſe (if it be euill) on the diſcre<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>dite
of your aduerſarie. But they which are acquain<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ted
with my life, I hope wil juſtifie me of this crime:
and they that know mee not, neede no better argu<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ment
of my innocencie, then your accuſations, and
the ſmall occaſions, that you take againſt mee. For,
if the report that came to my friend, was not true; I
hope it was no great fault of mine: nor greater fault
in you, to haue certified <hi>M. Chalfont</hi> of your purpoſe,
then to haue performed it. If I woulde ſit downe to
<hi>audite,</hi> and take counters in hand to lay your ſlippes,
but halfe ſo diligentlie; as you are buſie vpon euery
corner of occaſions, to pul my wordes into ſuſpition
of vntruthes: I coulde note in this praeface foure
ſcapes, not miſtaken vpon vntrue reportes (as you
charge mee) but miſreported by your ſelf, that wold
ſcarſe abide a juſt tryall of honeſt dealing. Firſt, that
hearing ouer night of that controverſie ſo much in
mens mouthes; you knewe not <hi>M. Chalfonts</hi> part till
the morning, you preached there; may be true, but is
not verie likelie. Secondlie, that you ment not to de<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>fend
<hi>M. Chalfonts</hi> opinion, will hardlie be beleeued,
except you can perſwade the audie<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>ce, that you ment
one thing, and did an other. Thirdlie, that you gaue
vp your ſermon to <hi>M. Wiſedome</hi> in wriring. <hi>M. Wiſe<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>dome</hi>
can tel that it is not true. Hee had nothing of
you, but a few ſcribled &amp; diſordered notes. The laſt is
cunninger, that I anſwered not the whole, but ſome
part of your ſermon. That which eſcaped without
anſwere, was ſo ſmall a part, that the reſt might well
<pb n="4" facs="tcp:178019:15"/>
haue bene called the whole, if you had not bene diſ<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>poſed
to abuſe the ſimplicitie of your reader. That
the matter then in controverſie was ſtaied before in
Sarum by the Biſhop, was true: but in ſuch ſort, that
if you had not bene more buſie, then your commiſsi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>on:
it might haue ſtand more with your credite, to
haue let <hi>Chippenham</hi> alone. For you were there injoi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ned
by the Biſh. &amp; two Iuſtices of the peace, to con<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>feſſe
that <hi>M. Connam</hi> his opinion (who was then your
adverſary) was <hi>pia &amp; vera ſente<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>tia.</hi> Whether you came
to make peace amongſt your brethren,<note place="margin">A true and godly opini<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>on.</note> and not to
warre againſt <hi>M. Wiſedome,</hi> I referre it to the audi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ence:
peace-makers vſe not to take parts. Your peace
did ſo little pleaſe <hi>M. Wiſdome</hi> (for as much as you
honor him) that beeing denied the pulpit at <hi>Chippen<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ham,</hi>
by <hi>Chalfont,</hi> contrarie to the order, he was dri<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>uen
to take Coſham church, not far diſtant, to defend
the truth againſt you, and your mate; which thing he
performed with great meekeneſſe and humilitie af<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ter
his maner, to the comforte of all that heard him,
&amp; the aedifying of them, that were deſirous to know
the trueth. Theſe things, if I were diſpoſed to go to
Tennis with you, would ſound more lie like, then all
the lies, you haue flung at me. But you are a Doctor,
and that were vn-manerlie. Yet (ſaving your wor<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ſhip)
you keepe not ſo good a watche through this
worke, as it becums ſuch a lie-catcher. Wherefore to
conclude: where you ſay, that I accuſe you of wit, &amp;
eloquence: onelie denie the action, and I will let fall
my ſu<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap>e. But as for your promiſe, I will neuer let goe
my holde, becauſe I hope you will proue a man of
your word.</p>
            </div>
         </div>
         <div n="2" type="section">
            <head>HVME his 2. Sect.</head>
            <p>Nowe to come to the matter, I ſee no cauſe why
you ſhould thinke better of <hi>Augnſtine</hi> and <hi>Ie<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>rome,</hi>
               <pb n="5" facs="tcp:178019:15"/>
then of <hi>Caluin</hi> and <hi>Beza,</hi> for they were all but
men, and they which now are olde, were ſometimes
new. They had no better warrant of Gods ſpirit then
theſe: and errors in thoſe dayes were ſo thicke ſowen,
that there grewe darnell in the beſt fieldes, euen of
them whome now we moſt admire. I ſpeake not this
to deſcredit the Fathers, but to proue that they were
no Gods. They were no dout, his good inſtruments,
to maintaine his truth againſt his enemies, but they
wer but me<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>: you can not denie, but the beſt of them
had his ſteynes. This no doubt, was the forepurpo<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ſed
worke of gods infinite wiſdom, that ſeeing theſe
infirmities, our fond age might not ſet their writings
in the place of his eternall word, wherof one iote ſhal
not paſſe, though heauen and earth periſh.</p>
            <div type="reply">
               <head>HILL his reply.<note place="margin">The Paralo<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>giſmes in the D. reply.</note>
               </head>
               <p>
                  <note n="1" place="margin">My argu<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>me<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>ts betwiſe two, if you re<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>kon right.</note> TWo argumentes you make<note n="2" place="margin">But not one againſt Aug. nor Ierome.</note> againſt
<hi>Auguſtine</hi> and <hi>Ierome.</hi> The one is, they
had errors,<note n="3" place="margin">Theſe co<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>
                     <g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>cluſions you neuer founde in my papers.</note> and therfore their interpretation not to
be admitted. The other is, the time wherein they li<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ued
was corrupt, and for<note n="4" place="margin">Theſe co<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>
                     <g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>cluſions you neuer founde in my papers.</note> that cauſe they are not to
be alledged in a controuerſy of Diuinitie. The ſame
<note n="5" place="margin">make what you will, my argument is not againſt new nor olde.</note> argument, I make againſt all new writers.<note n="6" place="margin">This argu<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ment is not lyke mine.</note> All
new writers haue errors, and they liue in a moſt cor<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>rupt
time, wherein (as Chriſt ſaith) <hi>ſhall bee many
fals prophets, &amp; many fals Chriſts, to deceiue the ve<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ry
elect if it were poſible, Math.</hi> 24. 24.<note n="7" place="margin">This conclu<g ref="char:EOLunhyphen"/>ſion wil no<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                        <desc>•</desc>
                     </gap> foll<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                        <desc>•</desc>
                     </gap>w in my forme.</note> Therfore,
becauſe men are vaine, &amp; the time corrupt, wee muſt
beleue no man.<note n="8" place="margin">The fallacie of your argument is not <hi>ab accidente,</hi> but <hi>à non cauſa pro cauſa.</hi>
                  </note> You argue <hi>ab accidente ad ſubiectu<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>
                  </hi>
                  <note n="9" place="margin">This is wrong collected the reaſon is not from error to Auguſtine &amp; Ierome.</note> For <hi>Auguſtine</hi> &amp; <hi>Ierome</hi> to erre, it is an accident,
<note n="10" place="margin">To be a Father, is an accident it<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                        <desc>•</desc>
                     </gap>ſelf, and hath no ſubſtance</note> but the ſubſtance of all Fathers is,<note n="11" place="margin">This is not the ſubſtance, but the proper fact of Fathers</note> to
beget men in the word of truth, 1. <hi>Cor.</hi> 4. 15. And for
<pb n="6" facs="tcp:178019:16"/>
this cauſe, <hi>Auguſtine</hi> himſelfe willeth vs not to be<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>leeue
him, vnleſſe hee bring the word of God. Truly
(ſayth <hi>Auguſtine</hi>)<note n="12" place="margin">That is it that I woulde haue.</note> I do deſire not onlie a godlie
reader, but a free corrector in all my writings, eſpeci<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ally,
in thoſe things where there is great doubt:<note n="13" place="margin">thes places would help mee well if need re<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>quyred. If my cauſe had wa<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>
                     <g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ted proofe, I would haue beſtowed a ſee on you.</note>
but as I will not haue him to be giuen vnto mee, ſo, I
will not haue him to be giuen to himſelf: let him not
loue mee more then the Catholike faith. As I ſay to
him, beleue not my ſayings as Canonical ſcriptures,
but beleue ſtedfaſtly, whe<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g> thou haſt found that which
thou beleuedſt not, but beleue not firmly, that which
thou haſt not ſeene out of Gods worde. So I ſay to
him, do not correct my writings by thine owne opi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>nion,
or of contention, but by the word of God, &amp; by
the reaſon therof vncontrouleable.<note n="14" place="margin">thes places would help mee well if need re<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>quyred. If my cauſe had wa<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>
                     <g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ted proofe, I would haue beſtowed a ſee on you.</note> And againſt
<hi>Creſconius</hi> the Grammarian hee thus writeth, <hi>lib.</hi> 2.
<hi>cap.</hi> 32. I am not moued with the authority of this E<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>piſtle.
but I conſider the<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g> out of the Canonical books,
and if they agree with the worde of God, I receiue
them with prayſe, if they diſagre, I refuſe them with
peace. The like he hath <hi>Epiſt.</hi> 3. &amp; <hi>Epiſt.</hi> 112.<note n="15" place="margin">thes places would help mee well if need re<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>quyred. If my cauſe had wa<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>
                     <g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ted proofe, I would haue beſtowed a ſee on you.</note> And
<hi>Ierome <hi>ad Theoph.</hi>
                  </hi> is of the ſame iudgment. I know
that I eſteeme otherwiſe the Apoſtles, and otherwiſe
other interpreters: theſe men ſpeak truth alwayes,
theſe men in ſome things do erre ſomtime.<note n="16" place="margin">Then this makes for me, that they wer<g ref="char:punc">▪</g> but men.</note> Theſe
Fathers themſelues, confes themſelues to be but me<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>,
&amp; wil vs to beleeue the<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g> no farther the<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g> they agree with
Gods word.<note n="17" place="margin">I ſee no re<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ſon in that.</note> Therfore, they building vpo<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g> Chriſt,
aſwell as your newe, ought to be beleeued rather in
this point then they:<note n="18" place="margin">In theſe three places you beg the que<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ſtion.</note> For what they wrote in this
controuerſy, the ſame did all other godly Interpre<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ters
both Greek and Latin, hauing a good warrant
from Gods word.<note n="19" place="margin">In theſe three places you beg the que<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ſtion.</note> But thoſe of your ſide, write
contrary to Gods word, to the auncient Fathers, yea
and contrarie to the new Fathers, namly, <hi>Luther, Sel<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ueccer,
Chytraeus, Pomeran, Aepinus, Lucas, Loſſius,
<pb n="7" facs="tcp:178019:16"/>
Aleſius, Aretius, Peter Martyr, M. Fox,</hi> and <hi>M. Nowel.</hi>
                  <note n="20" place="margin">In theſe three places you beg the que<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ſtion.</note> Therefore, becauſe <hi>Auguſtine</hi> and <hi>Ierome</hi> agree
both with the old and new writers, &amp; eſpecially, with
the worde of God, I like better of them; teaching the
affirmatiue, then of any other<note n="21" place="margin">We holde the affirma<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tiue, that hee deſcended in to hell, as well as you.</note> labouring to proue
the negatiue. To end<note n="22" place="margin">This ende is impertinét to this bodie. If it were not to ſhew the reader, how finely you can diſtinguiſh the voice of the Fathers. But ſe<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ing in their voice, is ſo much droſſe: bring me I pray you, no voice but Gods, wherin is nothing but pure mettall.</note> therefore, you muſt note
this, that all ſayings of the Fathers, either they are
demonſtratiue out of the ſcriptures, &amp; then they are
the voyce of God: or elſe probable, and theſe are the
voyce of man, or elſe falſe, and then they are the voice
of the Serpent.</p>
            </div>
            <div type="rejoinder">
               <head>HVME his reioynder to the 2. ſect.</head>
               <p>YOu make my arg<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap>ments as pleaſeth you. If wee
had no better then you would affoorde vs, wee
were vnworthie of credite, and worthie of your re<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>proches.
Firſt, you alter the concluſion. I neuer
thoght, ſaid, or wrote, that their interpretations are
not to bee admitted, nor their ſayings alledged in a
controverſie of Divinity. Neither write I againſt the<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>,
except it be a diſcredite to them, that other men bee
thought off, aſwell as they. My concluſion was, that
their names broght no more credite to your cauſe,
then <hi>Calvine</hi> &amp; <hi>Beza</hi> did bring ours. My arguments
were twiſe ſo manie, as you make them. 1. That they
were all but men. 2. That they who now are old, were
ſometimes new. 3. That they had no better warrant
of Gods Spirit. 4. That errors grew as thicke in their
times as in ours. Seeing then all men are fraile, and
old errours are as bad as newe, and newe truthes as
good as olde: ſeeing the ſpirit of truth was then no
ſtronger, nor the ſpirit of error weaker: all things in
this compariſon you ſee are aequall, and my argume<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>t
<pb n="8" facs="tcp:178019:17"/>
holdes for anie thing that you haue ſaid. You take
the bit in your teeth, and runne out of the way with
an argument <hi>ab accidente.</hi> Therefore, fare-you-well;
that is not my way. You cite <hi>Auguſtine</hi> and <hi>Ierome</hi>
onelie, to make vp nomber. Their confeſsion of their
owne frailtie, is againſt you. If my arguments had
not beene ſo true before, that no witneſſes can make
them truer, this would haue helpt mee well. Men
may ſee, that you haue either a meruelous ill cauſe,
or great ſtoare of ſmall judgement, that can take
ſo much paines to bring witnes into the courte, to
condemne your ſelfe. And heere nowe, ſeeing your
owne men do counſell mee to truſt no man without
the worde: I conjure you to trouble mee no more
with your great muſters, of <hi>Luther, Selneccer, Chytreus,
Pomeranus,</hi> &amp;c. If I would run that courſe, we ſhould
ſet al the learned of the world together by the eares,
You will beare mee down (I confeſſe) with nomber.
For all the Monkes, Friars, Ieſuites, Abbotts, Bi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ſhops,
Cardinals and Popes, woulde ſwaie to your
ſide. If I were not ſure of God and his truth, I would
neuer draw ſword, nor giue ſtroake in the cauſe.</p>
            </div>
         </div>
         <div n="3" type="section">
            <head>HVME ſect. 3.</head>
            <p>THeir weaknes is no where more apparant, then
in this mater that we haue now in hand:<note place="margin">Ier. 4. Epheſ.</note> for <hi>
                  <gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap>e<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>rom</hi>
ioineth his opinio<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g> herein, with a palpable error,
that Chriſt deſcended to deliuer the Fathers, which
to that day had bin in priſon. <hi>Auguſtine</hi> is not far be<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>hinde
him,<note place="margin">Auguſt ad Clodium.</note> who though hee confeſſeth that the Fa<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>thers
were in ioy with <hi>Abraham</hi> &amp; <hi>Lazarus,</hi> yet after
ſome long diſputation, whether he did deliver all or
ſome, &amp; why theſe more then thoſe; at length he con<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>cludeth,
that hee did deliuer whome hee him ſelfe
thought good. For, after that they had once concea<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ved
<pb n="9" facs="tcp:178019:17"/>
that his ſoule deſcended into a locall hell. There
followed (which could not chooſe) many inconue<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>niences.
There was non of them dreamed that which
you avouch, that hee deſcended into hell, there to
triumph or bind the divels, or to augment their ſor<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>rows;
by ſhewing them from what grace they had fal<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>len.</p>
            <div type="reply">
               <head>HILL his reply.</head>
               <p>You write,<note place="margin">The paralogiſ<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>mes of this ſect</note> that <hi>Ierome</hi> and <hi>Auguſtine</hi> did hold a
palpable error, that is, that Chriſt deſcended to deli<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>uer
the Fathers. I hope you will not deny,<note n="23" place="margin">But I will denie, and ſo will you, that he we<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>t to hell to deliuer the<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>
                  </note> but
the fathers haue their deliuerance by Chriſt from hell
<note n="24" place="margin">This is nor the queſtion.</note> Therfore by the merits and works of Chriſt, who
I am ſure conquered both deth and hell. There<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>fore
where you proue that <hi>Auguſtine</hi> and <hi>Ierome</hi> do
erre, I will leaue them as I ſaide before, but where
in they ſpake the truth, I will prayſe God for them.
<note n="25" place="margin">
                     <gap reason="foreign">
                        <desc>〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉</desc>
                     </gap>. This is ſhufled on heere, as Tailers vſed haire in olde time to ſtuffe hoſes.</note> But let vs ſee howe many wayes the ſcripture
may be corrupted, that is, by adding, altering, &amp; di<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>miniſhing.
<hi>Eue</hi> in the third Chap. of <hi>Geneſis</hi> taught
all her children ſo to doe: for in the 3. verſe thus ſhee
ſaith, <hi>But of the fruit of the tree, which is in the midſt
of the garden, God hath ſaid, ye ſhal not eat of it, nei<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ther
ſhall ye touch it, leaſt ye dye.</hi> Firſt ſhe changeth
the word of God, for God fayth. <hi>Gen. 2. 17. of the tre
of knowledge of good and euill, thou ſhalt not eate.</hi>
Thoſe words (of the tree of knowledge of good and
euill) ſhe changeth, &amp; putteth in for them (in the miuſt
of the garden.) Farther God ſaid, they ſhuld not eat
of it, ſhee added (that they might not touch it.) God
ſaid they ſhould ſurely dye, <hi>Eue</hi> ſaid (leaſt wee dye)
heere ſhe diminiſhed the ſcriptures. If then the Fa<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>thers
haue added to the ſcriptures, that the Fathers
were fet out of hell, there I leaue them,<note n="26" place="margin">We may as wel ſay, that you change graue into hel Do not you confeſſe in the next ſect. that the origi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>nall doth ſig<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>nifie the one, as well as the other? is this changing? Fie D. deale ho<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>neſtlie.</note> and if
you change hell in to graue, as you do in the 16. <hi>pſal,</hi>
                  <pb n="10" facs="tcp:178019:18"/>
and <hi>Act.</hi> 2. I wil leaue you alſo:<note n="b" place="margin">hold there M. D. reme<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>ber that hereafter I ſhall finde time to put you in minde of this againe</note> for I ſtand not vpon
mens ſayings, but vpon the word of God.<note n="27" place="margin">You miſ<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>take mee blindlie, read againe.</note> But
where you boldly affirme, that not<note n="28" place="margin">I ſpake on<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>lie of Aug. &amp; Ier. read again</note> one of the Fa<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>thers
haue deemed that<note n="29" place="margin">Though I might ſtand to this, becaus they ſend Chriſt to hell, wherein the Fathers were detained, and you to the place of the damned, yet this is not the thing that I ſaid. I onelie ſaid neither Auguſt. nor Ierome, did ſend Chriſt to hell on your erand, to triumph ther and cut-face thoſe miſera<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ble wretches.</note> which I ſay, you ſhewe
your ſelf, either to bee<note n="30" place="margin">This ma<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>lice and your heare grew both in one grou<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>d.</note> malicious in hiding the
truth, or elſe ſo ignorant, that you haue not read the
Fathers: for diuers, both old &amp; new are of my iudge<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ment.
<note n="31" place="margin">Heer Ambroſe faith not that which I deny.</note> 
                  <hi>Ambroſe</hi> on the fourth Chapter of the
<hi>Epheſians,</hi> thus writeth. Chriſt therefore comming
downe from heauen into the earth, was borne a man,
afterward he died, and deſcended into<note n="32" place="margin">Let hel be heer taken for the condition of death, and this place may haue a favorable conſtruction.</note> Hell, from
whence riſing the third day, he ſhewed death vanqui<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ſhed
to every creature.<note n="33" place="margin">This place of Auguſtine ſaieth it not.</note> 
                  <hi>Auguſtine <hi>de tempore,</hi>
                  </hi> In
his 137. ſermon, and in his thrid ſermon of the re<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ſurrection
thus ſayeth: Hell did reſtore him as a con<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>querour,
and the heauens did receaue him as a tri<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>umpher.
And in his ſecond ſermon, hee ſaieth thus:
Behold, you haue hard what our defender, the God
of vengeance is ſaide to haue done freely. For after
he was exalted, that is, was hanged of the <hi>Iewes</hi> on
the croſſe, that I may touche theſe thinges brieflie,
aſſoone as hee had giuen vp the ghoſt, the ſoule vni<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ted
to the Diuinitie, deſcended into the bottom of hel:
and when he had touched the band of darkeneſſe, as
a fearefull &amp; glorious ſpoyler, the wicked &amp; helliſh Le<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>gions
were affrayde, &amp; trembling, began to enquire,
ſaying, Who is this dreadful &amp; glorious man? <hi>Euſe<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>bius</hi>
writing of the reſurrection of our ſauiour, hath
the like: We muſt know, that in the ſelfe ſame houre
wherein our Sauiour bowing his head gaue vp the
ghoſt, his body being left in the graue, his foul with
the Diuinitie went downe to triumph ouer Hell.<note n="34" place="margin">This place of Fulgentius ſaith it not.</note>
                  <hi>Fulgentius</hi> writing to King <hi>Thtaſymund,</hi> in his third
<pb n="11" facs="tcp:178019:18"/>
booke and eight Chapter, not dreaming, but wel ad<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>uiſed,
thus writeth: The true humanitie of the ſonne
of God, neyther was wholye in the graue, nor wholie
in hell, but in the Sepulcher, hee lay dead, according
to his true fleſhe, but in his Soule deſcended into
Hell. In his ſoule hee returned to the fleſh which lay
in the Sepulcher, but in reſpect of the Diuinitie,
which neither is holden in place, nor limited by bond,
he was wholy in the graue with his fleſh, and wholy
with his Soule in Hel, and by this meanes was fully
enery where Chriſt, becauſe God was not ſeperated
from the humanitie which he had aſſumpted, which
was both with his Soule in Hell; that from Hel, his
Soule might returne a Conquereſſe, and was with
his fleſhe, that by reaſon of his ſpeedie reſurrection,
it might not be corrupted. I haue heere alleaged the
old, which diſproue your aſſertion, for all theſe accord
with mee. Now, to theſe will I adde alſo the iudge<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ments
of ſome new Writers.<note n="35" place="margin">If you haue no more in Mollerus for you then this he is neither for your hell, nor your tri<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>umph.</note> 
                  <hi>Mollerus</hi> a very
learned Miniſter of <hi>Germany</hi> on the 16. Pſalme thus
teacheth: Chriſt would ſhew his victorie in a certain
ſort ouer the Diuells, to ſtrike perpetuall terrors in
to them, and to take away from vs the feare of their
tyra<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>nie. To this agreeth <hi>Muſculus</hi> on the ſixtie and
eight Pſalme. This GOD, which was in Chriſt, re<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>conciling
the world to himſelfe, firſt deſcended into
the<note n="36" place="margin">Before you hewe this block to fit your hand, you muſt firſt perſwade vs, that the low<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ermoſt partes of the earth, can be no<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>thing els but hell.</note> loweſt partes of the earth, then heeled cap<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tiuitie
captiue; and not onely wee are deliuered from
the captiuitie of Satan, ſinne, and damnation, but al
ſo triumphing ouer them as Tyrants, he hath aſcen<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ded
aboue all heauens, to fulfill all things. The ſame
learned Fathers, interpreting the ſecond Chapter of
the <hi>Coloſsians,</hi> thus hath: There are ſome that bee
perſwaded it is an abſurditie, if it be ſayd, that Chriſt
did triumph ouer the principalities and powers, but
if all cheſe things be attributed to God the Father,
<pb n="12" facs="tcp:178019:19"/>
that he did them with Chriſt, and in Chriſt, wee may
truly reade heere, triumphing ouer them<note n="37" place="margin">What will you gaine, &amp; that begra<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>ted</note> in his
owne perſon. In like ſort, doth <hi>Hemingius</hi> expound
this place in the ſecond Chapter of the <hi>Coloſsians:</hi>
As by his death he conflicted with the Diuell on the
Croſſe, ſo by his glorious deſcending into Hell, Re<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ſurrection,
and Aſcenſion, he triumphed, as it is <hi>Eph.</hi>
4. leauing his Croſſe lift vp as a monument of his
victorie. So doth <hi>M. Fox</hi>
                  <note n="38" place="margin">M. Foxe hath nothing in all that worke to help you: but onlie the ſame picture in the begin<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ning of his book, which your printer hath ſet be<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>fore yours: Therefore you ſhoulde quote the printer, you do M. Foxe wrong.</note> vnderſta<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>d this place, in
a booke which he hath written, entituled, <hi>Chriſtus tri<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>umphans.</hi>
Therefore in this behalfe, you haue tolde a
manifeſt<note n="39" place="margin">You charg me vntruelie with vntruths therefore take ye the pig that bred the pig.</note> vntruth; wherfore, I ſhall thinke you
will ſcarce haue care to ſet forth the truth of God,
when you wil preſumptuouſly vtter ſuch an vntruth,
which may be reproued, by ſo many &amp; honorable wit<g ref="char:EOLunhyphen"/>neſſes.
Farther, here you leaue out at your pleaſure,
two other endes of Chriſt deſce<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>ding into Hel, which
I taught in my Sermon: the one is,<note n="40" place="margin">
                     <gap reason="foreign">
                        <desc>〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉</desc>
                     </gap> the deſcending into Hell, can<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>not manifeſt his death. <hi>Obſcurius non illuſtrat obſcurum.</hi>
                  </note> the manife<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ſtation
of his death, the other is, our<note n="41" place="margin">That he did by his death, not by his deſcending into hell.</note> deliuerance
from Hell. Playne dealing ought to be in this caſe,
and therefore, I exſpect it at your hands.</p>
            </div>
            <div type="rejoinder">
               <head>HVME his reyoinder.</head>
               <p>If I will let you alone, you will neuer afforde mee
a good argument, I ſee, I muſt needes frame them
my ſelf. <hi>Auguſtine</hi> and <hi>Ierome</hi> erring, are not to bee
praeferred to <hi>Calvine</hi> and <hi>Beza</hi> teaching a trueth. But
<hi>Auguſtine</hi> and <hi>Ierome</hi> doe erre in this controverſie:
<hi>Ergo,</hi> in this controuerſie, they are not to be praefer<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>red
to <hi>Calvine</hi> and <hi>Beza.</hi> That <hi>Calvine</hi> and <hi>Beza</hi> doth
teach in this point the truth, you can not denie. You
<pb n="13" facs="tcp:178019:19"/>
will ſay (perhapps) that it is not the true meaning
of the article. That is the queſtion. But I hope you
will not deny, but the thing it ſelf is true. Now <hi>Au<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>guſtine</hi>
and <hi>Ierome,</hi> do erre in the very thing it ſelfe.
Heere you fumble about an excuſe, and would faine
ſay ſomething. But you had better ſay nothing, then
ſo little to the purpoſe. You thinke that no man will
denie, but that the fathers had their deliuerie from
Hell by Chriſt, ſo thinke I too. But what helps that,
theſe mens errour? The one held, that Chriſt went
to Hell to delyuer the Fathers: the other, to deliuer
whome he himſelf thought good. Will your rotten
Verniſh, hyde this blemiſh? You tell me in the next
ſect. that it doeth little or nothing pertaine to this
queſtion. The queſtion is about the deſcending of
Chriſt into hell: and this they make the finall end of
that action. Nowe, if you can proue, that the finall
end hath no pertina<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>ce to the thing deſtinated to it,
though it bee but a queſtion of arte, I will acknow<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ledge
you to bee a better D. then you proued your
ſelf in Oxon. and a better artiſt, then euer I ſuſpe<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>cted
you to bee: though I was reaſonablie well per<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ſwaded
of your skill, before you ſhamed your ſelfe.
And yet I would haue you to marke (if you can ſpare
ſo much time, as to marke anie thing againſt your
ſelfe) that this is a very materiall point in this que<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ſtion.
For this final end, doth ſeparate theſe mens o<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>pinion,
and yours. They ſend Chriſt to hell to deli<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>uer
the Fathers,<note place="margin">Epiſt. ad A<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>glaſiam queſt. 1. tom. 3. Epiſt. It is a wicked thing to ſay, that Chriſt deſcended in<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>to hell, or place of the damned.</note> and you ſend him to the hell of the
damned, where the Fathers neuer were. They are ſo
farre from you, that <hi>Ierome</hi> ſaieth, it is <hi>impium dicere
Chriſtum deſcendiſſe ad inferos, &amp; locum damnatorum.</hi>
You ſpend the moſte of this ſection, to proue mee a
liar: If you could, you might diſcredite mee, but not
the cauſe. But I will crack this nut on yonr owne
<pb n="14" facs="tcp:178019:20"/>
crowne. Frſt, I ſaid not, that none of the Fathers de<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>nied
that which you ſay. I onlie ſaide, that neither
<hi>Auguſtine</hi> nor <hi>Ierome,</hi> did ſend Chriſt to hell to tri<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>umph.
Secondly, if I had ſaid ſo, I had ſaid trulie. For
you ſend Chriſt to the hell of the damned, and that,
none of them euer deemed. Therfore in this behalf,
(to vſe your owne words) you haue tolde a manifeſt
vntruth of mee. You father that on mee, which I ne<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>uer
ſaide: and accuſe mee for ſaying that, which I
might well avouche. And heere I muſt put you in
minde, that if you will joyne with all, or the moſt of
them that you call forth, to take your parte in this
quarrell: you muſt hyre workemen to repaire the ru<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>inous
walles of <hi>Limbus patrum,</hi> that you haue ſhaken
ſo ſore, and ſhiuered your ſelf heer-to-fore; with the
mightie ſhot of Gods aeternall word.</p>
            </div>
         </div>
         <div n="4" type="section">
            <head>HVME ſect. 4.</head>
            <p>VVHo ſo will ſee howe vncertaine <hi>Auguſtine</hi>
was in this point, let him reade his 99. E<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>piſtle
to <hi>Evodius.</hi> There ſhal he finde manie doubtes,
and almoſt nothing affirmed for certaintie: but on<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>lie,
that hee doubted not that Chriſt went to hell:
building on the words of Dauid, cited by <hi>Peter.</hi> Act.
2. <hi>Thou wilt not leaue my ſoule in hell,</hi> &amp;c. Where I can<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>not
chuſe, but muſe, what ſhould moue ſo worthie a
wit, and ſuch followers of him: ſeeing it is apparant
in the ſcripture, that the original word doth ſignify
as well the panges, as the place of hell: to paſſe by
that ſignification, which the whole church of Chriſt
confeſſeth to be true: and fall vpon that, which ha<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>uing
ſo weake proof, had ſo great ſtraites, as <hi>Augu<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ſtines</hi>
deepe wit could not vnfolde. Who ſo will ſee
the name of hell vſed in the Scriptures, for the ſor<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>rowes
of Hell, let him reade that of 1. <hi>Samuel,</hi> 2. 6.
<pb n="15" facs="tcp:178019:20"/>
               <hi>The Lord killeth and maketh aliue, he caſteth downe to hell
and bringeth vp againe:</hi> or that of Dauid, Pſal. 30. 3.
<hi>Thou haſt brought my ſoule out of Hell.</hi> Or that of Ionas,
2. 2. <hi>I haue called to thee out of the bottom of Hell.</hi> And
manie ſuch like places, where that word cannot ſig<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>nifie
the pit of Hell, whence there is no redemption:
but the helliſh ſorrowes, which thoſe Saints of God
did ſuffer in this life. Now ſeing this is ſo, I wold fain
knowe of you good M. <hi>Hill,</hi> why wee may not more
ſafelie, take the name of Hel in that ſenſe, which you
cannot denie, then you in that, which the better
part of Chriſtians take to bee falſe. For that Chriſt
deſcended into the pit of the damned, the beſt proof
it hath is builded on a word of double ſignification,
which ſtandeth at the courteſie of the reader, to take
it, as to him ſhall ſeeme moſt probable.</p>
            <div type="reply">
               <head>HILL his reply.</head>
               <p>Heere you confeſſe that <hi>Auguſtine</hi> doubteth,<note place="margin">The Paralo<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>giſmes in the D. reply.</note> and
yet<note n="42" place="margin">I ſay that your tale and his ar not one He meaneth a place where the Fathers wer detained till Chriſtes comming. You meane the place of the damned, where the fa<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>thers neuer were.</note> you ſay, that in the mater in controuerſie
between you and mee, he doubteth not: but proueth
it by the Apoſtolicall and Propheticall teſtimonies:
<note n="43" place="margin">His owne not yours.</note> For he willeth vs to hold it <hi>firmiſſima fide,</hi> with a
moſt firme faith, &amp; ſaith that none but an Infidel wil
deny it. He doubteth whether the fathers were in
Hell, or whether they were conuerted in hell by
Chriſts preaching, as ſome did affirme vntrulie, and
manie ſuch like things, little or<note n="44" place="margin">Doth the final end per<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>taine nothing, to that which worketh for it? this is new logick.</note> nothing apper<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>taining
to the queſtion wee haue in hand.<note n="45" place="margin">Doubteth he not, but that the Fathers were in hel.</note> but <hi>ad
Dardanum</hi> he doubteth not. <hi>Fol. 3. col. 272. Fol.</hi> 10.
<hi>col. 14. 10. Fol. 3. col. 213. &amp; 702. Fol. 788. Fol.</hi> 10.
899. 989. In all theſe places and in manie other, he
telleth without doubting,<note n="46" place="margin">No more doth he in the place cited by me.</note> that he deſcended in<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>to
<pb n="16" facs="tcp:178019:21"/>
Hell, and the end why. To ſtrilie a terror into the
Diuels, and to triumph ouer them.<note n="47" place="margin">You dream of mirth: whe<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g> ſaw ye me laugh at that ſport.</note> It pleaſes
you, to make your ſelf merry with S. <hi>Auguſtines</hi> in<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>firmity,
I pray God you will with Sainte <hi>Auguſtine</hi>
acknowledge your owne,<note n="48" place="margin">When you haue laid that before mee: You ſhall ſee how honeſtly I wil demaine my ſelf.</note> which by and by ſhall
be laide before you. You wonder at S. <hi>Auguſtine,</hi>
but we wonder at your<note n="a" place="margin">In your written copy, it is M. Caluin and mee: why you haue tur<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ned it, I remit to the reader.</note> teachers and you: for you
confeſſe S. <hi>Auguſtiue</hi> to<note n="49" place="margin">As he that builded a wal of ſand, on a ſure rocke.</note> build vpon <hi>Dauid</hi> and
<hi>Peter,</hi> &amp; yet you labour to ouerthrow this building,
how deceatfullie, it ſhall now appeare. You ſay, that
Hel ſignifieth the ſorrowes of Hel, ſometime I grant
it doth. Heerevpon you make this argument:<note n="50" place="margin">This was not my argu<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ment.</note>
Sometime it ſignifieth the ſorrowes of Hell, there<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>fore
it doth ſo in the 16. Pſalme.<note n="51" place="margin">I cannot blame you.</note> I denie your
argument, and that you haue ſpoken an vntruth, the
holie Ghoſt by <hi>Peters</hi> mouth, ſhalbe a witnes againſt
you.<note n="52" place="margin">Peter and I ſpeak not of one thing, ſe the anſwere.</note> For you ſay, it is ſpoken of the ſorrowes
which Chriſt ſuffered vpon the Croſſe, <hi>Peter</hi> ſaith,
<note n="53" place="margin">Peterſaith not, that the hel wherein he was is ſpoken of the reſur<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>rection.</note> it is ſpoken of the reſurrection: and in the reſur<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>rection,
I am ſure Chriſt ſuffered no torments or ſor<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>rowes.
<hi>Peters</hi> interpretation is thus. <hi>Act. 2. 32. Hee
knowing this before, ſpake of the reſurrection of
Chriſt, that his ſoule</hi>
                  <note n="54" place="margin">That his ſoule was not left in hell (ſayeth Peter) is ſpoken of his reſurrection.</note> 
                  <hi>ſhould not be left in Hell,
neither his fleſh to ſee corruption.</hi>
                  <note n="55" place="margin">Fooliſhe D. howe oft muſt I tell you: that his being in hell, is not ſpoken of his reſurrection.</note> Nowe then,
heere is an anſwer to your demaund: theſe wordes
are ſpoken of the reſurrection, a matter of ioy and
not of torments, for <hi>Dauid</hi> ſaith in the perſone of
Chriſt, <hi>Therefore did my hart reioyce, and my tong
was glad: &amp; moreouer alſo, my fleſh ſhal reſt in hope.</hi>
It Chriſt<note n="56" place="margin">He was glad of his reſurrection, not of his diſcending into hell.</note> at this time did reioyce, how was he
ſorrowfull? if we were glad, how was he torme<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>ted? if
he did reſt in hope, how was it true alſo that he was
afflicted with torments? &amp; heere you vtter another
<pb n="17" facs="tcp:178019:21"/>
vntruth, that Chriſt did ſuffer his<note n="57" place="margin">Read a<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>gaine, I ſaide not ſo. I ſaide that he ſuffe<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>red the whole torments of hell on the croſſe. Of all his tormentes I ſpake not.</note> whole tor<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ments
on the Croſſe, which is<note n="58" place="margin">It is inded as you tak the name of the croſſe, and you made it.</note> moſt vntrue: for
he ſuffered<note n="59" place="margin">You fight with your owne ſhadow.</note> ſome in the Garden, when he ſayde,
<hi>Math. 26. 38. My ſoule is heauye vnto death.</hi> And
ſome in <hi>Caiphas</hi> houſe, and ſome vnder <hi>Pilat:</hi> but all
his torments and ſorrowes were ended on the Croſſe
<note n="60" place="margin">I ſaid what I ſaid, and not what you thought.</note> which I think, you would haue ſaid. Laſt of al,
the words of the text that commeth after, aſwell as
the woords going before do proue, that it cannot be
ſpoken of Chriſts ſorrowes, for they are theſe. <hi>Thou
ſhalt ſhew mee the path of life, in thy preſence is the
fulnes of ioy, and at thy right hand are pleaſures for
euermore.</hi> Sith then <hi>Dauid</hi> both before &amp; after ma<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>keth
mention of ioy and pleaſures for euermore, and
as <hi>Peter</hi> ſaith, theſe words proue the reſurrection of
Chriſt:<note n="61" place="margin">Now lay on lode<g ref="char:punc">▪</g> you haue got the victorie.</note> I maruaile how you dare to contradict
the meaning of the holy ghoſte. You ſpeake not now
contrary to <hi>Auguſtine,</hi> or <hi>Ambroſe,</hi> or <hi>Hill,</hi> but con<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>trary
to <hi>Dauid</hi> and <hi>Peter</hi> themſelues: you<note n="62" place="margin">Or els you do faine, look on my latine D. and bluſh for ſhame.</note> boaſt
your ſelues to be the beſt Chriſtians, but I can hard<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ly
beeleue you are better Chriſtians then<note n="63" place="margin">was dauid a Chriſtian?</note> 
                  <hi>Dauid</hi>
and <hi>Peter.</hi> In the concluſion you vtter<note n="64" place="margin">Can you ſay no worſe.</note> blaſphe<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>my,
for <hi>SHEOL</hi> being taken ſomtime for the ſorrows
of hell, and ſometime for the place of hell; you ſay it
ſtandeth at the curteſie of the reader, to take it as to
him ſhall ſeeme probable. Are Gods woords to bee
interpreted after our<note n="65" place="margin">Said I ſo? Is it all one to take a text, as it ſeemeth moſt proba<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ble, and to tak it after our pleaſure. when will you deale plainelie.</note> pleaſure?<note n="66" place="margin">This place might haue bene ſpared, for anie thing that I haue ſaide.</note> 
                  <hi>Hillary</hi> was
of a better minde: he ſaide, as God was the author of
the Scriptures, ſo God muſt be the<note n="67" place="margin">I am of the ſame minde. Heerein Hillaries minde is no better then mine.</note> interpreter:
he opened the wits of the Deſciples going to <hi>Emaus,</hi>
ſo let vs pray, that he may open our wittes that wee
may perfectlye vnderſtand the Scriptures.</p>
            </div>
            <div type="rejoinder">
               <pb n="18" facs="tcp:178019:22"/>
               <head>HVME his reioynder to the 4. ſect.</head>
               <p>I ſaid and ſay againe, that <hi>Auguſtines</hi> ſaying in
ſome ſort, that which you ſay, did runne into ſo ma<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>nie
doubtes, that he could not tell what to ſay. But
that he doubted not in the matter between you and
me, you take it before it is granted. For if I take him
right (and it will paſſe your skill to proue that I take
him wrong) he and you, are two. For <hi>Auguſtine</hi> hol<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>deth
that hee went to a Hell, whence hee was to re<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>deeme
ſome: and you hold that he went to the Hell
of the damned, whence he was to redeeme none. If
this his opinion, be to be hold <hi>firmiſsima fide:</hi> or that
none but infidels will doubt of it: <hi>Adame Hill,</hi> will
either proue another man, then men do thinke him,
or as very an in<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="3 letters">
                     <desc>•••</desc>
                  </gap>ell, as they that denie it. Whether
the things that he doubteth of, doth pertain to this
queſtion, I haue ſhewed in the former ſection. You
wonder, ſeing <hi>Auguſtine</hi> doeth builde on <hi>Dauid</hi> and
<hi>Peter:</hi> that my Maiſters (that is <hi>Calvine</hi> and <hi>Beza</hi> in
your written copie) and I doe labour to ouerthrow
that building: The Papiſtes do build their reall pre<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ſence
vpon Chriſts words, <hi>This is my bodie:</hi> And muſt
all men wonder, that hath heard the Vicar of <hi>Weſt<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>burie,</hi>
confute it? Men may ſet ſtraw and ſtubble on
a good foundation, which by fire may be conſumed,
and the rock not the worſe, that it ſtood vpon. After
theſe velitations, you come to the matter, and grant
mee that which I craue, and you cannot denie: that
the name of Hell is vſed in the ſcriptures for the
paines and pangs of Hell. Whereupon you forme
my argument, without forme, and denie it when you
haue done. I will neuer blame your wit, for denying
your owne arguments. But denie this argument, &amp;
I will ſay, that no wall of reaſon is able to ſtand a<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>gainſt
<pb n="19" facs="tcp:178019:22"/>
the violence of your negatiues. If the name of
SHEOL, (that is Hel) doth ſignifie in the ſcriptures, as
well the pangs, as the place of Hell: the words of the
16. Pſalme yeeldeth you no better warrant, for ap<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>plying
the one to Chriſt, then vs for applying the o<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ther.
But you grant that SHEOL doth ſignifie in the
Scripture, as wel the pangs, as the place of hell. <hi>Ergo</hi>
that place is as pregnant &amp; ſtrong for vs as for you.
Hold faſt, ſet to your ſhoulder M. Doctor. Your cart
will walter, if that ſpoake breake. Now heere behol<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ding
the <hi>maior,</hi> and the <hi>minor,</hi> two braſen &amp; vnbreak<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>able
walles: you ſet all your teeth on the poore con<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>cluſion
to pull it from them. To take this place of
this Pſalme quite from vs, you alledge the holie
Ghoſt, and Peter: two ſufficient witneſſes: becauſe
they referre this place to the reſurrection, and we to
the paſsion. Allace (good Doctor) <hi>vbiacumen tuum?</hi>
Doe not you ſee man that though the negatiue, <hi>Thou
wilt not leaue my ſoule in hell,</hi> pertaineth to the reſur<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>rection?
yet the affirmatiue, that his ſoule was in
hell, may pertaine to his paſsion? <hi>Peter</hi> alledgeth the
negatiue in the Pſal. to proue his reſurrection: and
our queſtion is not whether hee roſe againe, or not?
but whether the thing wherein he was, is to bee ta<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ken
for the place, or the panges of hell. And heere I
muſte needes confeſſe, that this conſideration hath
driuen mee quite from <hi>Calvine,</hi> whome in this place
I firſt followed. As for the place of the beleefe, I am
perſwaded, that his ſenſe is moſte agreable: beeing
godlie, conſonant to the Scriptures, neceſſarie for
the perfection of the creede, not repugnant to the
circumſtances thereof, and moſte comfortable to a
Chriſtian conſcience. But in this place of this Pſal<g ref="char:punc">▪</g>
now I ſee that <hi>Olevians</hi> opinion is truer, more conſo<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>nant
to the reſt of the text, and more plaine, againſt
your drouſie dreame. Wherfore, now I am perſwa<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ded,
<pb n="20" facs="tcp:178019:23"/>
that SHEOL is heer ſet for the ſtate of the dead,
and my ſoule for mee, as it is Pſal. 3. 2. <hi>Manie ſay to
my ſoule,</hi> that is, to mee. And Pſal. 7. 2. <hi>Leaſt hee
devoure my ſonle lyke a Lyon,</hi> that is mee. And Pſal.
6. 3. <hi>My ſoule is ſore troubled,</hi> that is, I am ſore
troubled. So the ſenſe muſt bee, <hi>Thou wilt not leaue
my ſoule in Hell:</hi> that is, mee amongeſt the deade.
That this muſt needes bee the true ſenſe heereof,
I haue two reaſons. Firſt, that this was the SHEOL
wherein Chriſtes ſoule was not left, whence hee
roſe againe, as may appeare by this allegation of
<hi>Peter.</hi> But hee roſe again from the graue and con<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>dition
of the deade, not from hell, and condition
of the damned. <hi>Ergo</hi> the SHEOL wherein Chriſts
ſoule was not left, is the condition of the dead, and
not the place of the damned. The anſwere here, that
he roſe in ſoule, and body: the one from hell, and the
other from the graue, will not holde: for the name
of reſurrection, belongeth onelie to the bodie: be<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>cauſe
nothing ryſeth againe, but that which death
laide downe. So hath our beleefe the reſurrection
of the bodie, not the reſurrection of the ſoule.
This was <hi>M. Fieldes</hi> argument, which did choake
you in the act at <hi>Oxonford:</hi> and hang ſo faſt in your
teeth, that hee coulde not get it out of your mouth,
much leſſe an anſwere to it. The other, is builded v<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>pon
the wordes of Peter. Act. 2. 19. <hi>Men and brethren,
I may boldlie speake to you of the patriarch</hi> Dauid, <hi>that hee
is dead and buried, and his ſepulchre is amongeſt vs to this
day.</hi> In which wordes, expounding this place of the
Pſalme: <hi>Thou wilt not leaue my ſoule in hell, nor ſuffer thy
holie one to ſee corruption:</hi> hee laboureth to proue that
<hi>Dauid</hi> ſpake not this of himſelfe, but of the <hi>Meſſias</hi>
that was to come of his loines. His reaſon is, becauſe
Dauid is deade and buried, and his ſepulchre remai<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ned
amongeſt them: as if he had ſaid, becauſe <hi>Dauids</hi>
                  <pb n="21" facs="tcp:178019:23"/>
ſoule was left in Hell, and ſaw corruption. For where
the negatiue is not true, there the affirmatiue muſte
bee true, by the rule of contradiction. Wherevpon
thus I reaſon. <hi>Dauids</hi> ſoule (that is Dauid himſelf as I
haue ſaid before) was left in the SHEOL wherin Chriſts
ſoule ſhould not be left. But Dauids ſoule was left in
the ſtate and condition of death: <hi>Ergo,</hi> it was the ſtate
and condition of death, wherein Chriſtes ſoule was
not left, by this place. The ſame argument may bee
formed negatiuelie: to take away your expoſition of
this place. <hi>Dauids</hi> ſoule was left in the SHEOL wherof
it is ſaid in the Pſalme, <hi>Thou wilt not leaue my ſoule in
Hell, nor ſuffer thy holie one to ſee corruption.</hi> But Dauids
ſoule was not left in the place of the damned: <hi>Ergo,</hi>
it is not the place of the damned, whereof it is ſaid in
the Pſalme, <hi>Thou wilt not leaue my ſoule in hell, nor ſuf<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>fer
thy holie one to ſee corruption.</hi> Wheras ſome alledge
againſt this interpretation, that it doeth violate the
text: taking the ſoule firſt for the whole man, &amp; the
whole againe for the bodie. Let them conſider, that
the condition of the dead, expreſſed heere in the
name of SHEOL, pertaineth not to the body only, but
to the whole man. Neither were it injurie to the
text, if it be ſo taken. For the cup is ſet for wine, and
wine for the blood of Chriſt by Paull himſelf, who v<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ſeth
not to violate wordes. Theſe reaſons therefore
haue led mee from <hi>Calvine,</hi> whome though I reue<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>rence
(as he is well worthie) as much as anie man:
yet I am not ſo maried to him, (howſoeuer M. Doct.
is perſwaded otherwiſe) to follo<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap>e him the bredth
of a haire, beyond truth and reaſon. Hee may bee
deceaued, aſwell as others, though he hath plunged
through manie deepes, that haue devoured manie.
Nowe to returne againe, and to followe vpon your
walke: you charge mee heere (as euerie where) with
an vntruth. To faſten it vpon mee, you turne my
<pb n="22" facs="tcp:178019:24"/>
wordes out of their figured coate, into their bare
skinne. For whereas I ſay, that Chriſt ſuffered the
whole tormentes of hell vpon the croſſe, taking the
droſſe by a <hi>Synecdoche</hi> for the whole paſsion, as he did
before mee, which ſaid, <hi>God forbid, that I delight in any
thing,</hi>
                  <note place="margin">1. Cor. 1. 18. Heb. 12. 2. Epheſ. 2. 16.</note> 
                  <hi>but in the croſſe of Chriſt. The preaching of the croſſe,
is to manie fooliſhnes. Chriſt reconciled vs to God by his
Croſſe.</hi> You tell mee, that it is moſt vntrue: becauſe
he did not ſuffer his whole torments on the wodden
Croſſe, which <hi>Symon</hi> the Cyrenian did beare on his
backe. And to make my wordes more odious, you
do them more injurie. For whereas I ſay, hee ſuffe<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>red
the whole tormentes of Hell on the Croſſe, a
thing defend-able: you charge mee, as ſaying he ſuf<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>fered
all his torments vpon the Croſſe, (meaning the
Croſſe of wood) a thing without ſhewe of truth. In
the ende, to faſten another little faulte on me, (it is
but blaſphemie,) you wring my laſt wordes in the
fame preſſe. For, whereas I ſay, that a word of dou<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ble
ſignification, ſtandeth at the courteſie of the rea<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>der,
to be taken as ſhall ſeeme moſt probable: mea<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ning
that there is nothing in the word it ſelf, to lead
the mynde to one ſignification more then another:
but depends vpon the probable circumſtances, and
drift of the text: you charge mee, as making the
Scriptures like a noſe of waxe, to bee ſet which way
mens fantaſie will bend it: a thing as farre out of my
penne, as out of my heart: and as far out of my heart
as it is out of your heart, to take my words as I ſpeak
them.</p>
            </div>
         </div>
         <div n="5" type="section">
            <head>HVM<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                  <desc>•</desc>
               </gap> his 5. Sect.</head>
            <p>BVt that hee neuer was there, hee is too curious
that will not ſtand content with Chriſtes owne
teſtimonies. <hi>Father, into thy handes I commend my ſpirit.</hi>
And in another place, <hi>This day ſhalt thou bee with mee
<pb n="23" facs="tcp:178019:24"/>
in Paradice.</hi> And heere it is a world to ſee, how men
on your ſide labour to put out this candel. Firſt, you
ſay, that this place, <hi>Father into thy hands I commend my
spirit,</hi> is borrowed of Dauid, and muſt bee taken in
the ſame ſenſe, as Dauid vſed it before. But you muſt
conſider, when we vſe other mens wordes, either we
cite them as teſtimonies, or vſurpe them by imita<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tion.
If we bring them in as witneſſes, wee may not
alter their teſtimonie; but if wee imitate them, wee
may without impeachme<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>t, apply them to what ſenſe
beſt may beſeeme our purpoſe. In this place Chriſt
citeth not Dauids wordes, to teſtifie of his paſsion:
but imitateth Dauid, in commending his ſoule into
the handes of God. Where you ſee, that no neceſsity
inforceth the ſame ſenſe. But, be it ſo, and I thinke
it is ſo, and that it maketh much againſt you. For ſe<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ing
Dauids ſoule comme<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>ded into the hands of God
was neuer in Hell: it will follow, that Chriſtes ſoule
commended to the ſame protector, was lykewiſe
neuer there: except you will aſcribe leſſe vertue to
Chriſts prayers, then to Dauids. But Dauids ſoule,
ſay you, went not ſtreight way into heaven; becauſe
he lived manie yeares after. That he liued anie long
time after, if it were denied, you will hardlie proue
it. But that maketh not to the queſtion, when Da<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>vids
ſoule, came into heauen. But whether hee that
commendeth his ſoule into the hands of God, doth
purpoſe that it ſhall deſcend into hell: prooue that,
and you ſhall haue the goall. As for Dauid, he hauing
deuoured heauen in hope, doubted not (if he liued
anie long time after) to ſpeake that in the praeſent
time, which he was well aſſured would come to pas.
And ſeeing Dauid was a figure of Chriſt, and ſpake
manie things in his owne perſon, which aggree bet<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ter
with the perſon figured, then with the figure:
theſe wordes may bee vnderſtood,<note place="margin">Pſal. 22. 16. 18</note> as the caſting of
<pb n="24" facs="tcp:178019:25"/>
lottes on his garment, and the digging of his hands
and feet. Wherefore, if you will anſwere this place,
to the ſatisfaction of them that diſſent from you:
you muſt bring proof, that hee that meaneth to goe
to Hell, doth commend his ſoule into the handes of
God: or els you ſhall neuer bee able to darken the
light of this Sunne, with anie cloude of Sophiſtrie.</p>
            <div type="reply">
               <head>HILL his reply.</head>
               <p>INdeed if theſe woords were ſpoken in the preſent
time,<note place="margin">The Paral<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                        <desc>•</desc>
                     </gap>
                     <g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>giſmes in the D. reply.</note> ſome<note n="68" place="margin">No more but ſom ſhew I warra<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>t you.</note> ſhew of truth were in your words,
but in the Greeke they are in<note n="69" place="margin">that future time, is in voice, not in ſenſe.</note> the future-tence,
<gap reason="foreign">
                     <desc>〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉</desc>
                  </gap>: <hi>Father
into thy hands I wil co<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>mit my ſpirit.</hi>
                  <note n="70" place="margin">That is not my argu<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ment.</note> Now your
argument is this: Chriſt commended his ſoule vnto
his Father, <hi>ergo,</hi>
                  <note n="71" place="margin">We ſay, he went not to hell at all.</note> immediatly he went not downe
to hell.<note n="72" place="margin">When you make the ar<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>gument, you may put what you wil in the concluſion.</note> Heere is more in your concluſion then is
in your premiſes. You may co<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap>clud, his ſoule went to
heauen: But not immediatly:<note n="73" place="margin">You beg the queſtion.</note> for it went to hell
as I haue proued before, for hell in the 16 Pſalme,
doth not ſignifie the ſorrowes of hell, but the place, as
I haue confirmed already.<note n="74" place="margin">Wherfore M. Doctor? Bring this therfore into mood and fi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>gure.</note> Therefore, it is better
to tranſlate, I wil commend, then I do commend, as
<hi>Stephanus</hi> o<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap> this place noteth. <hi>Paule</hi> ſayth, <hi>Eph.</hi> 4.
and 10. verſe,<note n="75" place="margin">This text is handled in the 8 ſection of purpoſe: and is therefore heere an vntimelie frute.</note> 
                  <hi>Now, in that he aſcended, what
is it, but that he firſt deſcended into the loweſt parts
of the earth. He that deſcended, is euen the ſame that
aſcended farte aboue all heauens, to fulfill all things.</hi>
                  <note n="76" place="margin">He is the ſame <hi>per</hi> 
                     <gap reason="foreign">
                        <desc>〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉</desc>
                     </gap>.</note> Now, if the ſame Chriſt did firſt deſce<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>d which did
aſcend, then<note n="77" place="margin">This is new di<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>vinitie that Chriſt deſcended from heauen in ſoule and bodie<g ref="char:punc">▪</g>
                  </note> he deſcended in ſoule and body, as
he aſcended in ſoule and body.<note n="78" place="margin">A fallacie <hi>ab ac<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>cidente.</hi> Theſe muſt be effected after a wonderfull manner. <hi>Ergo</hi> in ſoule and bodie.</note> For both theſe
<pb n="25" facs="tcp:178019:25"/>
muſt be effected in a wonderfull maner, for they are
reckoned by <hi>Salomon</hi> amongſt the moſt ſtupendious
works of the<note n="79" place="margin">Salomon ſpeaketh not there of the ſonne of god, ſee the text.</note> Sonne of God. <hi>Pro<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                        <desc>•</desc>
                     </gap>. 30. 4. Who
hath aſcended vp to heauen, and deſcended; who hath
gathered the winde together in his fyſt? who hath
eſtabliſhed all the ends of the world?</hi> By this ſcrip<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ture
<note n="80" place="margin">A wrong inference.</note> I iuferre, that to aſcend and deſcend, are<note n="81" place="margin">A fond co<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>
                     <g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>pariſon, with<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>out warrant of the text.</note>
as miraculous works, as to create and gouerne the
world. But if the<note n="82" place="margin">
                     <gap reason="foreign">
                        <desc>〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉</desc>
                     </gap> For this is vn<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>derſtood of his deſce<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>ding into his hu<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>maine ſtate, being the ſon of God: a thing as won<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>derfull, as his deſcending into hell.</note> ſoule of Chriſt did got to hea<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ue<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>
immediatly, as you affirms contrary to this text,
then the deſcending of Chriſt had not bene ſo marue<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>lous
as his aſcending<g ref="char:punc">▪</g> Beſides<g ref="char:punc">▪</g>
                  <note n="83" place="margin">This thing is true, but wher alledge I it.</note> as you after al<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>leage,
there is but one aſcending, but if Chriſts<note n="84" place="margin">It followes not, ſee the anſwere.</note>
ſoule firſt went to heauen, &amp; then his body, then were
there two aſcenſions. But<note n="85" place="margin">What makes this to the expoun<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ding of this place, Father into thy ha<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>ds &amp;c. or anſwe<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ring anything that I haue ſaid heere?</note> euen as Chriſt was
but once borne, and once dyed, and once buried, and
once roſe from the dead, and but once commeth into
iudgment: ſo (as <hi>Cyprian</hi> ſaith in his Sermon of the
aſcending of Chriſt) Chriſt did once deſcend into hell,
they ſhall ſee God no more on the croſſe, nor they that
are damned in hel.<note n="86" place="margin">What makes this to the expoun<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ding of this place, Father into thy ha<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>ds &amp;c. or anſwe<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ring anything that I haue ſaid heere?</note> Wherefore may it pleaſe you
to accept the iudgement of <hi>Athanaſius</hi> a Greke Fa<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ther,
&amp; a man perſecuted for the truthes ſake by the
<hi>Arrians,</hi> he in his Creede ſaith thus, who ſuffred for
our ſaluation, and deſcended<note n="87" place="margin">Hee ſaieth not the hell of the damned. He ſpeaketh of his buriall.</note> into hell. And inter<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>preting
the 1. <hi>Cor.</hi> 3. writeth, Satan was enuious a<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>gainſt
our ſauior, for he killed him, not knowing that
it wold make againſt himſelf, for Chriſt after his cros
going down<note n="88" place="margin">he mean<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="2 letters">
                        <desc>••</desc>
                     </gap>h the conditio<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g> of death. He vanquiſhed not death in hell.</note> into hel, hath va<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>quiſhed death. And
becaus he knew no ſin be could not be holde of deth.
Thus you ſee, that not only <hi>Hill, Auguſtine</hi> and <hi>Ie<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>rome</hi>
doe ſay, that Chriſt after hee had vttered theſe
words (into thy hands I will commend my ſpirit) but
<pb n="25" facs="tcp:178019:26"/>
                  <note n="89" place="margin">This con<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>cluſion follow<g ref="char:EOLunhyphen"/>eth not on the cited place.</note> 
                  <hi>Athanaſius</hi> a Greek father, who better then you
vnderſtood the meaning of theſe words.<note n="90" place="margin">You con<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>clude as ſtout lie, as if all things were without dout.</note> There<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>fore,
it is a wo<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>der to ſee how thoſe of your ſide labour
to extinguiſh this everlaſting light of Gods truth, &amp;
ſet vp a couſuming candle of your owne making.
Where you teach, that Chriſts Soule did no more de<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ſcend
into hell then <hi>Dauids</hi> did, therin you are decea<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ued,
<note n="91" place="margin">Not by deſcending to the hell of the damned. He performed that on the Croſſe.</note> For Chriſt was to deliuer vs from hell &amp;
<hi>Dauid</hi> alſo: wherefore if Chriſts ſoule had not gone
to hell<g ref="char:punc">▪</g> 
                  <hi>Dauids</hi> muſt, and mine and yours.<note n="92" place="margin">I know not whereof you ſpeak<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                        <desc>•</desc>
                     </gap> if you meane theſe wordes wher<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>on we ſtand, Father into thy, &amp;c. If they be not true in the fi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>gure: the<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g> erre you that giue them the ſame ſenſe in Chriſtes mouth</note> And
for this cauſe as you ſay, they are true in Chriſt figu<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>red,
but not in, <hi>Dauid</hi> the figure, and herevpon <hi>Peter</hi>
thus reaſoneth, that they could not be true in <hi>Dauid.</hi>
For Chriſt ſoule was in hel<g ref="char:punc">▪</g>
                  <note n="93" place="margin">Who doth now peece the text? quo<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                        <desc>•</desc>
                     </gap> the wordes if you ca<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>.</note> and yet not tormen<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ted,
&amp; his body in the graue, but not corrupted; wher<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>as
<hi>Dauids</hi> body ſaw corruption, and if his ſoule had
gone to hell it had found no redemption. Therefore,
to be in graue, and returne without corruption, and
to be in hell and returne with<note n="94" place="margin">He co<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>quered the Diuels on the croſſe, not in H<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                        <desc>•</desc>
                     </gap>ll.</note> conqueſt of the di<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>uell,
were two peculiar things to the Sonne of God,
&amp; not to any other of the ſons of men. And heere you
vtter an other<note n="95" place="margin">No les then blaſ<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>phemie.</note> blaſphemy, that Chriſts ſoule had
no other<note n="96" place="margin">where ſay I ſo.</note> prerogatiue then <hi>Dauids</hi> ſoule, for by
the ſame reaſone you may argue, that Chriſts<note n="97" place="margin">what if I did? excepting innocencie it had no other preroga<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tiue, that I knowe.</note>
body had no greater prerogatiue then <hi>Dauids</hi> body,
for as this is falſe, ſo is the other. For as <hi>Athanaſius</hi>
ſaith in his booke of the incarnation of the word,
Death Could not prevaile on the huma<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap>e ſoule of
Chriſt to tye him there, neither corruption in<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap>ading
his body, by <gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap>iranny could ſhewe her force on him
to putrefaction, as things not well ſeene vnto, for to
thinke ſo of him, were a wicked thing: for even as
<hi>Adam</hi> had a double puniſhement inflicted on him for
his diſobedience, the on was on his body, earth thou
<pb n="26" facs="tcp:178019:26"/>
art, and to earth thou ſhalt returne, and ſo by this
decree, the body of the Lord departed vnto the earth:
but to the ſoule hee ſaid, Thou ſhalt dye the death.
Hereof it commeth to paſſe, that man is deuided into
2. parts, and is condemned to depart to 2. places, and
therefore it was neceſſary, that the ſelfe ſame Iudge,
which had made this decree, that hee by himſelfe be<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ing
vnder the colour of a condemned man, ſhuld free
from that ſentence all beleuers.<note n="98" place="margin">To the lo<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>call hell I ſee not: but I ſee that you quote him to proue that Chriſtes bodie hath greater prae<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>rogatiue then Dauids, which thing he ſaith not.</note> Here you ſee by
this learned Father, that Chriſts ſoule went to Hell
<note n="99" place="margin">So did he on the croſſe.</note> to deliuer our ſoules from hell, and his body to
the graue, to deliuer vs from death, &amp; by this means
both body and ſoule perſonally, and not potentially
<note n="100" place="margin">Where M. Doctor? ſclaunder? fye for ſhame.</note> (as you teach) working our deliuerance from
death and hell, haue thoſe prerogatiues, which<note n="101" place="margin">This is contrarie to the ſcriptures Heb. 2. 17<g ref="char:punc">▪</g> &amp; 4 14.</note>
                  <hi>Dauids</hi> ſoule and body had not. And for this co<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap>ſide<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ration,
though<note n="102" place="margin">why then did he not likewiſe com<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>mend his bo<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>die into the hands of God</note> the one was in the graue, and
the other in hell, yet both were in the handes of the
Lord. Heere then wee muſt learne what the hands of
the Lord do ſignifie. Sometime the hand of god doth
ſignifie the Sonne of God,<note n="103" place="margin">It is not in that place ſet for the ſonne of God, ſee the place.</note> 
                  <hi>Pſal. 144. 7. Send
thy hand from aboue.</hi> Sometime it ſignifieth the po<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>wer
of God, <hi>Pſalm. 136. 12. With a mighty hand,
and outſtretched arme.</hi> Thirdly, the bountifulnes of
God, <hi>Pſal. 145. Thou openeſt thy hand, and filleſt e<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>uery
liuiug thing with thy bleſsing.</hi> Fo<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap>rthly, it ſig<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>nifieth
conſolation, <hi>Ezec. 3. 22. The hand of the Lord
was with me comforting me.</hi> Fiftly grace, <hi>Pſal.</hi> 118.
16. <hi>The right hand of the Lord <gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                        <desc>•</desc>
                     </gap>ath done valiantly</hi>
Sixtly, it ſignifieth the gift of prophecie, <hi>Ezec. 8. The
hand of the Lord fel there vpon me.</hi> Seuenthly, mer<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>cy.
<hi>Pſal. 37. 24. Though he fall he ſhall not be caſt off,
for the Lord putteth vnder his hand.</hi> Eightly the pro<g ref="char:EOLunhyphen"/>tection
<note n="104" place="margin">Heere is a heap of nota<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ble ignorance. Hath the hand as manie ſignifications, as it can be applyed to vſes? If not, heere is od ſtuffe: if yea, he ere is not half a handfull of hands.</note>
                  <pb n="28" facs="tcp:178019:27"/>
of the Lord, <hi>Pſal. 31. 15. My times are in thy
hand.</hi> Ninthly, the aide of the Lord, <hi>Pſal. 74. 11. Why
withdraweſt thou thy hand.</hi> Tenthly, the puniſhment
of the Lord, <hi>Iob. 19. 21. Haue pitie on me (ô yee my
frinds) for the hande of the Lord hath touched me.</hi>
                  <note n="105" place="margin">If this be laſt, at which of all theſe hands ſits Chriſt? but that is a right hand, &amp; perhappes theſe be left handes.</note> Laſtly, it ſignifieth the Gouernment of the Lord,
<hi>Pſal. 95. 4. In his hand at al the corners of the earth.</hi>
This place therefore,<note n="106" place="margin">If ſo, then tell mee why he kept that praier, to his laſt gaſp, which might haue had mor vſe in the tro<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>bleſome daies of his life.</note> muſt needes haue this
conſtruction: into thy conſolation, mercie, protection
and gouernment, I will commend my ſoule. I hope
<note n="107" place="margin">That I do &amp; my body to but the caſe is not like.</note> you your ſelfe commende your ſoule into the
handes of God euery day, but yet you minde not to
goe to heauen immediatly. So ſaide <hi>Dauid. Pſal.</hi> 30.
5. <hi>Into thy handes I commend my ſpirit,</hi> but hee
went<note n="108" place="margin">Are you ſure of that: then let vs heare your proofes.</note> not to heauen in manye yeares after, nei<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ther
did Chriſt aſcende into heauen in many dayes
after,<note n="109" place="margin">Petitio principij, plus quam crambe odioſa.</note> but went downe to hell, where it was in
the protection and gouerement of the Godhead,<note n="110" place="margin">Wher ma<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g> I haue ſaid that the deity preſented the triumph of Chriſts victo<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>rie to heauen earth &amp; hell at once. That the Deitie deſcended into Hell<g ref="char:punc">▪</g> to my knowledge, I neuer ſaide.</note>
which as you confeſſe deſcended into hell. For as we
being in the damned world, are in the protection and
hand of the higheſt, ſo<note n="111" place="margin">Petitio princi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>pij <hi>againe.</hi>
                  </note> Chriſt being in the place
of the damned, after a wonderfull manner, was alſo
in the Lords aide and protection, by meanes where<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>of,
he hath wrought our deliverance from hell. Ther<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>fore,
proue you that Chirſt went ſtraitway to heauen,
and you ſhal effect that which many of your ſide haue
attempted, but<note n="112" place="margin">What ſay you to Chriſt then? He ſaid, that he would bee that day as he ſuffered, in Paradice: is he no bodie with you?</note> neuer yet any coulde bring to
paſſe.<note n="113" place="margin">If euer <hi>Procuſtes</hi> had a pren<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tiſe, you ſerued your yeares in his occupation, who made Peter ſay, that Chriſt was in Hel, &amp; not torme<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>ted, &amp;c.</note> It is written of <hi>Procuſtes,</hi> that if any were
too ſhort for his b<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="2 letters">
                     <desc>••</desc>
                  </gap>, he would not ſtretch the<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g> out, and
make them fit for his lodging:<note n="114" place="margin">I neuer ſowed that patch to the text, ſee the anſwer.</note> ſo you, this place
being too ſhort to fit your waſt, will enlarge it with
a word (immediatly) which is not the place primitiue
<pb n="29" facs="tcp:178019:27"/>
or derivatiue, expreſſely, or by way of implication.
Moreouer, where you ſay, if I will anſwer this place
I muſt proue that he that mindeth to go to hell, doth
vſe theſe words. I wonder that you dar vſe ſuch<note n="115" place="margin">Blaſphe<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>mous ſpeches and yet no<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>thing but miſ<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>begotten inſi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>nuations. This geare hangs well to<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>gether.</note>
blaſphemons ſpeeches, for hereby you inſinuate, that
Chriſt was<note n="116" place="margin">For all your cunning my words are cleare.</note> but a meere man, &amp; that other men
haue a part in the work of our redemption aſwell as
Chriſt. For as he is our only Sauior, ſo as <hi>Luth.</hi> ſaith
on <hi>Gen</hi> 21. Chapter. This was ſingular in Chriſt,
(Thou ſhalt not leaue my ſoule in Hell, nor ſuffer thy
holy one to ſee corruption) for this<note n="117" place="margin">Pe<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>titio principij <gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                        <desc>•</desc>
                     </gap>is hic, millies a libi repetita.</note> ſoule could
not be deteined in hell, nor his body in graue. For as
this was ſingular in Chriſt, that hee did giue vp his
ghoſt,<note n="118" place="margin">Pe<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>titio principij <gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                        <desc>•</desc>
                     </gap>is hic, millies a libi repetita.</note> ſo was it ſingular in him, to go to hell
and returne again.<note n="119" place="margin">Two imperpent al<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>legations.</note> 
                  <hi>Ambroſe</hi> ſaith, <hi>Tradidit ſpiri<g ref="char:EOLunhyphen"/>tum
ſuum quia non inuitus amiſit, quod enim emittitur vo<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>lunt
arium eſt, quod amittitur neceſſarium.</hi> He gaue vp the
ghoſt becauſe hee loſt not his ſoule againſt his will:
for that which is emited is voluntarie, but that which
is amitted is neceſſary.<note n="120" place="margin">Two imperpent al<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>legations.</note> 
                  <hi>Theophilact</hi> ſayth, hee
cryed out with a loude voice and gaue vp the ghoſt,
for he had power to lay downe his life, and take it vp
again. Now when you can proue that you or any of
your ſide<note n="121" place="margin">The<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g> there goes a bargan If you wil not proue the one I promiſe you I will neuer proue the o<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ther. But til then, let this Syllogiſme ſtand for good. You ca<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g> not proue that he that comme<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>ds hi<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                        <desc>•</desc>
                     </gap> ſoule into the hands of god meaneth to go to hell: but Chriſt com<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>mended his ſoule into the hands of God <hi>Ergo,</hi> you cannot proue that Chriſt ment to go to Hell.</note> haue this power in you to dye when
hee will, and liue againe when hee will, then will I
prooue that hee that ſpeaketh theſe words (Into thy
hands I commende my ſpirit) hath an intent to goe
to Hell. But as Chriſt his birth was a ſingular<note n="122" place="margin">
                     <hi>Yet againe:</hi> Deus bone quoties.</note>
thing in him, ſo was his death, buriall, deſcending in
to hel, reſurrection, and aſſenſion into heauen. <hi>Eccle.</hi>
8. 8. <hi>Man is not Lord ouer the ſpirite, to retaine the
ſpirit.</hi>
                  <note n="123" place="margin">Two impertinent allegations.</note> And <hi>Iohn</hi> 10. 18. Chriſt ſaith, <hi>No man
taketh my life from me, but I lay it downe of my ſelfe:
I haue power to lay it downe, and power to take it vp
<pb n="30" facs="tcp:178019:28"/>
againe.</hi> By theſe<note n="124" place="margin">What makes that to the queſtion heere in hand</note> two places it is euident, that
no man can lay downe his owne ſpirite, but the only
ſonne of God had that prerogatiue, and therefore as
the laying downe of his ſpirit, and the taking vp of
his ſpirit againe was wonderfull: ſo was<note n="125" place="margin">Speak to the purpoſe, man.</note> the
ſtate of the ſoule and body, during the time of the ſe<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>peration
of the parts of the humanity, ſingular and
wonderfull.</p>
            </div>
            <div type="critique">
               <head>Abſurdities admitted in this ſect. by the D.</head>
               <p>Firſt, that Chriſt did deſcend in ſoule and bodie,
take it how he will, is abſurde. If he meane into Hell,
taking Hel as he would haue it, that is in ſoule onlie.
If into the graue, it was in bodie onelie. If into the
wombe of the Virgine. It was in Diuinitie onelie
<gap reason="foreign">
                     <desc>〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉</desc>
                  </gap>.</p>
               <p>Second. If Chriſtes ſoule had not gone to the lo<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>call
Hell, Dauids muſt, and his and mine: contrarie
to the ſuffiencie of Chriſts ſacrifice.</p>
               <p>Third. That Chriſtes ſoule and bodie, beſides in<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>nocencie,
had other prerogatiues then Dauids had.
Contrarie to the Scriptures, that he was like vs in all
things, ſinne onelie excepted.</p>
            </div>
            <div type="rejoinder">
               <head>HVME his reioynder.</head>
               <p>INdeede ſay you, if theſe wordes were ſpoken in
the preſent time, ſome ſhew of trueth were in our
aſſertion. Then, if I can proue theſe words to be ſpo<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ken
in the praeſe<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="2 letters">
                     <desc>••</desc>
                  </gap> time: you will grant vs ſome ſhew
of trueth, which is more then commonly, you vſe to
yeelde. Firſt, you know, that by a Hebraiſme, the
future time, may bee ſet for the preſent, eſpeciallye
when continuance is ſignified. Now, that it muſt be
ſo heere, I hope this Syllogiſme will perſwade you.
That verb which ſignifieth an action preſentlie done
when it is ſpoken, is of the preſent time. But this
<pb n="31" facs="tcp:178019:28"/>
verbe <gap reason="foreign">
                     <desc>〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉</desc>
                  </gap> doeth ſignifie an action then pre<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ſentlie
done, when Chriſt vſed theſe wordes: <hi>Ergo,</hi>
this verbe is of the preſent time. The <hi>maior</hi> is a rule
of Grammer, from the definition of the preſent time
of a verbe. The <hi>minor</hi> is cleer of it ſelf<g ref="char:punc">▪</g> becauſe Chriſt
did then commend his ſoule into the hands of God,
when he vſed theſe wordes. But if this will not ſatiſ<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>fie
you, take this to proue, that it cannot be the fu<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ture
time. That action which can bee referred to no
time to come, cannot be the future time: But this a<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ction
cannot be referred to anie time to come: be<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>cauſe
he preſentlie gaue vp the ghoſt, and men after
death commend not their ſoules into the handes of
God. <hi>Ergo,</hi> this action cannot be of the future time.
And now, hauing taken all this paines, to gaine no<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>thing
in your eies, but a ſhewe of trueth: I muſt put
you in minde, that though this verbe did pertaine to
the future time: yet your knot is in the wrong ruſhe.
For it is not the time when hee did commend, but
when his ſoule came into the handes of his Father,
that muſt helpe you, if you could bee holpen. And
therefore, you may whiſſel preſentlie for anie future
help, that the future time of this verb can yeeld you;
to ſhew my judgement of this place, all things both
in heauen, earth, and hell; be in the hands of God,
that is, in his power: to diſpoſe of them as it ſeemeth
meeteſt to his owne glorie. But that cannot bee the
ſenſe heere: becauſe his ſoule was in that ſenſe in the
hands of God, euen then, when he did commend it.
The hand is the inſtrument of receauing, in which
we rake thoſe things that we bring into our own pe<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>culiaritie,
and proper poſſeſsion. In that ſort Anthro<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>popathetcially,
thoſe ſoules and ſpirits which ſtande
in the preſence of God, are ſaid to be in his hand. Of
which it is ſaid in the Pſalme, <hi>In thy preſence is the ful<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>neſſe
of ioy: and at thy right hand, pleaſures for euermore.</hi>
                  <pb n="32" facs="tcp:178019:29"/>
And ſo Chriſt being in the agonies of death, and hel;
doth commend his ſoule into the handes of God to
poſſeſſe a fulneſſe of joy, and aeternitie of pleaſures.
Like to this is <hi>Stephans</hi> prayer, Act. 7. <hi>Lord Ieſus receiue
my ſpirit.</hi> Heere, after your wonted guiſe, you forme
my argument as pleaſeth you, and then you tell mee
it is falſe. If it be falſe, you made it ſuch. If the fault
had not beene more in your skill, or your will, or
both; then in the matter: you might haue made it <hi>in<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>feri<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                        <desc>•</desc>
                     </gap>.</hi>
No man that commendeth his ſoule into the
hands of God, meaneth to go to hell: But Chriſt, as
man, did commend his ſoule into the hands of God:
<hi>Ergo,</hi> he ment not to go to Hel. And if he meant not,
I am perſwaded, hee went not. If you had framed it
thus, there had beene no neede of <hi>Procuſtes</hi> with his
racke, nor of anie patche to make it fit our waſte.
To the <hi>maior</hi> of this argument, for lack of better ma<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ter,
you crie out, blaſphemie. And then finding no
blaſphemy in the words themſelues: you tel me that
they inſinuate, that Chriſt is but a meere man, and
that others haue part in the worke of our redempti<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>on.
Your inſinuations are verie deepe. But heere M.
Doctor, I will offer you a good bargaine. Hooke me
this inſinuation on my propoſitio<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g> in mood &amp; figure,
and I will neuer write more againſt you on this que<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ſtion.
And now I muſt needes note an eſpeciall grace
in your writing. When the argument pincheth you,
you wring it with a crooked wreſt, and ſtraining out
ſome filthie licour, that you your ſelf had powred v<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>pon
it, you call witneſſes to ſhewe the worlde, what
filthie geare it is. And ſo with manie teſtimonies, in
thinges that no man that hath one dramme of ſenſe
will denie, you make vp a ſhamfull, and importable
booke. Heere, to proue that Chriſt is our onelie Sa<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>viour,
(a thing not denied) you bring in <hi>Luther, Am<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>broſe</hi>
and <hi>Theophilact.</hi> Neither apply you them to the
<pb n="25" facs="tcp:178019:29"/>
purpoſe, though the purpoſe be eaſier to proue; then
the things you apply them to. But your wandering
hand, cannot beate on one Anvil. And wheras I ta<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>king
the vantage of your conſtructio<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g> of theſe words
whereon we ſtand, <hi>Father into thy handes I commend my
ſpirite:</hi> thus proue, that Chriſts ſoule went no more
to Hell, then Dauids. If theſe wordes haue the ſame
ſenſe in Chriſts mouth, as they had in Dauids, Chriſt
ſoule went no more to Hel, then Dauids did. But you
ſay, they haue the ſame ſenſe, <hi>Ergo.</hi> you let goe the
<hi>maior</hi> and the <hi>minor:</hi> and take vp your vſuall hubub
againſt the concluſion, exclayming and crying out,
blaſphemie. Then running about, and ſeeking <hi>A<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>thanaſius</hi>
in euerie corner, to chide mee: becauſe I
giue Chriſts ſoule and body no greater prerogatiue
then Dauids, you bring him in, not ſaying one word
to the purpoſe. For he (good-man) knew right well
that Chriſt was like to Dauid, and vs all; in all things
ſinne onlie excepted: and therefore would not ſpeak
againſt his conſcience. As for the praerogatiue that
you woulde haue him to haue, to goe to hell, it is ſo
baſe a one (if it was anie) that if Biſhoppricks were
no better, Doctors woulde not ſhoulder for them,
like beggers at a doall. Whereas you argue, that if
Chriſts ſoule had not gone to Hel, Dauids muſt, and
yours and mine: if you meane the hel of the damned
(as you muſt if you ſpeak to the purpoſe) it is abſurd.
For Chriſt redeemed vs on the Croſſe, where hee did
beare the helliſhe burden of our ſ<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="2 letters">
                     <desc>••</desc>
                  </gap>nes: and not in
hell, where hee paied not one dram of our debt. To
ſet a wrong ſenſe on this place, you bring foorth a
heap of handes, inough almoſte to remoue Cheviot
hill to Charing Croſſe. Whereupon you conclude,
that the ſenſe muſt needes be: Into thy conſolation,
mercie, protection and gouernement, I will com<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>mend
my ſoule<g ref="char:punc">▪</g> If that was his meaning, why did he
<pb n="38" facs="tcp:178019:30"/>
not commend his bodie alſo in the hands of his Fa<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ther?
And why delaied he this praier till the ſtorme
of his miſeries was blowne ouer. If this concluſion,
did follow vpon the premiſſes, it were a fault to con<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>fute
it. But nowe I hope vpon a pardon, though I
wipe it away with a Syllogiſme. Conſolation pertay<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>neth
to the diſtreſſed, mercie to the guiltie, protecti<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>on
to the weake, and gouernment to them, that ei<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ther
cannot, or will not keepe order. But Chriſtes
ſoule, after this praier, was neither diſtreſſed, guiltie,
weake, nor diſorderlie: <hi>Ergo,</hi> he commended not his
ſoule into Gods conſolation, mercie, protection, and
gouernement. This is all, that in all this ſection, you
haue ſpoken to the purpoſe. You haue (I muſt needs
confeſſe) a great deale of other ſtuffe, as much as all
this. In one place you ignorantly charge vs, that we
giue Chriſt not a perſonall, but a potentiall diſcen<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ding
into Hel. For we ſay, that Chriſt deſcended per<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ſonallie
into Hell,<note place="margin">That is called potentiall which being is not impoſſi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ble, neuer was indeed</note>
both bodie and ſoule, and ſuffered
actuallie all the torments thereof, for our redempti<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>on.
Otherwiſe, were he but a potentiall Saviour, and
all wee actuallie condemned. You quote alſo heere
out of place, and to ſmall purpoſe, the 10. and 11.
verſes of the 4. to the Epheſ. which might haue bene
deferred more convenientlie, to the 8. 9. and 10.
ſection, where it is handled of purpoſe. Out of it
you gather firſt an abſurditie. That, if the ſame
Chriſt did aſcend, and deſcended: hee deſcended in
ſoule and bodie, or elſe he could not haue beene the
ſame. Did you neuer heare, that the ſame Chriſt was
from all aeternitie: that the ſame Chriſt was ſlaine
from the beginning of the worlde: that the ſame
Chriſt lay three dayes in the graue, as <hi>Ionas</hi> was three
dayes and three nights, in the whales bellie. And yet
I truſt, you will not ſay, that his ſoule and bodie was
from all aeternitie: that his ſoule and body was ſlain
<pb n="39" facs="tcp:178019:30"/>
from the beginning: &amp; ſure I am, that you that ſtand
ſo much, that the ſoule can not bee buried, will not
ſay, that hee lay three dayes ſoule and bodie in the
graue. Your wonderfull manner, in which you ſay
theſe things were effected, is a wonderfull Sophiſme.
You ſeeme to thinke, that there were no wonder in
Chriſtes deſcending, except this place be vnderſtood
of his deſcending into hell: as if it were not as great
a wonder, that the ſonne of God deſcended into the
wombe of a Virgine, and there did cloath himſelf in
mans nature. But all this wonderfull diſcourſe of
wo<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>ders, is beſide the text. After all theſe by-blowes,
you gather vpon this text a reaſon, againſt the main
concluſion. That Chriſts ſoule was not in heauen,
while his bodie laie in the graue: becauſe then hee
ſhould haue aſcended, before he deſcended, contra<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>rie
to the place of the Eph. There be two errours in
the levelling of this peece, that beares it quite beſide
the marke. Firſt, you giue the name of aſcending to
the ſoule, without the bodie, contrarie to the Scrip<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tures
Act. 2. 34. <hi>Dauid is not yet aſcended.</hi> And this ta<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>keth
away your next reaſon, of two aſcenſions. Se<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>condlie,
you giue the name of deſcending, to the de<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ſcending
of his humanitie into hell, which is ſpoken
by the Apoſtle of the Deſcending of his Deitie in his
humane ſtate. Thus a man may ſee your wit, howe
cleanelie and cloſelie, you can lap two fallacies into
one propoſition.</p>
            </div>
         </div>
         <div n="6" type="section">
            <head>HVME ſect. 6.</head>
            <p>FOr the other place, you bring a reddier ſenſe out
of <hi>Auguſtine</hi> of that which is God, &amp; not of that
which is man, his ſenſe, (how readie ſoeuer it plea<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ſeth
him to tea<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                  <desc>•</desc>
               </gap>me it) can no wiſe ſtande with theſe
wordes of our Saviour: <hi>For this day ſhalt thou be with me
<pb n="28" facs="tcp:178019:31"/>
in Paradice,</hi> doth ſound in all latine eares (I mean to
all that vnderſtand the latine tongue) as if hee had
ſaid. <hi>This day thou and I ſhall be in Paradice:</hi> which no
man that hath one drop of braine in his head, dare
aduiſedlie attribute to the Deitie, which being there
from all aeternitie, could not go thither in the future
time. But, mee thinkes, I heare you ſay, that the fu<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ture
verbe is giuen to the theefe onlie: and (<hi>with me</hi>)
which agreeth to the ſpeaker, is limited with no
bounds of tyme. Againſt this, I haue the conſent of
the beſt Grammarians, and the theefe alſo: For, <hi>Re<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>member
mee</hi> (ſaid he) <hi>when thou commeſt in thy kingdome.</hi>
By whoſe verdict, it is cleare, that he was not yet in
his kingdome, to whome he made this ſupplication.
Neither do I thinke, that Chriſt himſelfe did miſlike
with his judgement. For if hee had erred of igno<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>rance,
no doubt, hee would haue ſet him right. But
he was ſo far from correcting him, he rather confir<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>med
him, anſwering in the ſame tenſe or time, <hi>Thou
ſhalt be with me,</hi> &amp;c. Moreouer, the Pronoun <hi>me,</hi> is re<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ferred
to the perſon that ſpake, which I hope you wil
not ſay, was Chriſt God alone, but Chriſt both God
and man. Thus, you ſee, that theſe two places are too
ſtrong for your ordinance. If you haue no better
ſhot then theſe,<note place="margin">Great is the truth and in<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>vincible.</note> we will ſpred our banners with <hi>mag<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>na
eſt, &amp; iuvicta veritas.</hi>
            </p>
            <div type="reply">
               <head>HILL his reply.</head>
               <p>HEre you condemne S. <hi>Auguſtins</hi> anſwer. Well,
becauſe S.<note place="margin">The Paralo<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>giſmes in the D. reply.</note> 
                  <hi>Auguſtine</hi> is dead; and in your mar<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>gine
you ſay; that it is M. <hi>Hills</hi> anſwere, by Gods
grace and his worde, M. <hi>Hill</hi> will defend it,<note n="126" place="margin">You ſcla<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>
                     <g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>der, I falſefie not the text.</note>
Firſt I note a falſification of the text, by you allead<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ged:
for where as it<note n="127" place="margin">Not the originall.</note> is in the text: <hi>Luke</hi> 23. 42.
<hi>Remember mee Lord when thou commeſt into thy
<pb n="29" facs="tcp:178019:31"/>
kingdome.</hi> You for<note n="128" place="margin">Not ſo: but I tra<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>ſlate a word Mai<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ſter, that ſig<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>niſieth maſter rather then Lord.</note> (Lord) ſay (Maiſter) I tolde
you in the begining, <hi>Eue</hi> did change the words of the
Scripture, to her ouerthrowe.<note n="129" place="margin">If a man may leaue a thing, that he neuer began, I will graunt your fute.</note> Therefore, I
pray you leaue it, for otherwiſe I muſt tell you of it:
if a boy in the Grammer ſchoole conſtrue <gap reason="foreign">
                     <desc>〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉</desc>
                  </gap>
Maiſter,<note n="130" place="margin">He is him ſelf worthie to be beaten, that can beat a boy for that fault.</note> hee is worthie to be beaten: and if a
ſchoolemaiſter teach ſo,<note n="131" place="margin">Such a controuller were ſcarſe worthie to beare office in a hen-hous</note> he is worthy to be con<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>trolled:
for this worde <gap reason="foreign">
                     <desc>〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉</desc>
                  </gap> writen by <hi>Stephanus</hi>
                  <note n="132" place="margin">A dough<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ty argument<g ref="char:punc">▪</g> then was I be holden to your printer that wrote the word which I vſed for it with a capitall M.</note> with a capital letter, wil caſhire your banner of
<note n="133" place="margin">It is a weake boaſte, that will bee ſo beate with a capitall K.</note> boaſting, &amp; bring your glorie to ſhame. I prea<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ched
in my ſermon at <hi>Chippenham,</hi> that to day, did
ſignifie for euer, and (with me) did ſignifie the God<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>head.
I will not only affirme it, but<note n="134" place="margin">How well you confirm it, ſee the anſwere.</note> confirme it,
that to day doth ſignifie for euer in this place: firſt I
proue it by this philoſophicall reaſon out of <hi>Ariſtotle,</hi>
which ſaith: <hi>In aeternis non eſt tempus,</hi> In eternall things
there is no time.<note n="135" place="margin">You promiſe to proue your pur<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>poſe by Ariſtotle, and leaue your purpoſe to proue that you bring out of Ariſtotle</note> For time, is the meaſure of
motion: therfore, if there be time, then is there moti<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>on.
Now, as in Hell all men do ſuffer torments, and
in earth all labour: So in Heauen all doe reſt. <hi>Apoc.</hi>
14. 13. <hi>Bleſſed are the dead that dye in the Lord, ſo
ſaith the ſpirit,</hi>
                  <note n="136" place="margin">This proueth not that they moue not. They reſt from their labors: that is, their mouing is not laborious. It will be hard for you to proue, that the Angels and bleſ<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ſed ſoules moue no more, then the meruelous ſtones vpon the plaine of Salisburie.</note> 
                  <hi>for they reſt from their labours.</hi>
                  <note n="137" place="margin">This therefore dependeth not vpon the premiſles.</note> Therfore, where there is no mutation from day
to night, nor from ſummer to winter, there is no day
naturall or artificiall,<note n="138" place="margin">If I did ſo ſuppoſe, I wer as farre from ſenſe, as you from honeſtie, in charging mee with a ſenſleſſe aſſertion, which you neuer heard from my mouth, nor read after my pen.</note> as you ſuppoſe. And this
is proued <hi>Apoc.</hi> 10: 6. <hi>And the Angell ſware by him
that liueth for euermore, which created heauen and
the things that are therein,</hi>
                  <note n="139" place="margin">This allegation is impertinent: time was not ended, when Chriſt ſaid to the theefe, This day, &amp;c.</note> 
                  <hi>that time ſhall be
<pb n="34" facs="tcp:178019:32"/>
no more.</hi> And this word <gap reason="foreign">
                     <desc>〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉</desc>
                  </gap> to day, is vſed for
(euer)<note n="140" place="margin">All theſe manie ſcrip<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tures, are but the repetitio<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>s of one prophe<g ref="char:EOLunhyphen"/>cy out of the 2. Pſalme.</note> in many Scriptures. <hi>Pſal. 2. 7. Thou art
my Son, this</hi>
                  <note n="141" place="margin">Heer, this day, doth not ſignifie aeter<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>nity, ſee the anſwere.</note> 
                  <hi>day haue I begotten thee. Act.</hi>
13. 33. <hi>&amp; we declare vnto you touching the promiſes
made vnto the Fathers, god hath fulfilled it vnto you
their Children, in that he hath raiſed vp Ieſus, even
as it is written in the ſecond Pſalme: Thou art my
Sonne</hi>
                  <note n="142" place="margin">Heer, this day, doth not ſignifie aeter<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>nity, ſee the anſwere.</note> 
                  <hi>to day haue I begotten thee.</hi>
                  <note n="142" place="margin">Heer, this day, doth not ſignifie aeter<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>nity, ſee the anſwere.</note> And in the
epiſtle to the <hi>Hebr. 1. 5. And, to which of the Angels
ſaid he, Thou art my Sonne, to day haue I begotten
thee.</hi> And againe, <hi>Hebr.</hi> 5. 6. He prouing Chriſt to be
a prieſt for euer, thus ſaith. <hi>Chriſt tooke not to him<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ſelfe
this honor, to be made an high prieſt: but he
that ſaid to him, Thou art my Sonne,</hi>
                  <note n="144" place="margin">Heer, this day, doth not ſignifie aeter<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>nity, ſee the anſwere.</note> 
                  <hi>to day
haue I begotte<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g> thee, as he alſo in another place ſpea<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>keth.
Thou art a prieſt for euer, after the order of <hi>Mel<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>chiſedech.</hi>
                  </hi>
                  <note n="145" place="margin">Vntruth they take it not ſo.</note> Heere <hi>Dauid</hi> &amp; the Apoſt. do take this
word (to day) to ſignifie (for euer). And ſo doth<note n="146" place="margin">The place would be quoted.</note> 
                  <hi>S. Auguſtine</hi> and M. <hi>Hil</hi> againſt all the gainſaiers of
it in the world: For the circumſtances of the place, do
<note n="147" place="margin">Not very ſtrongly.</note> ſtrongly conuince it. For what doth the theefe
aſke?<note n="148" place="margin">implicite, <hi>not</hi> explicite.</note> forgiuenes of his ſinnes: who<note n="149" place="margin">This cir<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>cumſtance is farfet.</note> can
forgiue ſinnes? God only. He aſketh<note n="150" place="margin">implicite, <hi>not</hi> explicite.</note> for grace,
who is the giuer of all Grace?<note n="151" place="margin">This cir<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>cumſtance is far fet.</note> God only? hee
deſireth<note n="152" place="margin">implicite.</note> glory, who giueth glory and life euer<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>laſting?
God<note n="153" place="margin">This cir<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>cumſtance is far fet.</note> onely. That God onely<note n="154" place="margin">This is not denied.</note> for<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>giueth
ſinnes, it is proued <hi>Mar.</hi> 2. 7. That he is the
<note n="155" place="margin">This nee<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ded no proof.</note> giuer of al grace, it is manifeſt 1. <hi>Pet,</hi> 5. 10. That
God<note n="156" place="margin">This proof is ſuper fluous.</note> only giueth glorye and life euerlaſting, it
is euident 2. <hi>Tim. 48. Rom.</hi> 6. &amp; laſt verſe.<note n="157" place="margin">This cir<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>cumſtanceis far fet.</note> Se<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>condly,
wher ſhal he receiue this glory? in Paradice.
For as much<note n="158" place="margin">Frame one good ſyllogiſme out of al theſe circumſtances, to proue, that (to day) doth heer ſignifie aeternity, &amp; take the bucklers.</note> then, as the thing that is giuen is
eternall, the perſon that giueth it is perpetuall, the
place where it is giuen is everlaſting:<note n="159" place="margin">But not that the day when it was giuen, doth ſignifie aeternity.</note> it muſt
<pb n="35" facs="tcp:178019:32"/>
of neceſſitie follow, that the time alſo, be world with<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>out
end. And that (with me) ſignifieth as I do teach,
the Godhead: it is conſtantlye auouched<note n="160" place="margin">Haue al the Fathers written vpon this place? you range wide.</note> by all
the Fathers.<note n="161" place="margin">This place hath not that (with me,) doth ſig<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>nifie the deity</note> 
                  <hi>Ierome</hi> on this place noteth.
Chriſt brought the theef from the croſſe to Paradice,
leaſt any man ſhould think conuerſion to be too late
at any time: hee made the puniſhment of homicide
Martirdome: the truth being counted among the
wicked, he left the one on the left hand, and tooke the
other on the right hand, as hee will doo in the day of
iudgement. It<note n="162" place="margin">Wil not Ierome ſpeak plainelie? this collectio<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g> hath in it three pa<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ralogiſmes. 1. Ieromes <hi>ſi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>mile</hi> of the fact, you refer to the per<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ſon. Second<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>lie you ſeeme to think that we hold that Chriſts onlie ſoule did judge the theef on the croſſe: and laſtly, that his only ſoule was in heaue<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g> with the theef.</note> were an abſurd thing to ſay,
the ſoule of Chriſt only ſhall giue iudgement in the
laſt day.<note n="163" place="margin">Nor this place hath it not.</note> 
                  <hi>Auguſtine</hi> hath the like on this place,
The croſſe, if you marke it is the iudgement ſeate, the
Iudge was ſet in the middle, the one theefe which be<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>leeued
was deliuered, the other which blaſphemed
was condemned. To ſaue and condemne is the office
of the<note n="164" place="margin">And of the ſonne of ma<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>. Mar. 2. 10.</note> Deity: and therfore<note n="165" place="margin">I deny the argument.</note> (with mee) ſig<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>nifieth
the Godhead, as the other theef no doubt
was with the Diuill.<note n="166" place="margin">He ſaith not, that (with me) doth ſignifie the Deity.</note> 
                  <hi>Ambroſe</hi> in his Sermon
of the holy theefe writeth thus: He ſaw him hanging
on the croſſe, and praieth to him as though he were
fitting in heauen: he ſeeth them condemned, and yet
he praieth vnto him as to a king. To this accordeth
<hi>Damaſcene</hi> handling this place. In reſpect of his bo<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>dy
he was in graue, in reſpect of his ſoule in Hell: and
as.<note n="167" place="margin">Dama<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ſcen commeth neereſt you, and yet he ſaith not, that (with me,) doth ſignifie the de<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>itie: his ſoule was not ſeparated from his Deitie.</note> God, he was both in Paradice with the theef
and in the throne with the Father &amp; the holy Ghoſte.
Therefore <hi>Ferus</hi> a writer not to be contemned, inter<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>preteth
theſe woords thus. <hi>Mecum eris qui ſum vbi<expan>
                        <am>
                           <g ref="char:abque"/>
                        </am>
                        <ex>que</ex>
                     </expan>
omnia in omnibus.</hi> Thou ſhalt bee with mee which am
euery where all in all. In <hi>Exodus</hi> 34, 6. 7. verſes, bee
<pb n="32" facs="tcp:178019:33"/>
ſet downe the 13.<note n="168" place="margin">They be Epithets, not names, ſaving the firſt, nei<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ther be they 13.</note> names of God, and Lord is
one of the firſt of them. Therefore, when the theefe
calleth Chriſt Lord, he<note n="169" place="margin">A fallacie <hi>ab accidente.</hi>
                  </note> acknowledgeth him to be
God, and deſireth to dwell with the<note n="170" place="margin">If ſo, that proueth not that <hi>vvith me</hi> ſignifieth the god-head.</note> Godhead,
in whoſe preſence is the fulnes of ioy: where you aſke
me how the<note n="171" place="margin">I ask you how it ca<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g> go to heauen in the future time.</note> Godhead can goe to heauen, the
worde is <gap reason="foreign">
                     <desc>〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉</desc>
                  </gap>: Euen as<note n="172" place="margin">Not ſo: He is ſaid to come downe: when he ſhew<g ref="char:EOLunhyphen"/>eth his pre<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ſence amo<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>gſt men by effe<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ctes. he can not be ſaid ſo to aſ<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>cend.</note> God came downe
from<note n="173" place="margin">This is contrarie to your reaſon at Chippenham, and in the 11. fol, pag. b. of your printed ſermon. Ther you reaſon that the worde <gap reason="foreign">
                        <desc>〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉</desc>
                     </gap> can not belong to the godhead, becauſe it ſignifieth motion. And heere you giue God contrary motions both vp and down.</note> heauen, ſo is he ſaid to goe vp to heauen.
<note n="174" place="margin">Auguſt ſpeaketh of the aſcending of the humanity</note> If you will read <hi>Auguſtine</hi> in this booke of the
eſſence of the Diuinitie, he will teach you. <hi>Pſa.</hi> 68. 24.
<hi>They haue ſeene ô God, the goings of my God and
king, which art in thy ſanctuary,</hi> from heuen he came
into the virgins wombe, after his birth hee was laid
in the cratch after that he had fulfiled al for the which
he was ſent of his father, he was faſtned to the croſſe
he was take<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap> downe from the Croſſe, he was buried
in reſpect of his fleſh, but in ſoule hee deſcended into
hell: the third day by the power of the Divinitie, hee
rayſed his fleſh out of the graue, and after the dayes
of his reſurrection, the fortieth day, his Apoſtles ſee<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ing
it, he aſcended into heauen, &amp; ſitteth at the right
hand of the Father, that is, in his glorie. The<note n="175" place="margin">This gloſſe on the theues prayer, is <gap reason="foreign">
                        <desc>〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉</desc>
                     </gap>.</note>
theefe then praieth to Chriſt, that as hee ſhould ſit at
the right hand of the Father in glory, ſo he might be
partaker of that glory, and that hee might haue his
perfect conſummation and bliſſe in heauen as Chriſt
ſhould haue after his aſcenſion: &amp; that his vile body
which was partaker of the ſuffrings of Chriſt, might
alſo bee partaker of his glory, and made like to the
glorious body of Chriſt Ieſus. Twiſe you haue told
me that (thou ſhalt be with me) is as much as (I and
you) 176 but you bring neither ſcripture nor father
<pb n="41" facs="tcp:178019:33"/>
to confirme it in that ſenſe that you meane it. But if
you mean thus, I and thou ſhall be together, that is,
thou ſhalt be<note n="177" place="margin">I neuer meant ſuch a gloſſ</note> pertaker of the glory of the Deity
as thou haſt ben partaker of the ſuffrings with the
humanitie, it is true. For, what neede had the theef to
pray for the<note n="178" place="margin">That was not his praier ſee the text.</note> preſence of Chriſts ſoule, when he
<note n="179" place="margin">This rea<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ſon would wel confute the thefes prayer, (if it were co<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>
                     <g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>futable,) Re<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>member mee when thou commeſt in thy kingdome</note> had the preſence both of body and ſoule. But it
is the preſence and fellowſhip of the<note n="180" place="margin">And had he not the pre<g ref="char:EOLunhyphen"/>ſence of that, as well as of the ſoule and bodie?</note> deuine na<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ture
that he prayeth for,<note n="181" place="margin">This is a groſſe reaſon, In the pre<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ſence of the Deitie, is ful<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>neſſe of joy, <hi>Ergo,</hi> the theef praieth for the preſence &amp; fellowſhip of the Deitie</note> wherin as <hi>Dauid</hi> ſai<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>eth,
is <hi>the fulnes of ioy &amp; pleaſure for euermore. Pſa.</hi>
16. 11. In <hi>Luke.</hi> 13. 26. The <hi>Iewes</hi> ſay, <hi>we haue eaten
and drunken in thy preſence, and thou taught in our
ſtreetes.</hi> Chriſt thus anſwereth in the 27. and 28. ver<g ref="char:EOLunhyphen"/>ſes.
<hi>I tell you I know you not, depart from me all yee
workers of iniquite, there ſhall be weping and gnaſh<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ing
of teeth: when you ſhall ſee <hi>Abraham Iſaac</hi> and
<hi>Iacob</hi> in the kingdom of God, and your ſelues caſt out
of dores.</hi> Therefore it is cleere, they are not all
bleſſed<note n="182" place="margin">This is another new concluſion.</note> which were preſent with Chriſts huma<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>nitie,
but they of whom Saint <hi>Peter</hi> ſaith, 2. <hi>Pet.</hi> 1. 4.
<hi>Whereby moſt great and precious promiſes are gi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>uen
vnto vs, that by them we ſhould be partakers of
the nature of God.</hi> For therefore did Chriſt take vp<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>on
him our nature,<note n="183" place="margin">How proueth this that (with mee) in this text, doth ſignifie onlie the God-head.</note> that wee might bee perta<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>kers
of the nature of God, and be on with Chriſt, as
he is on with his Father. Chriſt prayer is to this end,
<note n="184" place="margin">This allegation is alſo impertinent.</note> 
                  <hi>Iohn. 17. 21. I pray not for theſe alone, but for
them alſo which ſhall beleeue in mee through their
word, that they all bee one, as thou O Father art in
me, and I in thee, euen that they alſo may be on in vs.</hi>
               </p>
            </div>
            <div type="critique">
               <pb n="42" facs="tcp:178019:34"/>
               <head>Two abſurdities by implication, in the D. reply.</head>
               <p>That to ſaue and condemne, is the office of the
God-head onlie, and not of the humanity, contrary
to Mark. 2. 10. Act. 10. 42. and Ioh. 5. 27. Or elſe
the collection out of <hi>Auguſtine</hi> will not holde, that
(with mee) doth ſignifie the God-head onelie.</p>
               <p>That the theef prayed not for the preſence of the
bodie and ſoule which hee had: but for the preſence
of the diuine nature: as if the deuine nature had
euer bene abſent from the ſoule and bodie, contra<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>rie
to the <hi>Hypoſtaſis,</hi> and vniting of the perſons.</p>
            </div>
            <div type="rejoinder">
               <head>HVME his reioynder to the 4. ſect.</head>
               <p>OVr reaſon is, if Chriſt went that ſame day as hee
ſuffered to Paradice, he we<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>t not to Hell amo<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>gſt
the damned. But he went that ſame day to Paradice.
<hi>Ergo,</hi> he we<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>t not to hel, amo<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>gſt the da<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>ned. For the <hi>mi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>nor</hi>
we haue Chriſt himſelf witnes. Luk. 23. 43. You re<g ref="char:EOLunhyphen"/>plied
at <hi>Chippenha<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>
                  </hi> out of <hi>Aug.</hi> that this promis to the
theef (<hi>Thou ſhalt be with me</hi>) is ment onlie of the God<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>head
of Chriſt, and not of his ſoule. To that anſwere
I rejoyned (ſaving <hi>Auguſtines</hi> reverence) whome I
honour as farre, as it is meet to honour a man, what
euer you beare your reader in hand to the contrary:
that this being ſpoken in the future time, and im<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>plying
an abſence, at that preſent, from his king<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>dome,
could not pertaine to the Godhead, being at
all times in all places. That heere is implyed an ab<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ſence,
it is cleare by the theefes ſute, <hi>Remember mee
when thou commeſt into thy kingdome.</hi> And that this is
ſpoken in the future time, it is manifeſt by Chriſtes
anſwere, <hi>Then ſhalt be with mee in Paradice:</hi> which by a
rule of Grammer is, as if he had ſaid, <hi>I and thou ſhall
be in Paradice,</hi> which is a plaine future tenſe. Nowe,
<pb n="43" facs="tcp:178019:34"/>
heere in this your reply, you paſſe by this teſtimony
of this holie theefe, and him in whome was neuer
found theft nor guile, as if you looked for better
witneſſes. If theſe be not ſufficient, I haue no better:
but I hope the reader will eſteeme better of their
wordes, and count mumme, but a meane anſwere.
Yet if you were half ſo worthie your ſcarlet hood, as
manie do hope, and you do think: there was left you
more ſhewe of a probable reply. That theſe thinges
be ſpoken of the Deitie <hi>per</hi> 
                  <gap reason="foreign">
                     <desc>〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉</desc>
                  </gap>. Wher<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>fore
to preuent your hope, if you chance to finde it
heereafter, I will now teare the boſſe from that buk<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ler.
This figure is neuer applyed to anie text, but
when ſome inconuenience in the letter, will take no
ſalue, but ſuch a corraſiue. But this text (if it be well
handled) needeth no ſuch hard plaiſter. <hi>Ergo,</hi> this fi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>gure
is not to bee applyed to this text. Heere, ne<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>glecting
the anſwere that had anie ſhew of probabi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>litie,
and replying nothing to my argument, to make
ſhew of ſome thing, you pick two quarrels to mee in
your written copie, of which you ſcrape out one (for
ſhame) in your print, for falſefiing the text. The firſt
is, that I tranſlate <gap reason="foreign">
                     <desc>〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉</desc>
                  </gap> Maiſter, and not Lord. The
ſecond, that I tranſlate <gap reason="foreign">
                     <desc>〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉</desc>
                  </gap> not to day, but this
day. Where I pray thee marke gentle Reader, that
though I were guiltie of both theſe faultes: yet my
argument drawn from the future time, ſtandeth be<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tweene
both theſe blowes, without tip or tap. But
becauſe it is a hainous matter to peruert the Scrip<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tures,
I will not confeſſe a crime ſo odious, being in<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>nocent.
And now M. Doctor, if you were a School<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>maiſter,
as you were ſome time, and would ſeem yet;
and did beat your Scholler for conſtruing <gap reason="foreign">
                     <desc>〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉</desc>
                  </gap> Mai<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ſter:
men might ſay, that you were more worthie of
the rod, then he. <gap reason="foreign">
                     <desc>〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉</desc>
                  </gap> &amp; <gap reason="foreign">
                     <desc>〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉</desc>
                  </gap> be relatiues in greke
as <hi>ſeruus</hi> and <hi>Dominus</hi> in latine: and Maiſter and ſer<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>vant
<pb n="44" facs="tcp:178019:35"/>
in Engliſh:<note place="margin">Servants o<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>bey your mai<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ſters.</note> ſo are they vſed Eph. 5. 6. Col. 3. 22.
and 4. 1. <gap reason="foreign">
                     <desc>〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉</desc>
                  </gap> Nowe then, if
the engliſh of <gap reason="foreign">
                     <desc>〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉</desc>
                  </gap> be a ſervant, the Engliſh of <gap reason="foreign">
                     <desc>〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉</desc>
                  </gap>;
muſt be a Maiſter. Neither is it denied, but that in
ſome caſe, it may be Engliſhed, Lord. Some ſervants
haue Lords: and all Lords exerciſe a magiſteriall po<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>wer
ouer their vaſſals. As for this place, it ſeemeth to
expreſſe the Hebrew RABBI, which was to them a
co<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>mon ſtile of dignitie, as Maiſter is in Engliſh. And
therfore in my ſimple vnderſtanding, ſo far is it from
hereſie, that this ſeemeth the fitteſt Engliſh, to meete
that greeke in this place. But you beat mee with two
ſore arguments: the one that <hi>Stephanus</hi> doeth write
<gap reason="foreign">
                     <desc>〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉</desc>
                  </gap> with a capitall letter: the other, that in the 34
of Exod. bee ſet downe the 13. names of God, and
<gap reason="foreign">
                     <desc>〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉</desc>
                  </gap> is the firſt of them. You were much beholden
to <hi>Stephanus.</hi> If he had chanced to write <gap reason="foreign">
                     <desc>〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉</desc>
                  </gap> with a
ſorting letter, you had loſt the beſt argument that e<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>uer
was bred with your mothers milke, and a wea<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>pon
to caſhire our banners. But they be not <hi>Babiloni<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>an,</hi>
as you imagine: they are as I ſaid, and you ſee the
banners of truth that will not be caſhired with a ca<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>pitall
K. As for the 13. names of God, I neuer obſer<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ved
onlie ſo manie: neither can I finde juſt that nom<g ref="char:EOLunhyphen"/>ber
in that place, whither you ſend mee. The firſt
name in that place, and the onlie name for any thing
that I can ſee, is IEHOVAH, the very eſſential name
of God. The reſt be Epithets, not names. But tell in
good ſadneſſe M. Doctor, is <gap reason="foreign">
                     <desc>〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉</desc>
                  </gap> the ſame in greek,
that IEHOVAH is in Hebrew? I euer took IEHO<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>VAH,
to come from HAIAH: a verbe of beeing,
to declare, that God the cauſe of all beeings, hath no
cauſe of his owne beeing. And <gap reason="foreign">
                     <desc>〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉</desc>
                  </gap> I tooke to ex<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>preſſe
the rule and commandement which hee doth
exerciſe ouer his creatures. But ſay you, the theefe
when hee called him <gap reason="foreign">
                     <desc>〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉</desc>
                  </gap> did cal him God. If that
<pb n="45" facs="tcp:178019:35"/>
bee of neceſsitie: then <hi>ſervants obey your maiſters,</hi> will
ſou<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>d ſerva<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>ts obey your Gods. You will not (I hope)
ſtand to this Divinitie. As for the tranſlating of
<gap reason="foreign">
                     <desc>〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉</desc>
                  </gap> (this day,) if I was deceaued, the greek and
latine deceaued mee. For ſeeing <gap reason="foreign">
                     <desc>〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉</desc>
                  </gap> is as <gap reason="foreign">
                     <desc>〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉</desc>
                  </gap>
that is, <gap reason="foreign">
                     <desc>〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉</desc>
                  </gap>: and <hi>hodie</hi> compounded of <hi>hoc
die,</hi> did meete the ſame: I thought I wanted not rea<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ſon
to tranſlat it (this day.) But if this be haereſie, how
will you couer the ſame wart on your own noſe, fol.
20. pag. 1 of your printed ſermon, &amp; here in this ſame
ſect. alſo. Your reaſon why it may not be tranſlated
(this day,) is; that to day is an indefinite, &amp; this day,
a particular. But this was ſo ſubtile, in your prin<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ted
copie, that you are aſhamed of it: &amp; good cauſe
had you. For <gap reason="foreign">
                     <desc>〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉</desc>
                  </gap> is ſo particular of it ſelf, that it
is no more capable of more particularitie, if it bee
tranſlated (this day;) then <hi>Adame Hill</hi> Vicar of <hi>Weſt<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>burie,</hi>
and Parſon of <hi>Gooſage,</hi> can be made more parti<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>cular
by ſaying, this <hi>Adame Hill</hi> Vicar, &amp;c. This Lo<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>gick
reacheth far beyond the praecepts that you lear<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ned
in the Vniverſitie: and yet I ſee, that it commeth
much ſhort of that which is in you. For, you will not
onelie affirme it, but confirme it alſo, that <hi>hodie eris
mecum,</hi>
                  <note place="margin">Thou ſhalt be this day with me, is aſmuch as thou ſhalt be with mee for euer. Pſal. 90. 4.</note> is aſmuch, as <hi>eris mecum in aeternum.</hi> If you wil
make that good, you may goe whether you will; no
hedge can holde you. The Scripture hath by way of
compariſon, that 1000. yeares are as one day in the
ſight of the Lord. If all aeternitie bee in your ſight,
but as one day: you muſt be ſome <hi>magnus Apollo,</hi> ſo
much greater then God, as aeternitie is more then
1000. yeares. But, what can you make of 1000. yea<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>res,
that can make ſo much of one day. One day I
am ſure, is not the proper name of aeternitie. And
therefore I would faine know of a man of your skill,
ſeeing when one word vſurpeth the place of another
(except it be like the Popes <hi>ſtatuimus</hi> for <hi>abrogamus</hi>) it
<pb n="46" facs="tcp:178019:36"/>
muſt be either <hi>effectum pro cauſa, ſubiectum pro adiunct<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                        <desc>•</desc>
                     </gap>
ſimile pro ſimile pars pro toto, aut contra:</hi> to which of theſe
heades you will referre <hi>hodie pro aeterno.</hi> If you thinke
it <hi>pars pro toto,</hi> then in your conceit, the partes of a
thing infinite, muſt be finite, contrarie to an axiome
eſteemed for truth amongſt other men: that an infi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>nite
thing, is not deuide-able. Heereof commeth the
maxime, that you after alledge out of <hi>Ariſtotle,</hi> that
in things aeternall, there is no time. You by it, (enti<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>teling
it the Philoſophicall reaſon of <hi>Ariſtotle</hi>) vnder<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>take
to proue, that one day, doth ſignifie aeternitie:
but ſtreight way, by nimble convoiance of legerde<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>maine,
you ſlip the thing you promiſe, &amp; turne your
hand to proue <hi>Ariſtotles</hi> philoſophicall reaſon. For, if
there be time (ſay you) in aeternitie, then is there mo<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tion.
Thus, like a merchaunt that fraughting his
ſhips with corne to go to <hi>Deep,</hi> when ſhee is lanched
forth into the ſea, turneth his ſaill, and pointeth to
<hi>Spaine:</hi> You pretending to proue, that one day, muſt
needes heere ſignifie aeternitie: fall to proue that in
aeternitie there is no time, a thing neuer denied. But
reaſon woulde haue hewed an other peece of worke,
out of <hi>Ariſtotles</hi> block; In aeternitie there is no time:
In one day, there is time: <hi>Ergo,</hi> one day is not aeterni<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tie.
But to proue this, you alledge four texts of ſcrip<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ture,
which are all but the repetitions of one, out of
the 2. Pſalme, wherein you are deceiued your ſelf, &amp;
labour to deceaue others. For (to day) in that place
doth not ſignifie <gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap>eternity, as <hi>Iunius</hi> proueth finelie in
his Parallels. The words be, <hi>Thou art my ſonne, this day
haue I begotten thee.</hi> Wherein (ſaith hee) is noted, firſt
the aeternall begetting of his Deitie, in theſe wordes,
<hi>Thou art my ſonne:</hi> and the temporall begetting of his
humanitie in theſe wordes, <hi>to day haue I begotten thee.</hi>
His reaſon is drawne from the place of Paule, which
heere you quote, Act. 13. For, he alledging this place
<pb n="47" facs="tcp:178019:36"/>
to the Iewes in their Synagogue, as a plaine argume<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>t
of Chriſts Divinitie, could neuer haue hoped to ef<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>fect
that amongſt ſuch a froward companie, if he had
put ſuch a violent face on the text, as to take one day
for all aeternitie. To this moſt excellent reaſon, I add
another out of the ſame text. This place of the pſalm
doth proue, that God raiſed vp Ieſus to fulfill that
promiſe to the Children, which he before had made
to their Fathers. But that promiſe was then perfor<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>med,
when Ieſus was given to them in the fleſh. <hi>Ergo,</hi>
this place of the Pſalme, muſt haue relation to that
day, when the ſonne of God, which was before all ae<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ternitie,
was giuen to the Iewes in the fleſh. Notwith<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ſtanding
theſe reaſons, if it were granted you, (which
you can neuer proue) that (to day) in this place of
the Pſalme doth ſignifie aeternitie, yet it will not fol<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>low,
that it muſt needes haue the ſame ſignification
in theſe words of Chriſt likewiſe. Wherefore to fill
this ditch, you fal to worke vpon the text. In it you
make along harueſt of little corne, telling in manie
wordes, that grace, glorie, &amp; aeternall life, the things
giuen, are aeternall. But, what makes the aeternitie of
the gift, or of the giuer, to proue that the time wher<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>in
it was giuen, is aeternall? Of things aeternall, onlie
God (who is aeternitie it ſelfe) is without beginning,
and ending. Grace, glorie, and aeternall life, impar<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ted
to his creatures of the fulneſſe of his aeternitie,
haue a beginning then when they are giuen, though
their continuance be aeternall. Now<g ref="char:punc">▪</g> in theſe words,
<hi>This day thou ſhalt bee with mee,</hi> (this day) noteth the
time, when this aeternall gift ſhould begin, and not
the continuance and durance thereof. This may ſuf<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>fiſe
to cruſh all the ſmall bones of your ſhrimpiſh ar<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>guments.
As for your Fathers &amp; Doctors, whom you
alledge not directlie, but by ſuch conſequentes, as
you pinne to the tailes of their gownes, I will paſſe
<pb n="48" facs="tcp:178019:37"/>
them ouer, for breuities ſake: and becauſe you haue
promiſed in the 3. ſect. not to relie on men in this
queſtion.</p>
            </div>
         </div>
         <div n="7" type="section">
            <head>HVME Sect. 7.</head>
            <p>BVt now to come to your reaſons. Firſt, you muſter
all your forces, about the Hebrew and Greeke, a<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>gainſt
the moſt learned of this age.<note place="margin">The greateſt Hebricians of name in our time both Proteſtants &amp; Papiſts, Mer<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>cerus, Cevale<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>rius, Bertra<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>mus Vatablus Pagninus, A<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>rius Monta<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>nus, Andra<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>dius, with I know not how many more.</note> It will coaſt you
a great deale of eloquence, to perſwade the worlde,
that <hi>Tremelius</hi> and <hi>Iunius, Calvine</hi> and <hi>Beza,</hi> and the
tranſlaters of the Geneva Bible, with manie more ex<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>cellent
men, that ſpent their age in that ſtudie, did
not know theſe words as well as you, &amp; had as great
care to ſift out the truth. For my part, neither is my
skill ſo great, neither am I now minded to ſtand with
you vpon that point. I ſee no inconvenience to hurt
vs, nor vantage giuen you: if I grant that SHEOL
muſt be engliſhed, Hell, in the place of the Pſalme,
which you cite. Onelie this I ſtand vpon, which I
haue ſaid, that this word is manie times vſed in the
Scriptures for the torments of hell, and muſt needes
be ſo taken heere. The verie order of the wordes, will
ouerthrow your conceit. <hi>Thou wilt not leaue my ſoule
in Hell, nor ſuffer thy holie one to ſee corruption.</hi> For, ſeing
the Hell, that his ſoule ſhould not bee left in, com<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>meth
before the graue, wherein his bodie ſhould not
ſee corruption: what hell went before his burial, but
onelie that of hi<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                  <desc>•</desc>
               </gap> paſsion: wherin he paied the whole
ranſom of our redemption, and nailed the handwrite
that was againſt vs, to his Croſſe.</p>
            <div type="reply">
               <head>HIL his reply.</head>
               <p>
                  <note place="margin">The paralogiſ<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>mes of this ſect</note> Two <note n="185" place="margin">No vn<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>truth in my wordes.</note> vntruthes are in theſe fewe wordes.
Firſt, you make much adoe about <hi>SHEOL</hi>
                  <pb n="49" facs="tcp:178019:37"/>
againſt<note n="186" place="margin">My wor<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>des are <hi>contra doctiſſimos hu<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ius aetatis,</hi> ther<g ref="char:EOLunhyphen"/>fore turn this lie to your own ſecretary</note> almoſt all the learned men of this age
<note n="187" place="margin">Al theſe be not on your ſide.</note> There ar on my ſide<note n="188" place="margin">Luther holdeth that Chriſt ſuffe<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>red in Hell, ſo do not you.</note> 
                  <hi>Luther; Aepinus,</hi>
                  <note n="189" place="margin">Felinus is againſt you</note>
                  <hi>Felinus,</hi>
                  <note n="190" place="margin">So is Po<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>meranus.</note> 
                  <hi>Pomeranus, Lucas Loſſius, Selueccer,
Vrbanus Rhegius,</hi> The authors of the <hi>Centuries,
Eraſmus, Chytreus</hi>
                  <note n="191" place="margin">Molerus is your aduer<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ſarie.</note> 
                  <hi>Molerus,</hi>
                  <note n="192" place="margin">Peter Martyr, hol<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>deth that his ſoule pre<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ſented it ſelf to both the bleſſed and the dam<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ned.</note> 
                  <hi>Peter Mar<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tyr</hi>
                  <note n="193" place="margin">Hee ma<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>keth nothing for you.</note> 
                  <hi>Lauaterus, Prouerb.</hi> 27. In <hi>England</hi>
                  <note n="194" place="margin">Nor Lambert.</note>
                  <hi>Lambert,</hi>
                  <note n="195" place="margin">Nor Robert Sammell.</note> 
                  <hi>Robert Samuel,</hi>
                  <note n="196" place="margin">Latimer holdeth with Luther, not with you.</note> 
                  <hi>Latimer, Becon
Hutchinſon,</hi>
                  <note n="197" place="margin">Fox hath nothing for you, but the Printers picture in the beginning of his booke.</note> 
                  <hi>Fox,</hi> and<note n="198" place="margin">Nowell holdeth not with you.</note> 
                  <hi>Nowell.</hi> Heere
<note n="199" place="margin">Manie of theſe vnderſtood not the Hebrew, &amp; therfore ſtood not for you vpon the word SHEOL.</note> are 20. moſt learned men of theſe latter times,
as I can ſhew you in my poore Library beſides that
moſt learned and reuerend Father <hi>M.</hi>
                  <note n="a" place="margin">M. Allet I think you would ſay. He wrot the poore mans Librarie, for the poore, not for Doctors.</note> 
                  <hi>Allen,</hi> and be<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ſides
the aduiſed iudgement of the learned Conuo<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>cations
of <hi>England,</hi> not only in King <hi>Edwards</hi> raigne,
<hi>Anno Domini.</hi> 1552. but alſo ſince the raigne of her
<note n="200" place="margin">That convocation allowed Nowels Catechiſme, not your opinion.</note> Maieſtie. 1571. In the which Canuocations I
am perſwaded, were as learned men, as any were, ei<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ther
in <hi>England</hi> or <hi>Europe.</hi> Therfore, the learned rea<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>der
muſt either thinke you a man<note n="201" place="margin">If he thinke ſo, his thought is too true. But yet a man may haue read more then you, that neuer ſaw theſe bookes.</note> of little rea<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ding,
and that you neuer ſawe theſe learned mens
workes, or elſe of greate malice,<note n="202" place="margin">I diſabled none of them: except you will beleeue your Secretary better then my ſelfe.</note> that you will
diſable al theſe for learning, who left a better teſtimo<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>nie
behinde them then euer you wil, vnleſſe you haue
mor then you haue ſhewed in this anſwer. The other
<note n="203" place="margin">This was my concluſion. Men vſe not to call the concluſion a lie, before they an<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ſwere the antecedent.</note> vntruth is, that <hi>SHEOL</hi> in the 16. Pſalme, doth
ſignyfie the torments of hell, which Chriſt ſuffered in
his paſſio<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g> on y<hi rend="sup">•</hi> croſſe. That this is vntrue it is mani<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>feſt
<pb n="50" facs="tcp:178019:38"/>
not by conceit, but by <hi>Pet.</hi> Sermon, <hi>Act. 2. 31. Hee
knowing this before ſpake of the reſurrection, that
his ſoule was not left in hell, nor his fleſh ſaw corrup<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tion:</hi>
You ſay it is ſpoken of the paſſion, <hi>Peter</hi> ſaith it
is ſpoken of the reſurrection:<note n="204" place="margin">You la<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>bour in vaine, this is not de<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>nied.</note> and good cauſe
hath he ſo to ſay, for the words going before, and co<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>
                  <g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ming
after do prooue it. The words going before are
theſe, <hi>Pſalm. 16, 9. Wherefore my hart was glad, my</hi>
                  <note n="205" place="margin">A ſenſles tranſlation li<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>keth you beſt.</note> 
                  <hi>glory reioyſeth, my fleſhe alſo ſhall reſt in hope.</hi>
The words following in the 11. verſe are theſe: <hi>Thou
ſhalt ſhewe me the path of life, in thy preſence is the
fulnes of ioy, and at thy right are pleaſures for euer
more.</hi>
                  <note n="206" place="margin">You wold haue ſaid, how can yee finde, to point where, &amp; aske where I can finde it, is like him that ſaid, I payd 18. d. for my ſhoes, read what they, coſt me.</note> Where can you finde your torments,
in the word<note n="207" place="margin">He reioi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ced, becauſe he ſhould not be left in tor<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ments, will that anſwere ſerue your turne?</note> (glad) or in the word (reioiſeth) or in
the word (reſt) or in theſe words (fulneſſe of ioy) or in
theſe (pleaſures for evermore.)<note n="208" place="margin">Who ſaid ſo? You fight with your owne ſhadow</note> Was Chriſt glad
of his torments? Did he reioiſe or wepe in them?<note n="209" place="margin">Who would make concluſions &amp; father the<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g> on his aduer<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ſarie, but hee that wanteth both ſcience to anſwere, or conſcience to acknowledg the truth.</note>
Who would deliuer this doctrine but hee that wan<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>teth
either ſcience or conſcience, or both.<note n="210" place="margin">Al theſe lies doth bliſter on the lips of the blab that bred them.</note> To
lye once is a fault, but affirme it twice is a greater
fault. To ſpeake a lye is hurtful, but to write a lye ad<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>uiſedly
is more hurtfull. To lye in a matter politicall
is dangerous, but to lye in deuine matters without
ſpeedie repentance is damnable.<note n="211" place="margin">If that be not true, why confute ye it not?</note> You ſay noe
vantage is giuen to me nor inconuenience to you, if
you grant <hi>SHEOL</hi> to be Hel: Let your frinds iudge
<note n="212" place="margin">You alledge my wordes to play vpon the vantage</note> what vantage you haue geuen to the truth, and
ſhame to your ſelf<note n="213" place="margin">I gain ſay him not.</note> by gainſaying Saint <hi>Peter,</hi>
and by<note n="214" place="margin">Nor ſay not that.</note> affi<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap>ming, that in the reſurrection are
torments, where <hi>Dauid</hi> and <hi>Peter</hi> ſay, are fulnes of
ioy and pleaſures for enermore. Therefore, it is the
ſaying of <hi>Peter,</hi>
                  <note n="215" place="margin">The que<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ſtion is, what the manner thereof ſhould be. This is <hi>petitio principij.</hi>
                  </note> that Chriſts ſoule was not left in
<pb n="51" facs="tcp:178019:38"/>
hell, and not my conceit, and it is deceit in you to<note n="216" place="margin">And falſ<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>hood in you to charge me with that I neuer ſpake.</note>
affirm the contrary. Further, where you ſay that <hi>Tre<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>melius</hi>
and <hi>Iunius,</hi> are better learned in the Hebrew
language then my ſelfe, I confeſſe it,<note n="217" place="margin">That is but your con<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ceit. I ſee no reaſon for it.</note> ſo are the
<hi>Iewes</hi> them ſelues then <hi>Tremelius</hi> and <hi>Iunius.</hi>
                  <note n="218" place="margin">Why not? if they teache the truth.</note>
ſhall I therefore beleue the <hi>Iewes?</hi> no more will I be<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>leue
the Tranſlation of<note n="219" place="margin">The by<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>aſle of this bowll did run on Tremelius and Iunius, &amp; with the jutte of an ilfavored rub: did break vpon others It is well that you feare to ſay that they diſagree from Dauid &amp; Pet. Your heart faine woulde, if your penne durſt venture.</note> any other learned man.
if he diſagree with <hi>Dauid</hi> and Sauite <hi>Peter.</hi> Finially,
to anſwer<note n="220" place="margin">You call my queſtion curious, &amp; by your anſwere proue it to want curioſi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tie. Such in conſequencie follow your pen as cloſe, as your ſhadow your body.</note> your curious queſtion, you aſke me
in what hell was Chriſt ſoule before his buriall? To
this I anſwer, in that hell whither all<note n="221" place="margin">And did it return thence alſo, as the words of the Pſal. doth proport, before his buri<g ref="char:EOLunhyphen"/>al.</note> Infidels
goe for their vnbelefe. I reade but of one Hell, if you
<note n="222" place="margin">Know not you that it hath 3. ſignifications as well as I.</note> knowe any more let mee ſee your proofe, and
the<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g> wil I tel you into what hel<g ref="char:punc">▪</g> Chriſt deſce<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>ded.<note n="223" place="margin">Who but you did euer ſay, that a ſoule could deſcend into Hel, and not being left there, return again before the buriall of the bodie.</note>
But who but you doth thinke it an vnpoſſible thing
for<note n="224" place="margin">Heere you holde that Chriſts ſoule did deſcend before his buriall: and in the order of the articles of the creede, you make it an ar<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>gument for you that it commeth after. Thus you can turne your noſe to euerie winde.</note> a ſoule to deſce<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>d into hel, before the body be
buried? The ſoule in an inſta<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>t paſſeth to heaue<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g> or hel,
but the body I am ſure muſt haue time to be buried:
for bodies<note n="225" place="margin">Lo, you will proue a thing that no man denieth.</note> are in places circumſcriptiuely: An<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>gels
and ſoules definitiuely, and God is in all places
vniuerſally. And the ſoule came out of hell into the
body, before the body could come out of the graue:
<note n="226" place="margin">This (therefore) follows not on the premiſſes.</note> therfore moſt aptly it is ſaid, <hi>Acts 12. 31. Thou
ſhalt not leaue my ſoule in hell, nor ſuffer my fleſh to
ſee corruption.</hi>
                  <note n="227 228" place="margin">Two vnfit allegations. The queſtion is whe<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ther He<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                        <desc>•</desc>
                     </gap> going before his burial is to be taken for the paines or place of Hel, which thing Auguſtine heere toucheth not.</note> For as <hi>Auguſt.</hi> ſaith in his
57. epiſtile <hi>ad Dardanum,</hi> That was ſpoken of his
ſoul, which cam from hel ſo quickly, this of his body
<pb n="52" facs="tcp:178019:39"/>
which could not corrupt by reaſon of his ſpeedy re<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ſurrection:
and writing on the 85. Pſalme, he ſaith,
wherfore this is his voice in the pſalme, not by any
mans coniecturs, but by the expoſition of the Apoſt.
Thou ſhalt not leaue my ſoule in hell, nor ſuffer thy
holy one to ſee corruption.</p>
            </div>
            <div type="rejoinder">
               <head>HVME his Reioynder.</head>
               <p>IN this ſection, I followed <hi>Calvine:</hi> from whoſe
judgement I am nowe departed on this place of
the Pſalme, as ſaid is before ſect. 4. Yet that the rea<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>der
may ſee how neare the trueth <hi>Calvine</hi> creepes: I
will defend him from all this wyde ſhot, and cleare
my ſelf of theſe hainous accuſations. Firſt, you begin
with vntruthes: there is nothing ſo much in your
mouth. It ſhould ſeeme that the moulde is not vnfit
for ſuch matter, that caſteth ſo much ſhot of that ſiſe.
But if you had not beleeued your ſecretarie, better
then my owne copie: the firſt of theſe vntruthes had
neuer founde the waye from your owne lippes. My
wordes are, <hi>Tu multa de nominibus inferni contra doctiſſi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>mos
huius atatis diſputas.</hi> As for your favorits in the end
of my Epiſtle, I graunted, that you wanted not the
countenance of ſundrie great writers: who rather
ſaid as you ſay, then confirme their ſaying by Scrip<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ture,
or reaſon. My wordes were, <hi>multos habet, fateor,
&amp; magn<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                        <desc>•</desc>
                     </gap>s patronos cauſa veſtra, qui ita potius cenſuerunt,
quam ratione ſententiam ſuam confirmarunt.</hi> Notwithſta<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>
                  <g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ding
all this, you runne ſuch a treble on mee with
vntruthes: that if I would runne the counter-tenor,
you would bluſhe to heare the diſcorde of your owne
deſcant. As for your 20. authours, firſt they were not
all Hebricians, nor vnderſtood the word wherin you
ſay, they tooke your parte. Secondlie, though ſome
of them drewe neere your opinion: yet they neuer
<pb n="53" facs="tcp:178019:39"/>
wrote of SHEOL to bee taken, as you will haue it.
Thridlie, <hi>Peter Martyr</hi> held that the ſoule of Chriſt
did preſent it ſelf to all the dead, aſwel the bleſſed, as
the damned. Fourthlie, <hi>Luther</hi> and <hi>Latimer</hi> holde,
that Chriſt ſuffered in Hell. Fiftlie, <hi>Loſſius</hi> and <hi>Hemin<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>gsus</hi>
holde, that the whole Chriſt, as he was borne of
the Virgine Marie, deſcended into Hel. Sixtlie, <hi>Mol<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>lerus</hi>
affirmeth that your opinion cannot be proved
by this place of this Pſalme. Seuinthly, <hi>M. Nowell</hi> hol<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>deth
that Chriſt by the vertue of his death did pearſe
to the dead, and the damned Hell. Eightlie, <hi>Lambert</hi>
ſaith nothing for you, but onelie quoteth a place out
of <hi>Auguſtine,</hi> to another purpoſe, wherein <hi>Auguſt.</hi>
ſeemeth to ſay, as you ſay. But <hi>Lambert</hi> neither ly<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>keth
nor diſlyketh it. Nynthlie, <hi>Robert Samuell,</hi> ſaith
no more for you, then the verie wordes of the beleef.
Tenthlie, in <hi>M. Foxes</hi> book of Chriſt triumphing, ther
is not anie thing for you, but the Printers picture,
which you haue alſo ſet before your owne booke.
Laſtlie, <hi>Felinus</hi> and <hi>Pomeranus</hi> are with vs, and againſt
you. Such is your skill to bleare the blinde, &amp; make
him thinke, that your foes are your friends. Thus if
a man could intend to trace you, he might finde you
quatt in manie buſhes, where you want couer to hide
your bunne. If anie writer name but Hell, it is y<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>nough
to make you bragge, that he is youres. As for
the other vntruth wherewith you charge me, it is an<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ſwered
ſect. 4. Yet becauſe you think heere to winn
the ſpurres, and haue bragged amongſt your frends,
that in this place you haue driuen mee ſo neere the
hedge, that I can neuer eſcape you, without the foile;
it may be, that that conceit may contem my anſwer.
Prejudice is a ſtrong baye, and will beare a maine
ſtrength before it breake. Wherefore heere I will
onelie turn the cock, and make it ſpout the ſame wa<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ter
in your owne face<g ref="char:punc">▪</g> to make you faine to flee to my
<pb n="54" facs="tcp:178019:40"/>
cloake, to keepe your ſhoulders from the ſhoure.
You holde that SHEOL in the 16. Pſalme doth ſignify
the locall Hell, wherein the damned are tormented.
That this is vntrue, it is manifeſt, not by conceit, but
by Peters ſermon. Act. 2. 31. <hi>Hee knowing this before,
spake of the reſurrection, that his ſoule was not left in Hell,
nor his fleſh ſaw corruption.</hi> You ſay, it is ſpoken of the
locall Hell, wherein the damned are puniſhed, Peter
ſaieth it is ſpoken of the reſurrection: and good caus
hath hee, ſo to ſay. For the wordes going before, and
comming after, do proue it. The words going before
are theſe. Pſa. 16. 9. Wherefore my hart was glad, my
glorie (to vſe your own tranſlatio<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>, leſt you ſay, I alter
your words) rejoiceth, my fleſh alſo, ſhal reſt in hope.
The words following in the 11. verſe, are theſe. Thou
ſhalt ſhew mee the path of life, in thy preſence is the
fulneſſe of joy, and at thy right hand, are pleaſures
for euermore. Where can you finde your locall Hell,
wherin is weeping and gnaſhing of teeth, in the word
(glad,) or in the worde (rejoiceth,) or in the woorde
(reſt,) or in the wordes (fulneſſe of joy,) or in theſe
wordes (pleaſure for euermore.) Was Chriſt glad of
that doole-full and dread-ful place? Who would de<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>liuer
this doctrine, but hee, that wanteth either ſci<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ence,
or conſcience, or both. To lie once is a fault,
but to affirme twiſe, is a greater fault: To ſpeak a lie
is hurtfull, but to write a lie adviſedlie, is more hurt<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>full.
To lie in a matter Politicall, is dangerous: but
to lie in divine matters, without ſpeedie repentance,
is damnable. Thus far you. This is your owne ma<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>nerlie
tale, filed on your owne vice, and taken out of
your printed booke. Wherein you giue your ſelfe
roundly and handſomly the ſingle-lie, the double-lie
the hurtfull-lie, the adviſed-lie, the dangerous-lie, &amp;
the damnable-lie. If I had blowne this wind in your
face, you would haue ſaid, that I had beene bred in
<pb n="55" facs="tcp:178019:40"/>
an Oxe-ſtall. As for your opinion on this place of
the Pſalme, I haue two ſore ſhot againſt it. That SHE<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>OL
heere can no waies bee the locall hell. Firſt it is in
the Hebrew SHEOL, and in the 70. <gap reason="foreign">
                     <desc>〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉</desc>
                  </gap>: <hi>Thou wilt
not leaue my ſoule to hell:</hi> and this place of the Actes,
<gap reason="foreign">
                     <desc>〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉</desc>
                  </gap> is not true greeke, except you vnderſtand <gap reason="foreign">
                     <desc>〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉</desc>
                  </gap>
or <gap reason="foreign">
                     <desc>〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉</desc>
                  </gap> as you note your ſelf out of Clenard. ſect. 14.
Now, thou wilt not leaue my ſoule to Hell, cannot
be vnderſtood of a praeſentiall beeing in the place of
hell: <hi>Ergo,</hi> this place cannot be vnderſtood of Chriſt
that he was in the locall Hell. If you bee ſo good a
Graecian, as you would be taken, you ſhould not bee
ignorant, that to make your ſenſe, it ſhould be <gap reason="foreign">
                     <desc>〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉</desc>
                  </gap>
as it is in Math. 12. 40. <gap reason="foreign">
                     <desc>〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉</desc>
                  </gap> and <gap reason="foreign">
                     <desc>〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉</desc>
                  </gap>.
The other is this. No man reioiceth that hee
is deliuered from a place wherein hee ſuffered no ill;
but Chriſt heere rejoyceth verſ. 26. and 27. that hee
ſhould not bee left in SHEOL: <hi>Ergo,</hi> SHEOL is not heer
the place of the damned, wherein you ſay, he trium<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>phed,
and joyed, and ſuffered no kinde of ill. As for
my ſcience and conſcience, which heere you ſtrike at,
you praiſe them your ſelfe (ſuch is your conſtancie)
in the beginning of your 12. ſection. I knowe mine
owne infirmities, and dare not accept your praiſes.
As for my knowledge, I am content that men count
of it, as they finde it. As for my life, I dare not bragg
neither will I ſpeake anie thing <hi>abſolute:</hi> but <hi>compa<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>rate,</hi>
this much I will ſay, (ſeeing you put mee to it)
that where wee are both knowne, I can finde more
mouthes to ſpeake my purgation, (if I holde but vp
my finger) then your ſelf can procure by freendes &amp;
meanes. You confeſſe, (which manie men wold think
though you confeſſed it not) that <hi>Tremelius</hi> and <hi>Iuni<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>us,</hi>
are better Hebricians, then your ſelf: and affirme
that the Iewes are better then they. For my parte, it
is beyond my skill to make compariſons: and my
<pb n="56" facs="tcp:178019:41"/>
blinde eies can ſee no reaſon for that oddes. But as
you will not beleeue the Iewes, (you ſay) no more
will you <hi>Tremelius</hi> and <hi>Iunius,</hi> againſt <hi>Dauid</hi> &amp; <hi>Peter.</hi>
You haue reaſon for you. Yet til you proue it, other
men will ſuſpect, that <hi>Tremelius</hi> and <hi>Iunius</hi> had both
as much care, and as great judgement, to keepe in
with Dauid and Peter, as you. And for anie thing we
ſee, it is credible inough, that Dauid, Peter, and
they doe drawe all one way. If you will beleeue the
Iewes in nothing, you doe them wrong. If all men
had been as hard laced as you, no man had euer got<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ten
Hebrew of them. You anſwere the antecedent
of my argument, which you call a curious queſtion,
without curious meditation. It ſhoulde ſeeme that
the queſtion was more curious in your tongue, then
your eies, that you can anſwere ſo readilie. You tri<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>fle
and tell mee, that you read but of one Hell. And I
anſwere you, that he who in ſerious matters of faith
can finde a cavill <hi>a rebus ad voces,</hi> will hardlie find cre<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>dite
of ſincere dealing. Did not you ſee, that I ſpake
of the three things ſignified in that name, and not of
the damneds Hell onelie, which hath almoſt gotten
the Engliſh name to it ſelf, from the other two. For
my part I neuer thought it a thing vnpoſsible, for a
ſoule to diſcend into Hell, before the buriall of the
body: but that Chriſts ſoule ſhould deſcend into hel
and returne againe, (for ſo the wordes of the Pſalme
doth ſound, (<hi>Thou wilt not leaue my ſoule in Hel</hi>) before
the buriall of the bodie, as the words do lie in order,
I euer held it, and holde it yet a thing, that you ne<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>uer
ſaw, and impoſsible for you to prooue with wit<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>neſſes.
But in one thing you ſeeme farre heere to o<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>uer-ſhoot
your ſelfe. Your mates reaſon againſt vs,
that the pangs of Hell, which went before the buri<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>all,
cannot bee ment by theſe wordes following it.
You open your owne ſide to that blowe, and put the
<pb n="57" facs="tcp:178019:41"/>
diſcending into the locall Hell, before his buriall al<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ſo,
and make that argument ſtronger againſt your
ſelf, then you finde it againſt vs. Thus you ſee, al this
great winde is ouerblowne, and ſhakes no corne.</p>
            </div>
         </div>
         <div n="8" type="section">
            <head>HVME his 8. Sect.</head>
            <p>HEere to let this paſſe, your next reaſon is from
that place of Paul: <hi>But that he aſcended: what is it
els, but that he firſt deſcended into the lowermoſt parts of the
earth.</hi> Where you holde, that the lowermoſt partes
of the earth, muſte needes ſignifie the pit of Hell.
Which thing if it were ſo ſure, as you beare in hand;
I wonder that no Diuines, (I ſpeake of the mode<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ſter
ſorte) did yet gather heereupon, that the place
of Hell, were the verie center of the earth. But wher<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>as
you avouche ſo confidentlie, that ERETS TACH<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>TITH,
doth ſignifie Hel as properlie in Hebrew, as hel
doth in Engliſh, (though I meane not to ſtand with
you for the tongue) yet pardon mee to diſſent from
you in this. For in the places which you quote, it
can not in my ſimple vnderſtanding carie that ſenſe.
Your firſt place is, <hi>They which ſeek my ſoule, ſhall go down
into the lowermoſt partes of the earth,</hi> which cannot bee
meant of Hell: except theſe reaſons deceaue mee.
Firſt, it might ſeeme a preſumption to enter ſo farre
into Gods ſecrets, as to judge his owne priuate ene<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>mies.
Next, it ſhould ſeeme not to ſtand with the af<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>fections
of a godlie heart, to aſcribe that place to his
enemies, out of the horrour wherof, there is no re<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>demption.
For the children of God, do rather pray
for their enemies, &amp; deſire their amendement. This
place may be wel conſtrued of the graue. For it is an
argument vſed by the Prophete, to lay the pride of
them that ſought his ſoule, and to ſolace himſelf:
recording that their hatred ſhould haue an end, whe<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>
the graue ſhould ſwallow them. The wordes <gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                  <desc>•</desc>
               </gap>ollow<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ing
confirme this ſenſe: <hi>That they ſhall fal vpon the edge
<pb n="58" facs="tcp:178019:42"/>
of the ſword,</hi> which cannot be vnderſtood, but of tem<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>porall
death.</p>
            <div type="reply">
               <head>HIL his reply.</head>
               <p>INdeed,<note place="margin">The paralogiſ<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>mes of this ſect</note> I brought this place <hi>Eph.</hi> 4. 9. to proue that
Chriſt deſcended into Hell.<note n="228" place="margin">I char<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ged you not with immo<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>deſtie, read a<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>gaine.</note> And whereas
you charge me with immodeſty, for ſo alleadging of
it: I muſt needs charge you with<note n="229" place="margin">Theſe two vntruths wil proue not one.</note> two vntruths
in anſwering this allegatio<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>. The one is, y<hi rend="sup">•</hi> I called it
<note n="230" place="margin">Is it an vntruth to tel your own tale in your owne wordes.</note> the pit of Hel,<note n="231" place="margin">Yet and you be reme<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>
                     <g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>bred tranſla<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>
                     <gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                        <desc>•</desc>
                     </gap>ing Lauater in the next ſect. you cal it a pit.</note> which phraiſe I neuer vſed.
The other is,<note n="232" place="margin">You doe impude<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>tly or arrogantly take which you will, miſ<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>vſe my words: read againe.</note> you haue impudently a<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap>ouched,
that none of the modeſter ſorte of diuines, haue euer
alleadged this place to proue the deſcending of Chriſt
into <gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap>el.<note place="margin">233. Heere ye ſettle your ſelf to your olde trade, to proue a thing, not denied. Your worke could not riſe otherwiſe.</note> 223 For many, and thoſe both learned and
modeſt haue alledged this place to this purpoſe.<note n="234" place="margin">This witneſſe needed not.</note>
                  <hi>Athanaſius</hi> interpreting this Epiſtle and texte, thus
writeth. Into what place did he deſce<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>d?<note n="235" place="margin">Hel<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                        <desc>•</desc>
                     </gap> may heere <gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 span">
                        <desc>〈…〉</desc>
                     </gap> the gra<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                        <desc>•</desc>
                     </gap>e.</note> Into hel
truly, which he calleth according to the co<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>mon opinio<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>
of men, the loweſt parts of the earth.<note n="236" place="margin">This witnes is ſuperflu<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ous.</note> 
                  <hi>Ambroſe</hi>
on this place ſaith thus<g ref="char:punc">▪</g> This Chriſt therefore, com<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ming
downe from heauen into the earth, was borne
a man, afterward he dyed and<note n="237" place="margin">He ſaith not the thing he is brought to ſay, that the lowermoſt parts of the earth is Hell<g ref="char:punc">▪</g> and hel may alſo bee heere taken for the graue.</note> deſcended into
hell, from whence riſing the third day, he went vp to
heauen before all mortall men, that hee might ſhewe
deth to be vanquiſhed to every creature.<note n="238" place="margin">This witnes might haue ben ſpared.</note> 
                  <hi>Chri<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ſoſtome</hi>
on this place ſaith. Hee went to<note n="239" place="margin">He ſaith not, that the lowermoſt parts of the earth are hell.</note> thoſe
partes of the earth, then the which nothing is lower,
and from thence lies aſcended into heauen, then the
which nothing is higher. The like hath<note n="240" place="margin">This teſtimonie needed not.</note> 
                  <hi>Augu<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ſtine
li. de Trin. chap.</hi> 19.<note n="241" place="margin">Nor <gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                        <desc>•</desc>
                     </gap>his needed not.</note> 
                  <hi>Ierom<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                        <desc>•</desc>
                     </gap>
                  </hi> on this text
<pb n="59" facs="tcp:178019:42"/>
thus noteth. That<note n="242" place="margin">Hel heer may be taken for the graue: &amp; ſo it is liklie ſeing it may be doubted of the place of the damned whether it be vnder the earth, or no:</note> Hell is vnder the earth noe
man doubteth, for he that deſcended in ſoule into hell
aſce<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>ded both body &amp; ſoule into heaue<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>.<note n="243" place="margin">Nor this witneſſe nee<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ded no<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                        <desc>•</desc>
                     </gap>.</note> 
                  <hi>Mollerus</hi>
a learned Miniſter of <hi>Germany,</hi> on the ſixtene Pſalme
ſaith: that the deſcending into hel, is plainly proued
out of the <hi>Epheſians</hi> the fourth chapter.<note n="244" place="margin">nor this.</note> 
                  <hi>Muſcu<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>lus</hi>
on the 68. <hi>Pſalm.</hi> thus writeth. This God which
was in Chriſt reconciling the world vnto himſelf; firſt
deſcended into the loweſt<note n="245" place="margin">But ſaith not that the lowermoſte partes of the earth ar Hel.</note> partes of the earth,
then he lead captuitie captiue, and not only we ar de<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>liuered
from the captuity of Satan, ſinne, death and
damnation: but alſo Chriſt triumphing ouer them a<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap>
                  <g ref="char:EOLunhyphen"/>tirants,
hath aſcended aboue all heauens, to fulfill all
things:<note n="246" place="margin">This te<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ſtimonie nee<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ded not, but on this ſame place 4. Eph. he denieth that it pro<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ueth the de<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ſcending into the place of the damned.</note> 
                  <hi>Hemingius</hi> on the 2. Chapter to the
<hi>Coloſsians</hi> thus alſo teacheth. As by his deathe he
conflicted with the enemye one the croſſe, ſo by his
glorious<note n="247" place="margin">In all this he ſpeaketh not the thing he is alledged for.</note> deſcending into hell, reſ<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="4 letters">
                     <desc>••••</desc>
                  </gap>ection and
Aſcention, he triumphed as it is <hi>Ephe</hi> 4. Leauing his
cros lift vp as a monume<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>t of his victory, To conclud
<note n="248" place="margin">This nee<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ded not.</note> 
                  <hi>Aleſius</hi> a very learned preacher of Scotland, on
the 19. chapter of <hi>Iohn,</hi> affirmeth, that the 1. <hi>Pet.</hi> 3. &amp;
<hi>Eph.</hi> 4. do manifeſtly proue the deſcending of Chriſt
into hell, if <hi>Athanaſius, Chryſoſtome, Ambroſe, Augu<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ſtine</hi>
and <hi>Ierome</hi> of the old fathers, and <hi>Mollerus,
Muſculus, Hemingius</hi> and <hi>Aleſius</hi> of the new writers
be all<note n="249" place="margin">This is aſtrange (if) I neuer ſaid ſo.</note> immodeſt diuines, then haue you truelye
ſaide: but if in the iudgement of the learned, all theſe
were moſt reuerend men, then moſt<note n="250" place="margin">Then what are you if I accuſe them not, as indeede I do not.</note> ſhameles
are you to accuſe them of the want of modeſty. More
ouer, where you ſay no diuine dare to diſpute where
hell is:<note n="251" place="margin">If it be true in anie ſort, how dare you ſay aboue, that Hell no doubt is vnder the earth.</note> it is true in ſome ſort, for no diuine can
<pb n="60" facs="tcp:178019:43"/>
                  <note place="margin">242. An inco<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>
                     <g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ſequence. It followeth not becauſe men cannot circu<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>
                     <g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ſcribe <gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                        <desc>•</desc>
                     </gap>el, <hi>Ergo,</hi> they cannot know where it is. Na<g ref="char:EOLunhyphen"/>vigators can<g ref="char:EOLunhyphen"/>not circum<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ſcribe the la<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>d of P<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                        <desc>•</desc>
                     </gap>piniayes and yet<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                        <desc>•</desc>
                     </gap> they know that it is betwen the ſtraites &amp; the South pole.</note> 252 circumſcribe the place of hel which is<note n="253" place="margin">If hel bee infinite, then is it no wher, and all that you haue ſaid confuted. <hi>infinitum nuſ<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>qua<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                           <desc>•</desc>
                        </gap> eſt, mul<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                           <desc>•</desc>
                        </gap> to minus in<g ref="char:EOLunhyphen"/>centro terrae.</hi>
                  </note> in<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>finite,
nor yet of<note n="254" place="margin">If heaue<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>: and hell bee both infinite: then be there three infinites heauen, hel, and God.</note> heauen: only the word of God
affirmeth, that heauen is aboue <hi>Gal.</hi> 4. 26. And hell
is beneath, <hi>Prouerbs</hi> 15. 24.<note n="255" place="margin">I deny the argument.</note> Therefore, the lo<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>weſt
parts of the earth<note n="256" place="margin">That is not the que<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ſtion.</note> may well be taken for
hel: Then you goe further &amp; ſay, that <hi>ERETS TAGH<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>TITH</hi>
doth not ſignifie hell, <hi>Pſal.</hi> 63. and for this you
bring two reaſons: the one is, y<hi rend="sup">•</hi> it were a preſumption
in the Prophet to iudge, his enemies: 2. that it ſtan<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>deth
not with the affections of a godly minde to aſ<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ſign
hell to his enemies, but to pray for them to your
firſt reaſon this I anſwer<g ref="char:punc">▪</g> In the Pſalm. 9. 18. <hi>Dauid</hi>
uſeth the<note n="257" place="margin">Not the like. There he ſpeaketh of the wicked, heere of his enemies.</note> like ſpeeche: <hi>The wicked ſhall be tur<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ned
into hell, and all the people that forget God:</hi>
which text<g ref="char:punc">▪</g> 
                  <hi>Caluin</hi> thus<note n="258" place="margin">Calvine is alled<g ref="char:punc">▪</g> ged to proue a thing not denied.</note> expoundeth, the He<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>brewe
word <hi>SHEOL<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="2 letters">
                        <desc>••</desc>
                     </gap>
                  </hi> which was doubtfull. I haue
not doubted to tranſlate hell<g ref="char:punc">▪</g> for though it doth not
diſpleaſe me, that others <gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 word">
                     <desc>〈◊〉</desc>
                  </gap> it (Sepulcher) yet it is
ſure, heer is ſom thing noted beſides common death<g ref="char:punc">▪</g>
otherwiſe he ſhould ſpeak nothing of the reprobate<g ref="char:punc">▪</g>
but that which did generally<g ref="char:punc">▪</g> happen to al beleuers.
In the hundred and <gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap>inth Pſalme alſo, <hi>Dauid</hi> thus
praieth;<note n="259" place="margin">This is ſpoken of the Meſſias, and his ene<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>mies<g ref="char:punc">▪</g>
                  </note> 
                  <hi>Let Satan ſtand at his right hand, let,
his prayer be turned into ſinne<g ref="char:punc">▪</g> let the wickednes of
his Father, be had in remembrance in the ſight of the
Lord, and let not the ſinne of his mother be done a<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>way<g ref="char:punc">▪</g>
                  </hi>****
Do you think this to bee ſpoken<note n="260" place="margin">When and where ſaid I ſo?</note> preſ<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="2 letters">
                     <desc>••</desc>
                  </gap>
                  <g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tuouſly?
Many ſuch texts could <gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 word">
                     <desc>〈◊〉</desc>
                  </gap> alleadge, to proue
that <hi>Dauid</hi> inſpired with the ſpirit of prophecye, did
foretel<g ref="char:punc">▪</g> not only of the tragicall deſtruction of the bo<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>dies
of his<note n="261" place="margin">Not of his owne enemies I beleeue.</note> enemies, but alſo of the extreme da<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>
                  <g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>natio<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>
of their ſoules. This the<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g> is my reply <gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap>o your ſe<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>cond
<pb n="61" facs="tcp:178019:43"/>
reaſon: theſe enemies were not<note n="262" place="margin">This would be pro<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ued. And if it ca<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g> be proued, I will forgo this argume<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>t: and yet I will hold ſtill my concluſion: The concluſi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>on may ſtand trew, though my argume<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>t proue a jade.</note> priuate
enemies, but publick, and did hate<g ref="char:punc">▪</g> 
                  <hi>Dauid</hi> for his reli<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>gion
ſake: <hi>Dauid</hi> therefore by the gift of prophecie
doth foretell, that their ſoules ſhould go to hell to be
tormented, and their bodies ſhould be the portion of
ſoxes, that is, ſhold never come to the graue, for what
need 163 <hi>Dauid</hi> tell vs they ſhould by,<note place="margin">263. This was anſwered, if you wil be an<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ſwered</note> which we
know is commo<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g> to al, or how can that be true, which
you ſay, that they ſhould bee<note n="264" place="margin">By a <hi>Metonymia.</hi>
                  </note> in graue, when
<hi>Dauid</hi> himſelf ſaith, they were not in any graue, but
were the protion of Foxes. And ſo M. <hi>Caluin</hi> (whom
I hope you will beleeue) teacheth you, writing vpon
this pſalme and verſe. To be the portion of Foxes, is
as much as to be devoured and torn of wicked beaſts
for God (ſaith <hi>Cal.</hi>) doth threaten his puniſhement to
the reprobate, that they ſhall bee a pray to Wolues &amp;
dogges, becauſe hee would depriue them of the honor
of their graue. Heer you ſee<note n="265" place="margin">But hee<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                        <desc>•</desc>
                     </gap> Calvine ſaith not that they came into the Sheol.</note> M. <hi>Caluin</hi> ſaith,
they cam not into their graue, you ſay they did. How
<hi>M. Caluin</hi> and you may be reconciled<note n="266" place="margin">Th<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                        <desc>•</desc>
                     </gap> you knowe not <hi>Metonymia</hi>
                  </note> I knowe
not: for <hi>Caluin</hi> addeth this reaſon. It hapneth ſome
time that we know the ſame temporall puniſhments
to be common to the good and the bad, but this is the
difference, the bones of the godlie are gathered toge<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ther
and kept in ſafty, that none of them ſhall periſh;
but the ſcattering of the bones of the reprobate, is a
ſigne of eternall deſtruction.<note n="267" place="margin">Caluin is not of this minde, read his commen<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                        <desc>•</desc>
                     </gap>
                  </note> Therefore howe
can the lower parts of the earth ſignifie the graue, as
you ſay, ſince (as <hi>M. Calvine</hi> tru<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap>ie ſaith) they were
in no graue. Anſwere mee this (good <hi>M. Hume</hi>)
plainelie: <hi>Pſal.</hi> 63. 9.</p>
               <p>The lower partes of the earth<note n="268" place="margin">I denie the <hi>maior.</hi>
                  </note> ſignifie, (not
the graue) but hell, Chriſt deſcended into the lower
parts of the earth, <hi>Eph. 4. 9. <gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                        <desc>•</desc>
                     </gap>rgo,</hi> Chriſt deſcended
into hell.</p>
            </div>
            <div type="critique">
               <pb n="62" facs="tcp:178019:44"/>
               <head>Two impoſſibilities in the D. reply:</head>
               <p>That Hell is infinite, and that Hell is in the center
of the earth: <hi>Finitum, non eſt capax inffniti.</hi>
               </p>
               <p>That Hell and Heauen, be both infinite. <hi>Non ſunt
duo infinita.</hi>
               </p>
            </div>
            <div type="rejoinder">
               <head>HVME his Reioynder.</head>
               <p>Whereas I charge you with immodeſty, you ſay, you
will charge me with vntruethes: you are marueilous
chollericke. Good ſir bee content, you miſtake my
wordes. I haue miſvſed neither you nor your frends:
I onely ſaide, ſpeaking of the modeſter ſorte, that no
divines alledge theſe words, to proue, that Hell is in
the center of the earth, which they might wel doe, if
ERETS TACHTITH did ſignifie Hell properly. You
haue not done well to trouble your friends to proue
a thing not denied. Here you call forth nine writers,
and crye ſhame on me for miſvſing them. If I were as
chollericke as you, I might take Pepper in the Noſe,
and call you bra<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="2 letters">
                     <desc>••</desc>
                  </gap>leſſe, for miſtaking my words? The
meaneſt Carter in the plaine, would neuer ſo haue o<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>uerlaſht
himſelf: by ſuch ſhifts as this, you haue made
your booke importable. If a man woulde peake out
all ſuch ware as this, he woulde leaue you ſmall ſtore
of ſtuffe to ſhew amongſt your cuſtomers. If you will
runne this courſe, you can neuer want wordes, how<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ſoeuer
you ſhift for matter: but if you mend not, im<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>pertinent
traiſh wil make men diſpaire, that euer you
will be able to yarne a Biſhopprick with your penne.
After all theſe out-cries, you confeſſe that whiche I
ſaid, and ad a reaſon becauſe Hell is infinite. Though
your reaſon be not good, yet your confeſsion will
purge me, and ſtaine your owne face with your own
boxe. That the lower-moſt partes of the earth, muſt
<pb n="63" facs="tcp:178019:44"/>
needs ſignifie Hell, thus you argue. Heauen is aboue
and Hell is belowe: <hi>Ergo,</hi> the lower-moſt parts of the
earth may be Hell. This reaſon was taynted before
it came at <hi>Whately-bridge,</hi> and neuer came into <hi>Oxen<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>forde</hi>
amongſt ſo many Noſes able to ſmel ſuch ware,
as farre as <hi>Bullington-greene,</hi> without a peall of S. Cle<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ments
Belles: Firſt, you conclude not the queſtion.
This queſtion is not, whether the lower-moſt partes
of the earth may be Hell: but whether ERETS TACH<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>TITH
be the proper name of Hell. Secondly, the
place that you alledge out of the Proverbs, all inter<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>preters
agree not vpon that ſence of the wordes.
Laſtly,<note place="margin">This is a mi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>raculous hole on the edge of Mendipp.</note> if a man ſhoulde reaſon, Heauen is aboue, and
and Hell is be low: <hi>Ergo, Owkie</hi> hole is Hell: you will
laugh your ſelfe, though partiallitie will not let you
ſee the ſame ſtupiditie in your owne reaſon. The firſt
place that you alledge, to Proue that ERETS TACH<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>TITH,
muſt needes ſignifie Hell, is out of the 63. pſal.
They that ſeeke my ſoule, ſhall goe downe into the
lowermoſt parts of the earth. Which place is ſo farr
from prouing your concluſion neceſſarily: that wher
one interpretour that euer I ſaw, doth interpret it of
Hell, three doth conſtrue it of the graue: which ſence
being agreeable to the reſt of the Scriptures: I view<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ing
the whole bodie of the pſalme, and finding Da<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>uid
to ſpeake onely of his owne private enemies, and
no inducementes to lead me to thinke, that he ſpea<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>keth
here, eyther in the perſon of Meſsias, or of his
bodie the Churche: I gathered three reaſons to diſ<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>prooue
your ſence. Firſt, that it were a preſumption:
Secondly, contrary to the mind of the godly, to judg
their own priuat enemies: And laſtly, that the words
following, they ſhall fall vpon the edge of the ſword,
can reach no further then to temporal death. To the
laſt of theſe you ſay nothing, which of it ſelf is ſtrong
ynough to cary this concluſion from you. To the o<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ther
<pb n="64" facs="tcp:178019:45"/>
two, you oppoſe the 9. Pſalme, 18. where the
Prophet ſpeaketh of the wicked: and the 109. pſalm
which containeth a prophecie of Chriſte, vttered in
the perſon of David, Act. 1. 20. whiche places point
beſides the marke, and proue not, that Dauid doth
Iudge his owne priuate enemies, but the wicked and
enemies of the Meſſias. Wherfore, though I ſcarſ<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap>
truſt theſe two laſt reaſons: yet till I here them taken
away by reaſon, I ſtand at my firſt marke ſtil, that Da<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>uid
ſpeaking heere of his owne privat enemies, is of
Iobs minde, not reioycing at the deſtruction of them
that hate him. Iob. 31. 29. 30. And here M. D. I would
haue you marke, that though I had not on argume<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>t,
yet my ſenſe beeing agreable to the wordes of the
Pſal. and conſonant to the ſcriptures, is inough of
it ſelf, to prove that youres is not the proper mea<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ning
of theſe words. But ſay you, this cannot be the
graue, becauſe it followeth they ſhall be the porcion
of Foxes; that is, they ſhall want the honour of the
grave, and there you ſet <hi>Calvine</hi> againſt mee, ſaying,
that you ſee not how we may be reconciled togither.
For my part, I care no more for <hi>Caluines</hi> fauour, then
<hi>Auguſtines</hi> and other godly mens, that haue labou<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>red
fruitefully in the Lordes harueſt, whatſoeuer it
pleaſeth you to beare your reader in hand otherwais
of me. But if you had ben half ſo lerned as you think
your ſelf: or half ſo indifferent as men do wiſh, that
wiſh you well, you might haue ſeen that the graue is
vſed by a <hi>Metonymi<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                        <desc>•</desc>
                     </gap>
                  </hi> for all the dead, whether layd vp
in the bowels of the earth, or floting in the ſea, or de<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>voured
of rauenous beaſts. For the Hebrue SHEOL
doth not ſo much ſignifie the graue (which for want
an other word we are forced to ſet for it by a <hi>Metony<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>mia</hi>)
as that which the greeke <gap reason="foreign">
                     <desc>〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉</desc>
                  </gap>, doeth better ex<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>preſſe
by the privation of light or life, ſeparating all
the dead, which in Latine be called <hi>inferi,</hi> and <hi>manes,</hi>
                  <pb n="65" facs="tcp:178019:45"/>
from the living, which they call <hi>ſuperſtites.</hi> And not
compryſing onelie them which are buried in a graue
as you do ignorantly ſuppoſe heere, nor the damned
as you do as wiſelie hold in another place. Thus the
very heathens did vſe this word, <gap reason="foreign">
                     <desc>〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉</desc>
                  </gap>
ſaith <hi>Homer:</hi> that is, hee ſent
manie worthie ſoules (not to the hell of tormentes,
that had beene a bad rewarde for their worthineſſe)
but to the dead, or to the graue. So is the ſame word
vſed by <hi>Nonnus,</hi> a Chriſtian Poet of great antiquitie,
in his Paraphraſe vpon Iohn, cap 11. ſpeaking of <hi>La<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>zarus,</hi>
who you will not ſaye, (I hope) was in Hell.
<gap reason="foreign">
                     <desc>〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉</desc>
                  </gap>:
that is, and hearing amongſt them that were dead &amp;
rotten, the fugitiue corps returned again out of hel.
The ſame authour in the ſame place vſeth <gap reason="foreign">
                     <desc>〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉</desc>
                  </gap> in
the ſame ſignification, whence the Latines haue bor<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>rowed
their <hi>Barathrum.</hi> 
                  <gap reason="foreign">
                     <desc>〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉</desc>
                  </gap>.
That is, who
raiſed vp the dead <hi>Lazarus,</hi> skipping out of the ſmo<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>kie
gulfe, and returning from the dead. So the La<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tines
vſed their <hi>Orcus</hi> and <hi>Tartarus,</hi> not deuiding the
damned and the ſaued: but the dead and the living,
by the privation and habit of light and ſeeing. Wher
you aske mee why Dauid ſhould ſpeake of their tem<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>porall
death, which is common to all, I tolde you (if
you will be tolde it) to ſolace himſelf by the remem<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>berance
of their malice, that it was not euerlaſting,
but ſhould ceaſe with their ſhort liues. You conclude
this ſection with a new ſyllogiſme, with proteſtation
to good <hi>M. Hum<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                        <desc>•</desc>
                     </gap>
                  </hi> (ſo you call him) to anſwere it
plainelie. The lower partes of the earth, ſignifie not
the graue, but hell. Chriſt deſcended into the lower
parts of the earth. <hi>Ergo,</hi> Chriſt diſcended into Hell.
Now, <hi>M. Hume</hi> to deſerue your good name, firſt, de<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>nies
the <hi>maior:</hi> ſecondlie, he replyes to the <hi>minor,</hi> that
<pb n="66" facs="tcp:178019:46"/>
in his judgement, the lowermoſt partes of the earth
that Chriſt deſcended into, may wel be taken for the
baſe and meane eſtate that the ſonne of God diſcen<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ded
into vpon the earth. The ſonne of a Carpentar,
borne in a ſtable, cradled in a cratch, and living in a
baſe eſtate, without a hole to hide his head in, was e<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ven
the loweſt and baſeſt partes of the earth. Hee
could not well goe lower. Thus <hi>Hume</hi> bids you goe
your way, and take this for an anſwere.</p>
            </div>
         </div>
         <div n="9" type="section">
            <head>HVME Sect. 9.</head>
            <p>YOur other places be, <hi>I wil pearce through all the low<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ermoſt
partes of the earth, and looke on them that bee a
ſleepe.</hi> Eccleſ. 24. <hi>And they ſhall be caſt downe into the low<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ermoſt
parts of the earth, and ſleep in the middeſt of the vn<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>circumciſed.</hi>
Ezech. 31. 18. which two places, by your
leaue, cannot be well meant of Hel. Except that you
can perſwade vs, that there is ſleepe, that is, reſt and
quietnes in Hell, but of the graue and ſtate of the
dead, whereof wee haue as commonlie almoſte, as
ſtones in the ſtreete, <hi>he did ſleepe with his Fathers.</hi> The
ſame wordes ERETS TACHTITH, which you ſay, doth
ſignifie properlie Hell, be ſo vſed by the Prophet Da<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>vid,
Pſal. 139. 14. That they can no wiſe bee taken in
that ſignification, except it can be proued, that Da<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>uid
was faſhioned and made in Hell. His wordes bee
theſe: <hi>My bones are not hid from thee, though I was made
in a ſecrete place, and faſhioned beneath in the earth.</hi> Here
<hi>Beza</hi> doeth well obſerue, that the place of the Apo<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ſtle
which you alledge, may fitlie bee applied to the
ſenſe of this place: and note vnto vs the diſcenſe of
Chriſt, into the wombe of the Virgine.</p>
            <div type="reply">
               <pb n="67" facs="tcp:178019:46"/>
               <head>HIL his Reply.</head>
               <p>FIrſt you ſay,<note place="margin">The Paral<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                        <desc>•</desc>
                     </gap>
                     <g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>giſmes in the D. reply.</note> the place quoted by me <hi>Syrac.</hi> 24. 37
maketh not for the proofe of my aſſertion.<note n="269" place="margin">If you had red Chy<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>treus, a man (as you alledg on your owne ſide) you culd neuer haue hoped that a<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>nie thing in this cap<g ref="char:punc">▪</g> wold haue cha<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>ged my minde</note>
If you had conſidered what<note n="270" place="margin">It wil not follow becaus he ſpeaketh of the bottom of the depth in the 8. verſe: therefore the lowermoſt parts of the earth muſt needes be hel in the 24. verſ.</note> went before, and
what followeth, you wold haue bin of another mind.
For before in the 8. verſe is ſaide, <hi>I alone haue</hi>
                  <note n="271" place="margin">This may be vnderſtood of wiſdome, which diſcour<g ref="char:EOLunhyphen"/>ſing by reſon of all the works of nature, doth after a ſort walke about the heauens, and vnder the bottomes of the ſea.</note>
                  <hi>gon round about al the compas of heauen, and haue
walked in the bottome of the depth.</hi> Which depth
<note n="272" place="margin">When alis done, Pellic<g ref="char:punc">▪</g> muſt hew this chip for this chi<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                        <desc>•</desc>
                     </gap>ke.</note> 
                  <hi>Pellicanus</hi> alearned writer doth interpret <hi>abyſſum
mortis &amp; inferorum,</hi> the<note n="273" place="margin">Whe<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g> Pelican hath done with it, M.D. muſt turn <hi>inferi</hi> to his byaſſe, or els this labor is loſt <hi>inferi</hi> may be taken for the dead, as ſaid is in the former ſect.</note> depth of death and hel.
Yea, the<note n="274" place="margin">That is doubted.</note> whole Chapter ſpeaketh of the Sonne
of God, and of his<note n="275" place="margin">That is not true.</note> wondrous workes in ſauing
mankinde: of the which this is on,<note n="276" place="margin">That is fals.</note> that he was
not only aliue among the liuing, but after death<note n="277" place="margin">That wanteth probabilitie.</note>
his bodye was among the dead bodyes,<note n="278" place="margin">And that all ſhew of truth: There is not one word in all this cap. of anie of theſe things.</note> and
his ſoule among the ſoules in hell.<note n="279" place="margin">This is <hi>petitio principij.</hi>
                  </note> which hee
calleth the lower parts. The like ſcripture to this is
in <hi>Iob.</hi> 38. 16, 17.<note n="280" place="margin">In this place, God openeth to Iob the imperfection of mans knowledge. How can you make that liable to your queſtion, to pr<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                        <desc>•</desc>
                     </gap>oue that in the 21. of Eccl. the lowermoſt parts of the earth is hell.</note> 
                  <hi>Haſt thou entered into the
bottom of the ſea? or haſt thou walked to ſeeke out
the depth; haue the gates of death bin opened vnto
thee? or haſt thou ſeene the gates of the ſhadowe of
death.</hi>
                  <note n="281" place="margin">Some bodie muſt helpe you.</note> Theſe words are thus opened by <hi>Mar<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tin
Borrhauius</hi> in his learned Commentaries vpon
<hi>Iob.</hi>
                  <note n="282" place="margin">How helps that you.</note> I haue dwelled in the higheſt places, and
my throne is in the pillar of the cloudes: I haue gone
rounde about the compaſſe of heauen aboue, and
<pb n="68" facs="tcp:178019:47"/>
haue wallted in the flouds of y<hi rend="sup">•</hi> ſea. I pearce through
all the lower parts of the earth. Haue thoſe in hell or
the dead bin ſearched out of thee? &amp; doſt thou knowe
their eſtate and condicion, and what ſhall happen to
their bodyes hereafter? and what doth happen to
their ſoules now? The force of death and of hell hee
maketh maniefeſt by the names of gates, as it is ma<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>nifeſt
in that ſcripture: and the gates of hell ſhall not
prevaile againſt thee.<note n="283" place="margin">How ſo: he ſpeaketh not heere of that place.</note> By theſe words it is eui<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>dent,
that the nethermoſte partes of the earth, <hi>Syrac.</hi>
24, 37. and <hi>Zalmaueth</hi> the Hebrue word, <hi>Iob.</hi> 38, 17.
doo ſignifie hell, and that none<note n="284" place="margin">Neither of theſe pla<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ces ſignifieth the ſonne of God.</note> but the Sonne
of God aboue, hath perſonaly ſhewed himſelf in all
theſe places. For the place in <hi>Ezechiel,</hi> that it maketh
moſt ſignificantly for my purpoſe,<note n="285" place="margin">Indeede Eſay &amp; Ezech were learned in a ſtrange kind of know<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ledge.</note> I wil proue
it by <hi>Eſay, Ezech,</hi> and diuers other, both learned &amp;
modeſt writers. <hi>Eſay</hi> 14, 9. handling the ſame mat<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ter,
ſaith<note n="286" place="margin">The word in Eſay, is SHEOL. not hell.</note> 
                  <hi>Hel beneth is moued for thee to meet
thee at thy comming.</hi>
                  <note n="287" place="margin">And in Ezech<g ref="char:punc">▪</g> alſo: &amp; therefore this is a plaine</note> And <hi>Ezechiel</hi> in the 15.
and 16. verſes calleth it hell plainly.<note n="288" place="margin">Sith the word in both the prophets is Sheol: &amp; it is confeſſed that Sheol doth ſignifie the graue as well as hell, I wonder that you bluſh not to finde this fault with me.</note> Sith then
both the prophets call it hell, how dare you to inter<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>pret
the graue: that the nethermoſt parts of the earth
do ſignifie hell,<note n="289" place="margin">You pro<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>miſe proof by Ezech, and flee to Mu<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>ſter.</note> I prooue it out of the 12. ver.
of <hi>Ezechiel. And the ſtrangers haue deſtroyed him
euen the terrible nations, and they haue left him vp
on the montaines, and in all the vallies his branches
are broken.</hi>
                  <note n="290" place="margin">You pro<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>miſe it by Munſter, and ſle to your own gloſe on him: &amp; ſo you fl<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                        <desc>•</desc>
                     </gap>e from buſh to buſh.</note> 
                  <hi>Munſter</hi> on this place ſaith, that
by the branches are vnderſtoode the carcaſſes of his
hoaſt, which the veaſts of the field did deuour. <hi>Laua<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>terus</hi>
the Miniſter of <hi>Tigurin</hi> agreeth with him.<note n="291" place="margin">But he wil not help you with <gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                        <desc>•</desc>
                     </gap>ut a gloſe.</note>
All the beaſts of the field ſhall dwell vpon his ruine:
the kings carkas ſhall not be laide vp into the ſepul<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>cher
of his elders, but ſhall be a pray to crowes, gri<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>phins,
and other carni<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap>orous birdes. So doth <hi>Pel<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>lican</hi>
a learned <hi>Linguiſt</hi> interpret this place, at the
<pb n="69" facs="tcp:178019:47"/>
laſte, there is ane auerſion or Apoſtrophe, to <hi>Pharao</hi>
himſelfe, or to the Aſſyrian King. To whom art thou
li<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap>ened, O thou noble and high among the trees of
pleaſure, thou haſt paſſed all other in power, and yet
with other kings that were in thy company<note n="292" place="margin">It ſhould ſeeme to be (thou waſt brought) by the words be<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>fore &amp; after,</note>
they were brought to the loweſt parts of the earth,
<note n="293" place="margin">I can not finde Pelican, but if I coulde I beleeue I ſhould finde this <hi>pare<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>theſis</hi> of your owne making: and if it be his, if you take hell for the ſtate of the dead, he hath not cut his cloake for your ſhoul<g ref="char:EOLunhyphen"/>ders</note> (that is) to hell, among the abhominable hea<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>then
ſhalt thou ſleepe, and lye as a wretched and mi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ſerable
man. Now becauſe you tak holde of the word
ſleepe,<note n="294" place="margin">I muſt know before I can reme<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>ber it: &amp; you muſt proue it if you can</note> you muſt remember that theſe words ar
ſpoken ironically,<note n="295" place="margin">There is noted a <hi>Sar<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>caſmus,</hi> &amp; not <hi>ironia</hi>
                  </note> as it is noted in the contents
of <hi>Eſay 14. The deriſion of the king of Babilon.</hi> More<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ouer,
<hi>Lauaterus</hi> on this place of <hi>Ezech.</hi> ſaith: Theſe
things may be better vnderſtood out of the 14. of <hi>Eſ.</hi>
which prophecying of the deſtructio<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g> of y<hi rend="sup">•</hi> king of <hi>Ba<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>bilon
Baltaſſar,</hi> deſcribeth with what bitter ſcoffs he
is entertained<note n="296" place="margin">He mea<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>nes amongeſt the dead,</note> in hell. To end. <hi>Lauaterus</hi> on
this place, proueth theſe four things: firſt, that there
is ane hell: ſecondly, that hel in this chapter is called
by three names, that is, 1. <hi>SHEOL 2. ERETS TACH<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>TITH,</hi>
3. <hi>BOR.</hi> Hell, the loweſt parts of the earth,
<note n="297" place="margin">Heer tra<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>
                     <g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ſlating Laua<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ter, you make him giu<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                        <desc>•</desc>
                     </gap> Hell a name, which in the former ſect<g ref="char:punc">▪</g> you ſcor<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ned as not be ſeeming your owne learned lips,</note> and a pit: thirdlie, that this Hel is beneath vs:
and laſtlie, that the tyrants and wicked of the world
do diſcend into it, and this he proueth out of <hi>Numb.</hi>
16. 33. <hi>Pſal.</hi> 55. 15. And addeth alſo, that <hi>Tertullian</hi>
and <hi>Ierome</hi> doo proue hel to be beneath in the earth.
The concluſion then is thus, for as much then as the
<hi>Aſſyrians</hi> dyed with the ſword, and were deuoured
of the beaſts and birds of the fiel<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap>,<note n="298" place="margin">By a <hi>metonymia,</hi> is that ſo ſtrange to you,</note> I pray tell
mee, how that can bee true that you affirme, that the
loweſt partes of the earth doth ſignifye the graue:
<note n="299" place="margin">A tautologie.</note> for howe were they in the graue y<hi rend="sup">•</hi> were neuer
buried?<note n="300" place="margin">An other tautologie, yet not proued,</note> therfore, they were in hel, as both <hi>Eſay</hi>
and <hi>Ezechiel</hi> doo affirme, and as <hi>Pellican, Munſter,</hi>
                  <pb n="70" facs="tcp:178019:48"/>
&amp; <hi>Lauater,</hi> three notable lerned men in the holy tong
doe interpret it.<note n="301" place="margin">My frie<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>ds I hope will be better aduiſed</note> I thinke your owne friends
when they reade this, will confeſſe you, either to bee
ignorant of the word of God, or els to wreſt it contra<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ry
to the meaning of the holy ghoſt. Moreouer, where
you miſlike with me becauſe I ſaid, that <hi>ERETS TACH<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>TITH,</hi>
that is, the lowermoſt partes of the earth, doth
ſignifye hell generally in the Hebrew toong, and you
bring an inſtance out of the 139. <hi>Pſal.</hi> and 14. verſe,
where you proue, that the lower parts of the earth
doth ſignifie the mothers womb, &amp; therefore it doth
not ſignifie hell alwaies: this is a childiſh reaſon. In
a metaphorical ſignification it ſignifieth the mothers
womb:<note n="302" place="margin">You alter the queſtion,</note> therefore in his proper ſignification, it
can not ſignifie hell.<note n="303" place="margin">Some ar<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>guments a <hi>metaphora</hi> may be better then anie you haue made in all this booke,</note> 
                  <hi>Argumentum a metaphora
ductum non valet,</hi> an argument drawen from a meta<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>phore
is of no force. And that heere is a metaphor, <hi>M.
Caluin</hi> ſhall be the iudge. He compareth (ſaith <hi>Cal<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>uin</hi>)
the mothers wombe to the<note n="304" place="margin">Then not to hell,</note> loweſt and in<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ward
dens of the earth: and a little after, for no doubt
<hi>Dauid</hi> would expres metaphoricaly, that ineſtimable
cunning which appereth in the figure of mans body.
<note n="305" place="margin">This is patched in a<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>mongſt Cal. words, to de<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ceaue the ſimple</note> The mothers womb is compared to hel for the
darknes of it: for as <hi>Caluin</hi> ſaith, that artificer which
maketh a cunning peece of worke in a darke place, is
more to be commended then hee which doth the like
in the light. <hi>Dauid</hi> alſo is heere ſaide to bee made in
the nethermoſt parts of the earth,<note place="margin">306, This wod if it were brought to the Logicians frame will warp, and will neuer come within the mould of mood &amp; figur</note> 336 becauſe he
was by nature the child of wrath and of hell, if he had
not bin deliuered therehence by Ieſus Chriſt. Breefe<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ly,
where you ſay, that he deſcended in to the Virgins
wombe, and that it is the true meaning of the place
<hi>Eph.</hi> 4. 9. both you and your M. <hi>Beza</hi> are deceaued.
For <hi>Paul</hi> reproueth you <hi>Ep, 4. 10. He that deſcended
is even the ſame</hi>
                  <note n="307" place="margin">A para<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>logiſme in the word the ſame</note> 
                  <hi>that aſcended.</hi> Now the body
and ſoul of Chriſt aſcended into heauen, therefore the
<pb n="71" facs="tcp:178019:48"/>
                  <note n="308" place="margin">It follow<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>eth not ſe the anſwere.</note> body and ſoule of Chriſt deſcended into the vir<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>gins
wombe, if the body did deſcend into the virgins
womb, then Chriſt took not fleſh of the virgin.<note n="309" place="margin">Vntruth,</note>
Thus that you may contradi<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap>t me, you are not af<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>fraid
ignorantly or wittinglye, to deny the incarna<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tion
of our Sauiour:<note n="310" place="margin">A ſuper<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>
                     <gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="2 letters">
                        <desc>••</desc>
                     </gap>ous allega<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tion to proue a thing not de<g ref="char:EOLunhyphen"/>nied: that is our old skil.</note> 
                  <hi>Theophilact</hi> ſaith well of
theſe words, when you read, that the Sonne of man
came down from heauen, you may not think that his
fleſh came down fro<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g> heauen, for this is y<hi rend="sup">•</hi> opinion of
Heretiques, which did teach that Chriſt brought his
body from heauen, and did paſſe through the virgin,
I hope you holde not this opinion,<note n="311" place="margin">They of whome I lear, ned this in<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>terpretation, looked as wel about them to miſſe ſuch myres as euer you did or ca<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>.</note> but if you
hold this interpretation you muſt needs fall into it,
<hi>For he that deſcended is euen the ſame that aſcen<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ded.
Eph.</hi> 4. 10.</p>
            </div>
            <div type="critique">
               <head>Violence in this ſection done to the text,
by the Doctor.</head>
               <p>Firſt, that the whole 24. chap. of Eccleſ. ſpeaketh
of the Sonne of God, and of his wonderfull workes
in ſaving mankinde: of the which this was one, that
he was not onelie aliue amongſt the living: but after
death his bodie was amongeſt the dead bodies, and
his ſoule amongſt the ſoules in Hell, &amp;c.</p>
               <p>That Eſay in 14. 9. and Ezech. in the 15. verſe of
his 31. cap. calleth that Hel plainelie, which Ezech. in
the 18. verſe of the ſame chapter, calleth the lower<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>moſt
partes of the earth.</p>
               <p>That in the 31. 18. verſ. of Ezech. Thou ſhalt bee
caſt downe in the lowermoſt parts of the earth, and
ſleepe in the middeſt of the vncircumciſed: the word
(ſleepe) is taken ironicallie.</p>
               <p>That in Eph. 4. it is ment, that Chriſt deſcended
in ſoule and body, as he aſcended in ſoule and body.</p>
               <p>
                  <hi>A new rule in Logick, that</hi> argumentum a Metapho<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ra
ſumptum, non valet.</p>
            </div>
            <div type="rejoinder">
               <pb n="72" facs="tcp:178019:49"/>
               <head>HVME his reioynder to the 9. ſect.</head>
               <p>FIrſt marke, that by a general axiome, whatſoeuer
a man alledgeth to proue a thing, either doutfull
or vnknowne: the ſame muſt be better knowne, and
inforce ſuch a neceſsitie of conſequence, as cannot
be denied. The thing that you haue heere in hand to
proue, is, that (the lowermoſt parts of the earth) is as
proper and peculiar a name for the place of the dam<g ref="char:EOLunhyphen"/>ned,
as Hell is in Engliſh. To proue this, your teſti<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>monies
ſhould be without controulment. But are in
deede ſo farre ſhort of that marke, that they are, (if
not harder) altogether as hard and obſcure, as the
place, that they are alleadged to illuſtrate. The firſt
of them I haue diſpatched in the former ſection. The
next is out of the 24. of Eccleſ. a booke not Canoni<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>call,
nor written in the tongue, whereon wee ſtand.
In which reſpect, I might haue rejected it. But becaus
one anſwere ſerued it, and your third place out of
31. 18. of Ezech. I joined them together. The firſte
was, <hi>I will pearce through the lowermoſt parts of the earth,
and looke on them that hee a ſleepe.</hi> The ſecond, <hi>Thou ſhalt
be caſt downe into the lowermoſt parts of the earth, and ſleep
in the middeſt of the vncircumciſed.</hi> To them thus I aun<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ſwered.
There is ſleep, that is reſt and quietneſſe, in
the place called heere the lower-moſte partes of the
earth: But there is no reſt nor quietneſſe in Hell, the
place of the damned: <hi>Ergo,</hi> the place called heer the
lowermoſt parts of the earth, is not Hell, the place of
the damned. For the firſt of your places, you ſay no<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>thing
to this argument. For the ſecond, you ſay,
that the word (ſleepe) is vſed Ironicallie, that is, in a
ſcornfull and mocking manner, and a contrarie ſenſe
For proof, (for want of text) you take vp the conte<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>ts
of the 14. of Eſay: and <hi>Lauater,</hi> who ſaith, that <hi>Balta<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ſar</hi>
                  <pb n="77" facs="tcp:178019:49"/>
was receaued amongeſt the deade: (for ſo is the
true ſenſe) with bitter ſcoffes. Firſt, conſider that
the figure in the 14. of Eſay, is a <hi>ſarcaſmus,</hi> not an <hi>I<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ronia,</hi>
conſiſting of bitter words vſed in their vſual ſig<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>nifications.
Secondlie, that your authors are but me<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>.
Thirdlie, that they ſay nothing of the word (ſleepe)
which Ezech.<note place="margin">Gen. 47. 30.</note> vſeth. Laſtlie, that you haue (ſleep) ma<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>nie
hundreth times,<note place="margin">Math. 9. 24.</note> attributed in the Scriptures to
the dead:<note place="margin">Mark. 5. 39.</note> but neuer to the ſtate of the damned, nei<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ther
in jeaſt nor earneſt.<note place="margin">1. King. 11. 43.</note> Whereupon thus I rea<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ſon.
We muſt not wring words out of jointe by an <hi>I<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ronia,</hi>
                  <note place="margin">1. King. 2. 10.</note>
except ſome neceſſarie inducement in the text,<note place="margin">Luk. 8. 52.</note>
or abſurditie in the letter lead vs thereto.<note place="margin">1. King. 15. 8.</note> But heere
is neither inducement in the text,<note place="margin">1. King. 14. 20.</note> nor abſurditie in
the letter:<note place="margin">1. Cor. 7. 39.</note> 
                  <hi>Ergo,</hi> heere we muſt not wring this worde
out of jointe in this text,<note place="margin">1. King. 21. 51.</note> and take it from the vſuall
ſignifications, in other places of the Scripture. This
argument is ſo ſtrong, and prevailed ſo much with o<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ther
writers, that you cannot finde one to take your
part in this mocke. If you could, we ſhould haue his
name, with the higheſt ſtiles of antiquitie, learning,
and aeſtimation, that anie ſhewe coulde yeelde him.
Whereas you can with no colour hyde this blot, in
the 24. of Eccleſ. there you run another courſe, per<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ſwading
mee, that if I had read that that goeth be<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>fore,
and commeth after, I would haue beene of an<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>other
minde. And affirming, that the whole chapter
ſpeaketh of the Sonne of God, and his wonderfull
workes in ſaving, &amp;c. You are ſomewhat deceaued
of mee. For I haue read the whole chapter, and more
then that, haue conſidered the matter in it. The
whole Chapter ſeemeth to mee a <hi>Proſopopoia</hi> of the
Wiſdome, which God in his worde, and the light of
nature hath left vnto man: praiſing her ſelfe in the
co<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap>gregation. That the authour ſpeaketh onelie of
that Wiſdome, (except you will make him leaue his
<pb n="74" facs="tcp:178019:50"/>
ground, and wander from his ſubject) it is plaine, by
the 11. and 12. verſes: where ſhe ſaith of her ſelf, that
he that made and created her, appointed her an ha<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>bitation
in Sion. Which cannot bee vnderſtood of
the aeternall Wiſdome of God, which was neither
made, nor created, but begotten. Whereas ſhee ſaith
in the ſixt verſe, that ſhe cauſeth the light that faileth
not to riſe in the heauens, and covered the earth as
a cloude. If you take light, for the knowledge of god
the heauens for his church, and the earth for the re<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>probate,
as they are in diuerſe places of the Scrip<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tures,
there is nothing in al this chapter, diſ-agreing
with this ſubject. That ſhee proceedeth from the
mouth of the moſt higheſt: that ſhe is the firſt<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap> borne
of all creatures: that ſhe was created from the begin<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ning,
and made before the worlde: and that ſhe ſhall
neuer faile, may be well vnderſtood of the worde of
God, which came from his own mouth, and ſhall not
periſh one jot of it, though heauen and earth doeth
paſſe. As for the 8. verſe, which you ſay woulde haue
changed my minde, that ſhe alone hath gone about
the compaſſe of the heavens, and walked in the bot<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tome
of the depth: I ſhould ſooner take it for natu<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>rall
wiſedome, proceeding alſo from God; which ta<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>king
viewe of all his creatures from the higheſt hea<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>uens,
to the loweſt center of the earth, doeth after a
ſort walke about them, and vnder them: then for the
aeternall wiſedom of God, with whom diuerſe things
in this chapter, will in no wiſe agree. Thus I ſee, that
there is no thing in this chap. to perſwade mee, that
the wiſdome heere ſpoken of, is the Sonne of God.
But ſuppoſe there were, yet heere is nothing to help
your cauſe. You know that the generall queſtion be<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tweene
you and mee, is not of the ſonne of God: but
of the ſonne of man, that is, of Chriſtes humanitie,
whether it did deſcend into the locall Hel. Of him, I
<pb n="75" facs="tcp:178019:50"/>
will ſtand to it to your face, that there is not one ſil<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>lable
in all this chapter, neither of his bodie, nor of
his ſoule, neither amongſt the living, nor amongeſt
the dead, in the graue, nor in Hell. Wherfore, (how<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ſoeuer
I haue read this chap.) you haue read it more
then well, that haue found matter in it, that no man
(but you) euer ſaw in it. The particular queſtion in
this part of the ſection, is whether the lower-moſte
parts of the earth, in the 37. verſe of this Chap. doth
ſignifie the Hel of the damned: to which this allega<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tion,
and the other out of Iob is ſo impertinent, that
I wonder you could hope, that they woulde holde
way. For, what maketh it to this queſtion, that the
wiſdome of God doth compaſſe the heauens, and
walke in the bottome of the depth: that it entreth
into the bottome of the ſea, or hath ſeene the gates
of death. You are neere be-ſtead, that are driven ſo
farre for reaſons. Thus much (though it be Apocry<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>phall)
for the place of Eccleſiaſtes. As for the other
place of Ezechiell, before you came to the anſwere,
which I haue ſet downe before for orders ſake: you
endevoured to proue by Eſay and Ezech<g ref="char:punc">▪</g> that it ma<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>keth
for you, after your owne manner, which is, ra<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ther
to trouble your aduerſarie with newe reaſons,
then to anſwere them that are in hand. For your
proof, you quote the 14. 9. of Eſay, and the 15. and
16. verſes of the ſame chapter of Ezechiell. Where
you ſay, both the Prophetes call the place, into the
which theſe Kings are caſte, moſt plainelie, Hel. And
wondering at me, that I dare interprete it graue, you
note in your margent, Hume diſagreeth with Eſay.
Ezech, Munſter, Lavater, and Pelilcan. But heere M.
D. I pray you let mee aske a queſtion. In what lan<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>guage
wrote thoſe Prophetes? Was the verie word
they vſed, hell? If not that, (as I think you will gra<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>t)
but the hebrew word SHEOL, which doth ſignifie the
<pb n="80" facs="tcp:178019:51"/>
graue, rather then Hell, why may I not take the one
ſignification, as well as you the other. Thus with
your bolde daring, you dare the ſimple, as men doe
larkes. But heere, now knowe, (if you knowe it not)
that I haue ſuch reaſons, not to take your ſignifica<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tion
of SHEOL heere, as ſhoulde carie you as well as
mee, if your wit were not maried to your wil. Firſt,
though the <hi>Aſſyrians</hi> and <hi>Babilonians,</hi> of whome the
Prophetes ſpeak in theſe places, were heathens, and
damnable miſcreants: yet it was not their purpoſe
to ſpeake heere of their aeternall damnation: but of
the diſhonorable deſtruction of their temporal king<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>domes.
Secondlie, that which Eſay in the 9. verſ. cal<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>leth
Hell: he calleth four times the graue, and twiſe
the pit, in the ſame chap. Thirdlie, in the ſame ver.
which you quote, hee ſaieth, that hell raiſing vp the
dead, even all the Princes of the earth, did meete the
king of Babell. But all the dead, euen the Princes of
the earth, were not in the Hell of the da<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>ned. Fourth<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>lie,
in the 11. ver. he calleth the place into the which
the King of Babell was brought, the graue: with
wormes vnder, and ouer him. But that cannot be the
place of the damned: <hi>Ergo,</hi> the place, of which he ſpe<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>keth
heere, cannot be the place of the damned. Fift<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>lie,
in the 15. and 16. verſes hee ſaieth, When hee was
brought downe to the graue, to the ſides of the pit,
they that ſawe him ſhoulde ſay, is this hee that made
the earth to tremble? But men coulde not ſee and
looke into his falling into the place of the damned:
<hi>Ergo,</hi> the place whereof he there ſpeaketh, is not the
place of the damned. Thus much for Eſay. For E<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>zechiel.
Firſt, in the 14. verſe, he joyneth the lower<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>moſte
parts of the earth, with them that goe downe
into the pit: and in the 16. verſe, hee joineth the go<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ing
to hell, with the ſame. But to deſcend into the pit
is to goe downe into the graue, not into hell: <hi>Ergo,</hi>
                  <pb n="73" facs="tcp:178019:51"/>
both the lower-moſt partes of the earth, and SHE<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>OL,
heere is taken for the graue. Secondlie, in the
ſame 14. verſe, the nether partes of the earth, is the
pit and place of death, common to all the children
of men: But the pit and place of death, common to
all men, is not the place of the damned: <hi>Ergo,</hi> the low
er-moſt partes of the earth, is not heere the place of
the damned. Thirdlie, in the 16. verſe, The Lord did
make the nations of the earth to ſhake, at the ſound
of his fall, when he did caſt him downe into Hell. But
the nations of the earth, heard not, nor felt not his
fall into the Hell of the damned: <hi>Ergo,</hi> this is not vn<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>derſtood
of the Hell of the damned. All theſe rea<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ſons
had I, and they made mee dare to tranſlate
SHEOL, (not the place of the damned) but graue.
And therfore (M. Doctor) you may ceaſe to wonder
at mee, if you will. And nowe I muſt wonder alſo at
your manner of reaſoning. That the lower-moſte
partes of the earth, doeth ſignifie Hell, (ſaye you)
I will prooue it by the 12. verſe of the ſame Chap. of
Ezech. And the ſtrangers haue deſtroyed him, euen
the terrible nations, &amp;c. Then, not finding your pur<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>poſe
there, you runne to Munſter, Lavater and Pelli<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>cane,
that the King of Asſhur was the prey of carni<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>vorous
byrds: and yet not finding to ſatisfie you, you
wring out a conſequence, that if he was deuoured of
beaſts, then he was not buried: if he was not buried,
then hee was not in the graue: If he was not in the
graue, then the lowermoſt parts of the earth wherin
he was, muſt needs be Hell. Where I tell you, I muſt
needs wonder, how you could leape ſo many ditches
without a ſtaffe, to finde Hell in this verſe. For all the
load you lay vpon me here of ignorance, &amp; miſvſing
the text: I did not take one ſuch leape in all my Let<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ter.
As for my inſtance out of the 139. pſalme, that
SHEOL, doth not alwayes ſignifie Hell, but may ſig<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>nifie
<pb n="78" facs="tcp:178019:52"/>
the mothers wombe, you ſay it is childiſh rea<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ſon,
&amp; prooue it with a Catholik rule, that <hi>Argumen<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tum
ductum à Metaphora non valet.</hi> I knowe not what
you mean by an argume<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>t, <hi>à metaphora.</hi> This is the firſt
time that euer I hard <hi>metaphora</hi> ſuſpected to be a to<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>pick
place: yet I haue heard good argume<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>ts in meta<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>phorical
words. Chriſt himſelf, the beſt logician that
euer I knew, had wont to make many ſuch. As for ex<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ample.
The ſeruant that putteth not his Lords talent
to the vantage, ſhal be caſt into vtter darknes, where
ſhalbe weping &amp; gnaſhing of teeth. But al miniſters,
that labour not faithfully in their charges are ſuch:
<hi>Ergo,</hi> all miniſters that labor not faithfully in their
charge, ſhal be caſt into vtter darknes, &amp;c. I beleeue at
the latter day, when arguments wil be as well ſifted,
as euer they were in the ſchool-ſtreats at Oxen. this
will be found a good argument, for all the <hi>metaphora</hi>
that is in it. As for my argument, I ſee not how it is a
<hi>metaphora.</hi> Though the ſignification of the word be
metaphorical (as Caluin wel noteth:) yet it ſerueth
my turne to prooue, that it is not alwayes Hell. And
now you put me in minde of it, I will picke another
argument out of the ſame place, that perhapps will
trouble you worſe: That is, the naturall ſignification
of euery worde, whence the metaphoricall is taken.
But this ſignification of theſe wordes (the lowermoſt
parts of the earth) is taken from the dennes and ca<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>uernes
of the earth, as you note me out of Caluine.
<hi>Ergo,</hi> the proper<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap> ſignification of this worde, is the
dennes and cauernes of the earth and not Hell of the
damned. Of this judgement is Mercerus, Cevalerus,
and Cornelius Bertramus, in their additions to Pag<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>nines
Lexicon. You confute Beza and me, for apply<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ing
theſe wordes to the place of the Epheſ. thus, He
that deſcended, is euen the ſame that aſcended: But
he aſcended in ſoule and bodie. <hi>Ergo,</hi> he deſcended in
<pb n="79" facs="tcp:178019:52"/>
ſoule and bodie, which is not true of his deſcending
into the virgins womb. And here you charge vs with
ignoraunce, or wilfull denying the Incarnation of
Chriſt. Good M. D. vſe me as you wil, but be good to
Beza: he hath bene well thought of as yet. I wonder,
that ſeeing ſo much againſt him and me, you coulde
not ſee the ſame againſt your ſelf. You hold that this
is ment of his deſcending into the local Hell: againſt
which, thus I vſe your owne reaſon: He that deſcen<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ded,
is euen the ſame that aſcended: But he aſcended
bodie &amp; ſoule: <hi>Ergo,</hi> he deſcended into Hell bodie &amp;
ſoule: a thing that you haue not yet granted. Howe
you will anſwere for your ſelfe, I leaue it to yourſelf.
I haue anſwered ſect. 5. for Beza and me: ſee there.
We denie not the incarnation of Chriſt, you purge vs
your ſelf within fiue lines. Wherfore you might haue
let Theoph. alone, if you had no more skill to proue
thinges not denyed, then the things in queſtion and
controuerted.</p>
            </div>
         </div>
         <div n="10" type="section">
            <head>HVME Sect. 10.</head>
            <p>BVt to let you alone with your Hebrewe, theſe
wordes of the Apoſtle, can no wayes be taken for
Hell, as you beare vs in hand: But doth purport the
ſame that Iohn tolde vs in other wordes.<note place="margin">Iohn. 16. 28.</note> 
               <hi>I came from
my Father into the world, and again. I leaue the world, and
go to my Father.</hi> For, ſeeing the Apoſtle in this place
bringeth his aſcenſion, as an argument of his deſcen<g ref="char:EOLunhyphen"/>ding,
which Iohn alſo did before him:<note place="margin">Iohn 3. 13.</note> 
               <hi>No man can aſ<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ſcend
vp into heauen, but he that hath deſcended from hea<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ven,
the ſonne of man which is in heauen.</hi> It muſt follow
by neceſſarie conſequence, that he deſcended thither
whence he aſcended. Now I truſt you will ſay, that
he aſcended into heauen, not from Hell, but from
Bethanie in the ſight of his Diſciples. Secondlie, if
the place where he deſcended, was heauen, Hel can<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>not
<pb n="76" facs="tcp:178019:53"/>
be the place, whither hee deſcended. For if euer
he was there, he went not thither in 30. yeares, after
his deſcenſion and aboue. If you will ſay, that he firſt
deſcended into the earth, and then into Hell: then
that deſcending could not be one motion, beeing ſo
manie yeares intermitted: but muſt needes bee two;
firſt from heauen into the earth, and then from the
earth into Hell.</p>
            <div type="reply">
               <head>HIL his Reply.</head>
               <p>VVHere you ſay,<note place="margin">The Paralo<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>giſmes in the D. reply.</note> you will let mee alone with
my Hebrue words, &amp; yet deny they ſignifie
hel, I hope<note n="312" place="margin">You might rather haue diſpared if the igno<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>rance, or wil<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>fulnes againſt conſcience which you ſpeak of, had not neſtled in your own hat.</note> becauſe I haue proued, that they ſig<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>nifie
not the graue (as you haue ignora<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>tly or againſt
your conſcience affirmed) at your next anſwering;
<note n="313" place="margin">You muſt hedge mee in harder, before you make me take that mire</note> you will ſay they ſignifie hell, and confeſſe your
diſagreement with <hi>Dauid, Eſay,</hi> and <hi>Ezechiel.</hi> Now
you conclude with certaine pregnant reaſons as
<note n="314" place="margin">And you might finde if you know a good reaſon fro<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g> an ill, whe<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g> you meete it in the way.</note> you imagine:<note n="315" place="margin">It is nei<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ther firſt, laſt, nor anie rea<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ſon at all, ſee the anſwere.</note> your firſt is this: Theſe
words do purporte vnto vs, that which <hi>Iohn</hi> told vs
in other words, <hi>I cam from my father into the world,
and againe, I leaue the world and goe to my Father.
Ioh.</hi> 16. 18.<note n="316" place="margin">A fig is not more lyke a fig, then this place is Iyke the place, wee haue in hand.</note> This is nothing pertaning to the
matter we haue in hand<note n="317" place="margin">My argument? that fooles bolt came neuer out of my quiuer.</note> vnles this be your ar<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>gument.
Chriſt came into the world, <hi>ergo,</hi> he went not
into Hell. Heerof I thus argue.<note n="318" place="margin">It is no won<g ref="char:EOLunhyphen"/>der to ſee as ill ſhapen reaſons as theſe, come off your blockes.</note> Chriſt deſcen<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ded
into the virgins wombe (as your ſelfe ſay) <hi>ergo</hi>
he came not into the world. Or thus. Chriſt deſcended
into the world, <hi>ergo</hi> he deſcended not into the graue.
Chriſt was borne of the virgin, &amp; came into the world
to reconcile vs to his Father by his death, taking a<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>way
our ſinnes, and triumphing in his owne perſon
ouer death and hell.<hi rend="sup">319</hi> Therefore not only Chriſt
<pb n="81" facs="tcp:178019:53"/>
came downe into the world, but as our body for ſinne
lyeth in the graue, ſo his body went into the graue:
and becauſe our ſoule was mancipate vnto hell, his
ſoule went into hel, that by his diſcending our ſoules
<note n="320" place="margin">How is this geare proued.</note> might bee freed from hell. In your next reaſon
you ſay, that Chriſt deſcended thither, whence he a<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ſcended:
now that is meerely falſe, as appeereth<note n="321" place="margin">The fi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>gure of Iona<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                        <desc>•</desc>
                     </gap> maketh no<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>thing againſt mee, ſee the anſwere.</note>
                  <hi>Math. 12. 40. For as Ionas was in the whales belly</hi> 3
<hi>dayes and 3. nights, ſo ſhall the Sonne of man be</hi> 3.
<hi>daies and 3. nightes in the hart of the earth.</hi> Now
Chriſt aſcended from the ſuperficies of the earth, but
he deſcended into the hart of the earth. Therefore as
this is no good argument, Chriſt aſcended from the
mount,<note n="322" place="margin">I did ne<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>uer ſpit ſuch arguments: they dropped from your owne lips.</note> 
                  <hi>ergo</hi> he aſcended not from the graue,
ſo this is alſo a weake argument. Chriſt aſcended
from the world, <hi>ergo</hi> he went not into hell:<note n="323" place="margin">A ſharpe ſrump: if you knew anie ill by Hume, I ſe you woulde barke with o<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>pen mouth,</note> M.
<hi>Hume</hi> lyeth in his bed, and early ariſeth, afterward
many ſeeing him he rideth towards Bromham, <hi>ergo</hi>
M. <hi>Hume</hi> came from <hi>Bath</hi> and not from his bed.
Then you adde this reaſon, if Chriſt deſcended into
hell, then it was 30. yeeres after his birth, and ſo it
was not one motion: you charge me with cloudes of
ſophiſtry,<note n="324" place="margin">It is a weak eie, that cannot ſee the ſunne through this miſt: you are like him that could not ſee the wood for trees.</note> but heer is a thick miſt of ſophiſtica<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tions:
what you meane by this motion, I know not
<note n="325" place="margin">
                     <gap reason="foreign">
                        <desc>〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉</desc>
                     </gap>
                  </note> but all the actions of our Sauiour are aptly de<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>uided
into humility and glory: of his humility there
are 4. degrees. Firſt he came into the virgins womb,
<note n="326" place="margin">By this diſtinction, he was not in the world, when he was in the Virgin<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                        <desc>•</desc>
                     </gap> wombe, nor when he was in the graue, nor when he was in hell.</note> ſecondly into the world: thirdly to the graue:
fourthly, to hel. Of his glory and exaltation likewiſe
there are foure degrees. Firſt he came out<note n="327" place="margin">That muſt bee one, whoſoeuer be the o<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ther.</note> of
hell and the graue: ſecondly he<note n="328" place="margin">A degree is an aſcenſe from one ſtep to another. His converſing on the earth was no aſcenſe and therfore no degree at all.</note> conuerſed in the
earth:<note n="329" place="margin">This degree in the aire was not a ſtep of his glorie, for he neither faſtned his ſeete, nor made any abode there</note> thirdly hee was carried in the aire in a
<pb n="82" facs="tcp:178019:54"/>
cloud, and then entred the heauens with glory. Alſo
where you ſay, that if hell were the place whyther
he deſcended, it muſt needs be the place from whence
he aſcended.<note n="330" place="margin">You ſay much, and prooue little.</note> This as I haue ſaide before is
vtterly falſe, if you meane<note n="331" place="margin">One a<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ſcenſion hath but one be<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ginning cal<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>aed terminus a quo.</note> the immediate place
from whence he aſcended, for it is known to all bele<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>uers,
that Chriſt did<note n="332" place="margin">That per<g ref="char:EOLunhyphen"/>taineth to his burial, not the deſcending that Paule ſpeaketh of in this place.</note> deſcend into the graue, but
he did not aſcend immediatlye from the graue,<note n="333" place="margin">Not, but ſuch eies as yours.</note>
therefore your reaſon is againſt the Scripture. wher
you make a diſtinction betwene the reſurrection and
the aſcention: you may vnderſtande if it pleaſe you,
that <hi>Eph.</hi> 4. 9. The<note n="334" place="margin">
                     <hi>Patitio principij.</hi> that is the place we ſtand vpon. It maketh nothing for you, except we will grant you your will without reaſon.</note> word (aſcend) containeth in
it al y<hi rend="sup">•</hi> degrees of Chriſts exaltation, &amp; therfore the re<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ſurrection
alſo: as the word deſcend doth comprehe<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>d
all the degrees of Chriſts humilitie.</p>
            </div>
            <div type="rejoinder">
               <head>HVME his Reioynder.</head>
               <p>IT is as eaſie to holde an Eele by the taile, as you to
the queſtion. The place whereon wee ſtand, is in
the 4. 9. to the Epheſ. <hi>But that hee aſcended, what is it,
but that hee firſt deſcended into the lower-moſte partes of the
earth.</hi> Which wordes, moſt of the learned, and many
of your owne favorites, takes to be, as if he had ſaid,
that the Sonne of God cloathed in mans nature is a<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ſcended
vp to heauen, what is it, but that the ſame
Sonne of God, firſt came downe into the lower-moſt
partes of the earth, and tooke on him mans nature:
ſo that hee which deſcended, is euen the ſelfe ſame
that is aſcended to fulfill all things, and giueth nowe
theſe gifts to men, to bee ſome Apoſtles, ſome Pro<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>phetes,
ſome Evangeliſtes, &amp;c. And ſo they take the
lower-moſt parts of the earth not to be the center of
the earth, in reſpect of his higheſt and extreame <hi>ſu<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>perficies:</hi>
                  <pb n="83" facs="tcp:178019:54"/>
but the whole earth in reſpect of the heuens.
Or, if you like not that (which notwithſtanding is
moſt receaued amongſt the learned) the baſe eſtate
that hee deſcended into, in reſpect of the high eſtate
that he deſcended from. To ouerthrowe this inter<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>pretation,
you alledge that the Hebrew wordes E<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>RETSTACHTITH,
is in that language the proper name
of Hell. To proue it, you alledge the places which
I haue confuted in the former 2. ſectio<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>s. After which
labour,<note place="margin">One motion hath but one beginning &amp; one ending. Of contrarie motions (if the mouer be one) the be<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ginning of the one, is the end of the o<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ther: and con<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>trariwiſe the end of the one, is the be<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ginning of the other.</note> I gathered ſome reaſons from the infallible
rules of nature, to proue, that this place cannot ca<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>rie
your ſenſe. My grounds were, <hi>
                     <g ref="char:V">Ʋ</g>nius motus vnum
eſt principium, vnus finis.</hi> And <hi>contrariorum motuum, v<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>nius
res moventis, principium vnius eſt finis alterius, &amp; con<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tra.</hi>
For example, Eaſt and Weſt: South, and North:
vp and downe, are contraries. If anie thing runne
weſt-warde, and return eaſt-ward: the furtheſt point
that it runneth towards the weſt, is the beginning of
the motion towards the eaſt: or, if a man come down
a high hill, and returne vp againe: The loweſt ſteppe
that he came downe, is the firſt ſtep of his going vp.
Whervpon thus I reſoned. The beginning of Chriſts
aſcending, was the end of his deſcending. But his a<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ſcending
was from this earth, whereon we converſe,
<hi>Ergo,</hi> the end of this deſcending was onelie to this
earth, whereon we conuerſe, and not into hell, as you
gather out of this place. My <hi>maior</hi> is proued by the
ſecond rule, becauſe the mouer is one, Chriſt, &amp; the
motions contrarie, aſcending and deſcending: The
<hi>minor</hi> is proued Mark. 16. 19. Luke. 26. 51. Act. 1, 9. &amp;
by al the Symbols, or ſummes of our faith by the co<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>
                  <g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>mon
conſent of all Divines, and the vſuall ſpeach of
all Chriſtians, that euer was, or is. To this you an<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ſwere,
that the <hi>maior</hi> is vtterlie falſe, becauſe Chriſt
ſaith, Mat, 12. 40. <hi>At Ionas was three dayes and three
nights in the whales bellie: ſo the ſonne of man muſt be three
<pb n="84" facs="tcp:178019:55"/>
dayes and three nights in the heart of the earth.</hi> Indeede, if
the rule of nature were contrarie to this ſaying of
Chriſt, I ſhoulde ſooner yeelde, that nature might
erre, then the Lord of nature lie. But Chriſt came
neither to deſtroy the lawe giuen to his church, nor
to the reſt of his creatures, called the law of nature.
Wherefore, this anſwere was not Doctor-like. If you
had looked well about you, you might haue ſeene,
that his beeing three daies, and three nights in the
heart of the earth, pertaineth to his buriall, and not
to his deſcending, more then his ryſing again out of
the hart of the earth, pertaineth to his aſcenſion. For
theſe are foure diſtinct things. His deſcending from
heauen into his humane ſtate: his burial, and laying
vp in the heart of the earth after his death: his reſur<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>rection,
and returning againe from the heart of the
earth into the ſtate he was ſeparated from by death.
his aſcending from the earth vp into heauen. I drew
alſo another reaſon from the firſt principle, to preve<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>t
an anſwere, that his deſcending might haue beene
firſt from heauen into his humane ſtate, and then out
of his humane ſtate into hell. It was this: if Chriſts
deſcending from heauen did end in Hell, then it culd
not bee one motion, being ſo manie yeares intermit<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ted.
But it was but one motion: <hi>Ergo,</hi> it ended not in
Hell. To this you anſwere, that I, who charge you
with cloudes of Sophiſtrie, do raiſe ſuch miſtes of So<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>phiſtications,
that you cannot ſee in them, what I
mean by this one motion. But there is not the cauſe.
That the Owle ca<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>not ſee in the light, the fault is not
in the light, but in the eie of the owle. There is not a
gnerall in Oxenford, that had ſpent a moneth in rea<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ding
<hi>Ariſtotles</hi> 5. and 6. bookes <hi>de natura,</hi> that would
not haue knowne this argument. One deſcending, is
but one motion. Paule ſpeaketh heere but of one de<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ſcenſion:
<hi>Ergo,</hi> but of one motion. Your degrees of
<pb n="85" facs="tcp:178019:55"/>
humiliation, are heere impertinent. Howe properlie
they are diſtinguiſhed, I referre it to the margent.
You tell mee in the beginning, that my firſt reaſon
was from the place of Iohn, <hi>I came from my Father in<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>to
the worlde,</hi> &amp;c. Now ſillie man, I pitie your ſimplici<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tie.
That is no reaſon at all. But ſeeing I was to ap<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ply
naturall reaſon to this text: I brought that place
to proue, that I made no private ſens of theſe words,
Which courſe, if you would follow, your wrangling
would ſoone weare to an end. But you ſay, that that
place doeth little or nothing pertaine to this place,
that heere wee haue in hand. A fig is not liker a fig
then that is like this. That hee deſcended, and that
he came from the Father: that he aſcended, and that
hee went to his Father are ſo like, that though you
put on your ſpectacles, you will not finde a haire be<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tweene
them. The argument that you frame heere
for mee, and the two abſurd ſimilies framed on the
ſame block, let them bee buried in the brain, that
bred them. That is the fitteſt coffen, I know, for ſuch
rotten ſtuffe. Wherefore, to conclude this diſputa<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tion
about theſe wordes, ſeeing neither your exam<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ples
in the former ſection, wil fit your hand, nor this
place tolerate your abſurde ſenſe: I muſte put you in
minde, of <hi>Chippenhames</hi> pulpite. There be manie god<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>lie
ſoules, that would be glad to ſee you ſo honeſt, as
to performe the worde, that you paſſed there before
them.</p>
            </div>
         </div>
         <div n="11" type="section">
            <head>HVME his 11. Sect.</head>
            <p>YOur next argument is taken from the wordes of
our Sauiour to <hi>Marie Magdalene,</hi> forbidding
her to touche him, becauſe he had not yet bene with
his Father. Whervpon you gather, ſeing the whole
man is ſaid to be wher the ſoule is, that Chriſts ſoule
<pb n="86" facs="tcp:178019:56"/>
had not beene in heaven, becauſe he himſelf had not
beene there. It is a wonder, if a man of your learning
ſeeth not ſo manifeſt a fallacie. For, though by a fi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>gure
a man may well ſay, that the whole is, where
there is but a part: yet it followeth not where
the whole is not, that there is no parte. An argu<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ment
you knowe, <hi>a tot<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap> diviſe ad negationem omnium
partium,</hi> was neuer current amongſt the learned. For
example. The whole race of mankind is not in Eng<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>land:
<hi>Ergo,</hi> there is no men there: O<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                  <desc>•</desc>
               </gap> 
               <hi>Edmond Cam<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>pion</hi>
hangeth not ouer New-gate: <hi>Ergo,</hi> no parte of
him hangeth there. Like to this is your reaſon. The
whole man Chriſt was not in heauen, <hi>Ergo,</hi> his ſoule
was not there. That theſe wordes of Chriſt were
meant of the whole, it is apparant by the text. For,
that which had not yet been with his Father, was the
ſame that <hi>Marie</hi> was forbid to touch. That I beleeue
you will not ſay, was his ſoule, which is not ſubject
to feeling, but the whole man conſiſting of ſoule &amp;
bodie. Wherefore it was the whole man that Chriſt
tolde <hi>Marie</hi> was not with his Father.</p>
            <div type="reply">
               <head>HIL his Reply.</head>
               <p>MY next place was not this,<note place="margin">The paralogiſ<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>
                     <gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                        <desc>•</desc>
                     </gap>nes of this ſect</note> but a text out of <hi>Sy<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>rac.</hi>
17. 21. <hi>At the laſt ſhall he ariſe and reward
them, and ſhall repay their reward upon their heads,
and ſhall turne them into the lower partes of the
earth.</hi>
                  <note n="335" place="margin">That note is againſt your ſelf, read and ſee.</note> If the margin is noted <hi>Math.</hi> 25. 35.
<note n="336" place="margin">That note ſheweth this place to be ſpoken of them that gi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ueth bread to the hungrie, drinke to the thirſtie, &amp;c.</note> So that this place ſheweth that after iudge<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ment,
<note n="337" place="margin">The verſe you referre vs to in Math. ſpea<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>keth of the mercifull, not of the wicked.</note> the wicked ſhal be turned into the lower
parts of the earth, that is hell.<note n="338" place="margin">You are much deceaued.</note> This place, be<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>cauſe
you nor your<note n="339" place="margin">What ſynode is that: I was neuer of anie ſynode, nor worthie to rule a ſynode.</note> Sinod can anſwere, you
<pb n="87" facs="tcp:178019:56"/>
haue paſſed it ouer and ſaide nothing to it, but are
now com to your ſcholepoints, the which when I vſe
<note n="340" place="margin">Vntruth ſee the aun<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ſwere.</note> you call ſophiſtry: and ſo it were indeed if I did
vſe them<g ref="char:punc">▪</g>
                  <note n="341" place="margin">Wordes.</note> as you doe. You ſay an argument
drawen negatiuely from the whole to the parts doth
not hold. True it is if by (parts) you meane integral
parts,<note n="342" place="margin">It is trew of all parts y<hi rend="sup">•</hi> can conſiſte after ſeparatio<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>
                  </note> but not eſſentiall parts. My inſtance was
thus, <hi>Math. 8, 11. Many ſhal come from the Eaſt and
the Weſt, and ſhal reſt with Abraham, Iſaac, &amp; Iacob
in the kingdom of heauen.</hi> Out of this place I proue
that where the ſoule of man is after death,<note n="343" place="margin">But if you will proue the thing you vn<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>dertake to proue; you muſt proue, that wher the ſoule is not, the ma<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g> is not.</note> there
is the ma<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g> ſaid to be, as we vſually ſay that theſe Pa<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>triarks
and all the ſaints are in heauen, though their
bodies be in the earth and are duſt and aſhes. If then
the ſoule of Chriſt were in heauen vntill his reſurre<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ction,
<note n="344" place="margin">That fol<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>lowes not.</note> then could not theſe words of Chriſt bee
true, <hi>Iohn. 20. 17. Touch me not, for</hi>
                  <note n="345" place="margin">Heer M. D. will cor<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>rect <hi>magnificat</hi> It is in the En<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>gliſh Bibles, I am not yet a<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ſcended, and that he thinks not to be of the praeter-perfect tenſe, and therefore he mends it, I haue not, &amp;c. This had ben well found of a boy in his ac<g ref="char:EOLunhyphen"/>cidents: but a D. ſhuld haue knowne that <hi>amatus ſum</hi> is the preter-perfect time as well as <hi>amatus fui.</hi>
                  </note> 
                  <hi>I haue
not yet aſcended vnto my father,</hi> for it is the preter-perfect
tenſe <gap reason="foreign">
                     <desc>〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉</desc>
                  </gap>. Therefore as this is vntrue,
to ſay that <hi>Abraham</hi> is not in heauen,<note n="346" place="margin">I know no man ſaith ſo.</note> becauſe
his body was not in heauen: ſo this is falſe to ſay,
<note n="347" place="margin">Nor that, and (therfore) theſe two are <gap reason="foreign">
                        <desc>〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉</desc>
                     </gap>.</note> Chriſt was not in heauen, becauſe his body was
not in heauen.<note n="348" place="margin">
                     <gap reason="foreign">
                        <desc>〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉</desc>
                     </gap>.</note> Our body is gouerned by the
ſoule, and man taketh his appellation of a reaſonable
creature not of the body but of the ſoule:<note n="349" place="margin">You had need of a cable to binde this therefore to the premiſ<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                        <desc>•</desc>
                     </gap>es.</note> and
therefore if Chriſts ſoule went vp to heauen as you
ſay, this cannot be true (I haue not yet aſcended to
my father) Beſides if Chriſts ſoule went firſt to hea<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>uen,
and afterward his ſoule and body togither,<note n="350" place="margin">It will not follow, ſee the anſwere.</note>
then were there 2. aſcenſions: proue this, and I will
geue you the goale.<note n="351" place="margin">I brought examples of my own general maximes: I dallied not with your argume<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>t.</note> You dally alſo with my ar<g ref="char:EOLunhyphen"/>gument
in this manner, The whole race of mankind
<pb n="88" facs="tcp:178019:57"/>
is not in <hi>England: ergo,</hi> there is no men in <hi>England.</hi>
                  <note n="352" place="margin">I neuer thought, it ſee the anſwere.</note>
Do you think there is no more union betwixt Chriſt
and his ſoule, then betwene all the men of the world?
<note n="353" place="margin">It will ne<g ref="char:EOLunhyphen"/>uer follow by this reaſon,</note> then by this reaſon the body and the ſoule of
Chriſt were neuer vnited together. Your next reſem<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>blance
is this. <hi>Edmund Campions</hi> whole body is not
ouer Newgate, <hi>Ergo,</hi> no part of him.<note n="354" place="margin">That is a foule name.</note> Heere
is a foule error to thinke Chriſts ſoule to be<note n="355" place="margin">
                     <hi>As good Logicians as D. Hill, Ramus and al his fol<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>lowers thinke the ſoule to be an integrall parte.</hi> Partes integriſunt partes integra<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>les, anima &amp; corpus ſunt par<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tes integri ſcili cet hominis: Er go anima &amp; corpus ſunt par <gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                        <desc>•</desc>
                     </gap>es integrales hominis.</note> an
integral<note n="356" place="margin">I know nor what you mean by a di<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>viſible part. If a part, that may conſiſt being deui<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ded from the whole, I hope you will con<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>feſſe the ſoule to be ſuch.</note> or diuiſible part, which is ane eſſential
or<note n="357" place="margin">This is a new terme of arte.</note> indiuiſible: for by your reaſon,<note n="358" place="margin">Not ſo, ſee the anſwere.</note> Chriſts
ſoule is mortal, &amp; may periſh, as the integral parts of
<hi>Campio<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>
                  </hi> doth.<note n="359" place="margin">No errour at all, ſee the aun<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ſwere.</note> You vtter alſo an other error in
theſe words (the whol man Chriſt)<note n="360" place="margin">The man alone, you would ſay.</note> for the whol
man doth not make Chriſt, but God, and man as you
may ſee in <hi>Athanaſius</hi> Creede:<note n="361" place="margin">This proof needed not.</note> As the reaſon<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>able
ſoule, and fleſh is one man, So god and man is
one Chriſt. I will ende therefore, with this ſaying of
<hi>Irynaeus</hi> who liued vnder <hi>Marcus Antonius</hi> in the
yeare of our Lord god 125, which<note n="362" place="margin">If you could follow the queſtion, all the proofes in this ſection ſhould bend to make your aſſertion good, that this ſaying of Chriſt to Marie, Ioh. 20. doth proue that his ſoule had not beene in heauen, when he was riſen againe.</note> thus proueth
the deſcending of Chriſt into hell. For the writing a<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>gainſt
Heretiques, that ſaid, hel, was in this world
(as many doo now a dayes) thus reproueth them in
his fift book and laſt chapter,<note n="363" place="margin">Parergon.</note> As <hi>Ionas</hi> taried
in the whales belly three dayes and three nights, ſo
ſhall the Sonne of man bee in the hart of the earth.
And the Apoſtle ſaith, what is it that he aſcended, but
that he firſt deſcended into the loweſt partes of the
earth; and <hi>Dauid</hi> prophecying of this, <hi>ſayd:</hi> Thou
haſt deliuered my ſoule from the nethermoſt hel: and
riſing again the third day, he ſayd to <hi>Mary,</hi> which he
ſawe firſt, and worſhipped him: Touch me not, for
<pb n="89" facs="tcp:178019:57"/>
I haue not yet aſſcended to my Father, but go to my
Diſciples and tel them, I will go to my Father and
to your Father. If then the Lord keep the law<note n="364" place="margin">By this it appeareth that Irenaeus ſpeakerh not of the hell of the damned, but of the ſtate of the dead.</note>
of the dead, that he might be the firſt begotten of the
dead, how are they aſhamed that ſay, hell is in this
world. Thus you ſee it is no ſtrange thing to ſee this
ſcripture alleadged to proue that Chriſts ſoule was
not in heauen, vntil his viſible and glorious aſcenti<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>on.
<hi>Irenaeus</hi> a man of more learning and iudgement
then I am of, alleaged it to the ſame end aboue 1300.
years ago, and then it was accompted a currant ar<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>gument
among the learned.</p>
            </div>
            <div type="rejoinder">
               <head>HVME his reioynder to the 11. ſect</head>
               <p>HEere before you will buckle with this ſection,
you thruſt for-ward your invincible <hi>Goliah,</hi> (as
you ſuppoſe) and will haue him make an end of this
battell. You ſay, that neither I, nor anie of my
freends dare meet him. You thought ſo, becauſe a<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>mongſt
all his fellowes, I miſt him onelie. But you
are deceaued of his valour. He hid himſelf amongſt
the ſlaine heapes of his fellowes. If I had ſeene his
creaſt, I had ſeauen ſtones in a ſcrip, the leaſt wherof
was big in<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="2 letters">
                     <desc>••</desc>
                  </gap>gh, to beat his braine through his hel<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>met.
The place is in the 17. of Eccleſ. I neede not re<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>peat
the wordes. Firſt, I could haue tolde you, that
the booke is not Canonicall. Secondlie, that it was
not written in the tongue, on the property whereof
you build your argument. Thirdly, that theſe words
(the lowermoſt parts of the earth) be not in the ori<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ginall,
wherein this book was firſt written: and ther<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>fore
haue gotten Tom Drummes intertainment by
the Geneua tranſlatours, <hi>lunius, Vatablus</hi> and divers
others. Fourthlie, that though it had pleaſed Ieſus
the ſonne of Syrach, to cal Hell by that name: it will
<pb n="90" facs="tcp:178019:58"/>
not follow, that all other men did vſe the worde ſo.
Fiftly, that you could finde thoſe words in that ſenſe
in ſome place of the Canonicall Scriptures (which
indeede you cannot) it will not follow, that wherſo<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>euer
wee meete with them, they muſt haue the ſame
ſignification: except the neceſſarie circumſtances
doe approue, or inforce it. Sixtlie, that ſeeing that
place is ſpoken of the mercifull, &amp; them whoſe good
deedes the Lord doth keep, as the aple of his eie: it
were a bad reward for men, whoſe good deedes are
ſo precious in the Lordes eies, to bee caſten into the
dungeon of Hell. Seventhlie and laſtlie, that ſeeing
the common tranſlator, who foiſteth in thoſe words
doth make it the reward of euery man, to be caſt in<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>to
the lowermoſt parts of the earth: it wil paſſe your
skill to proue, that euerie man ſhall be caſt into hel.
The note in the margent of the 25. 35. of Math. hel<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>peth
not you: but prooueth the contrarie, that this
place pertaineth to them, that giue meat to the hun<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>grie,
drinke to the thirſtie, and clothes to the naked
&amp;c. Thus you may ſee, that this champion, is not ſo
ſtrong as you take him, and that the note in the mar<g ref="char:EOLunhyphen"/>gent,
whoſoeuer made it, helpeth you like ale in
your ſhoes. You tell mee, that nowe I am come to
my ſchoole-points, which in you I called Sophiſtrie.
The true maximes and rules of art, ſucked out of the
marrowes of nature, I neuer called Sophiſtrie in you
nor no man elſe. Your ſhrimpiſh reaſons, ſet out in
the painted coates of blaſed words, and confidentlie
commended to the beholders, without al bounds of
modeſtie: I haue called them, what I haue called
them, and not ſo ill, as they deſerue. My rule which
you ſay were ſophiſtrie, if you vſed it, as I doe, you
confeſſe it to be true in integrall parts. Nowe ſay I,
the ſoule and the bodie be integrall parts of a man:<note place="margin">Heer I follow Ramus.</note>
                  <hi>Ergo,</hi> by your owne confeſsion, my rule is true of the
<pb n="91" facs="tcp:178019:58"/>
ſoule and the bodie. But if you had taken my max<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ime
right, you ſhould haue found it hold in all parts
whatſoeuer. For I meant that a particular negatiue
of the whole, is not good to bring in a negatiue of a<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>nie
particular part. All <hi>Campion</hi> hangeth, not ouer
New-gate, importeth that ſome part of him, ha<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>geth
there. And all men bee not in England, importeth
that there be ſome men there: which bee particular
negatiues, expreſſed in generall tearmes, as <hi>non omris</hi>
and <hi>nonnullns</hi> bee in Latine. Thus much for the aun<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ſwere,
that you deale with. You left another anſwere
which I will heere ſet againſt your argument in his
beſt liuery. If the man is ſaid to be (ſay you) wher the
ſoule is, then where the man is not, the ſoule is not:
But the man is ſaide to bee, where the ſoule is: <hi>Ergo,</hi>
where the man is not, the ſoule is not. Firſt, (ſay I)
the <hi>maior</hi> is not true. For though the man may bee
ſaid to bee where the ſoule is, by a <hi>Synecdoche:</hi> yet it
will not follow, that where the man is not, the ſoule
is not. Becauſe this ſpeach is ſimple, and that is figu<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ratiue.
In a good argument, the wordes muſt carie
one face, not heere one, and there another. To ex<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>amplifie
this with your owne examples out of Math
8. Manie ſhall reſt with Abraham, Iſaac, and Iacob,
in the kingdome of heauen. Abraham, Iſaac, and Ia<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>cob
are ſaid to be in heauen by a figure, becaus their
ſoules are there. But if you will take the words ſim<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>plie,
and conclude; becauſe Abraham (that is the
whole man) is not in heauen: therefore his ſoule
is not there: euerie carter will finde the abſurditie of
your fallacie. This for my firſt reply. Now I add that
you flee from the wordes of the text. For Chriſt ſaid
not to <hi>Marie,</hi> I haue not beene with my Father, but
I am not yet aſcended to my Father: which wordes
will admit no forme to carie your concluſion, turne
them, and winde them as you liſt. For the Scripture
<pb n="92" facs="tcp:178019:59"/>
denieth in plaine words, that the name of aſcenſion
can be giuen to the ſoule. I hope you will grant that
Dauids ſoule is in heauen: and yet of him it is ſaide,
Act. 2. 34. David is not aſcended. This wypeth alſo
away, your other objection of two aſcenſions. For,
that name was neuer yet giuen to a man, in reſpect
of the ſoule. And therefore, I will haue the goale,
though you ſtand in it. You wring out of my exam<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ples
of the whole race of mankind, &amp; <hi>Campions</hi> bodie,
two abſurdities. The one, that I hold no greater vni<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>on
betweene Chriſts ſoule, and his bodie, then al the
men in the world. The other, that I holde the ſoule
of Chriſt, to bee mortall: becauſe I compare it to an
integral part of <hi>Campions</hi> body. Why M. Doctor, haue
you (now you are Doctored) forgot the olde ſpeach
of the Schooles, when you were a generall? <hi>Quae com<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>parantur
in vno, non comparantur in omnibus?</hi> Things co<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>
                  <g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>pared
in one thing, are not like in all things. You
may bee like your Father, and yet perhappes your
Father coulde not wrangle in this matter, like your
ſelfe. And the Cuckow ſingeth onelie in the ſpring,
like the Nightingall, though in melodie and variety
of notes, there bee no likelie-hood at all. An argu<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ment
taken indefinitly from the manhood of Chriſt
to his ſoule and his bodie, parts thereof: is no better
then from the race of mankinde, to euerie particular
man, or from the bodie of the traitour <hi>Campion,</hi> to
the parts thereof. And yet if you regarde the vnion
of the ſoule &amp; body, or the immortality of the ſoule:
there is no more compariſon, then betweene your
ſpirit and your Fathers, if it was righter, or the Cuc<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>kowes
ſong and the Nightingals beeing far ſweeter.
Laſtlie, you tel mee, that I vtter a great error in theſe
wordes: the whole man Chriſt. Indeede, if I had ſaid
man the whole Chriſt, I had perchance opened my
head to this venew. But now I am faſter locked, then
<pb n="93" facs="tcp:178019:59"/>
that you can faſten anie blowes vpon mee, with the
beſt weapons in your armorie. For ſeeing the worde
of truth, doeth call Chriſt a man ſo manie times: I
am perſwaded, it wil not proue ſo foule an errour to
cal the whole man Chriſt, except you can proue that
ſome part of him was Chriſt, and not the whole. The
teſtimonie of <hi>Athanaſius</hi> to confute this errour,
toucheth not mee. The concluſion out of <hi>Irenaeus</hi>
(though it might haue a favourable conſtruction) I
leaue it amongſt the judgements of men, which you
haue promiſed not to truſt, ſect. 3.</p>
            </div>
         </div>
         <div n="12" type="section">
            <head>HVME Sect. 12.</head>
            <p>NOwe let vs come to the great bulwark of your
defenſe, which you made choiſe of to raze the
whole worke vpon, I meane to bee the text of your
ſermon. It is written in the firſt of Pet, 3. <hi>That Chriſt
was put to death in the fleſh, and was quickened in the spirit,
By the which ſpirit, he went and preached to the ſpirites that
are in priſon, and were diſobedients in the dayes of Noah,</hi> &amp;c
Heere <hi>Beza</hi> whome we follow (becauſe he commeth
neareſt to the true ſenſe of the Apoſtle) by this word
Spirit, doth giue vs to vnderſtand the Deity of Chriſt
following Iohn who called God a Spirit: and by this
word (fleſh) his ma<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>hood: containing both his body
and ſoule, as hee findeth it vſed of Paule: God was
made manifeſt in the fleſhe. Which <hi>Antitheſis</hi> of the
divine and humane nature, Paule doeth alſo expreſſe
in the ſame wordes, which was made of the ſeede of
Dauid according to the fleſhe: and declared mighte<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>lie
to bee the ſonne of God, according to the Spirit.
Where you ſee, that he vſeth the words no otherwiſe
then he findeth them vſed in the Scriptures. Now,
that this ca<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>not be the ſenſe of them you reaſon thus
Firſt, ſay you this Participle <gap reason="foreign">
                  <desc>〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉</desc>
               </gap>, doeth ſignifie
<pb n="94" facs="tcp:178019:60"/>
ſome motion from ſome place, &amp; can by no meanes
agree with the diuine eſſence, which beeing at one
time in all places, ca<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>not at anie time leaue any place
To this I anſwere: that it is ſpoken of the ſame ſpirit
in the 18. of Gen. I will go downe and ſee, whether
the Sodomites haue done according to the crie that
is come vnto mee. And in Exod. 3. I am come to de<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>liuer
them out of the hands of the Aegyptians. You
can not bee ignorant M. Hill: that the ſpirit of God
ſpeketh ſo manie times of the Deity by a figure, cal<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>led
<hi>Anthropopatheia,</hi> when God doth declare his pre<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ſence
in one place more the<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g> in another, by ſome no<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>table
effect. Which in this place was moſt neceſſary,
to note vnto vs the co<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>tinual preſence of Chriſt in his
church, departing (as it were) from all other places
(which indeede hee cannot) and ſitting in it, as it
were a continual ruler and moderator therof. Next,
you alledge the other participle, <gap reason="foreign">
                  <desc>〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉</desc>
               </gap> (that is,
quickened) that becauſe it is a paſsiue, it can not
ſtand with the Deitie, which cannot ſuffer at al. This
we denie not. For we attribute not this participle to
the Deitie, but to the whole Chriſt, God and man.
Neither doth the text ſay, that the ſpirit was quick<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ned,
but that Chriſt was quickened in the Spirit.
Thirdlie, you tel mee that mortified and quickened
are contraries, &amp; both attributed to Chriſt at once,
to note vnto vs, that he was both dead and aliue at
one inſtant. Heere we confeſſe, that they be attribu<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ted
to one Chriſt: but why they ſhold be referred to
one time, wee ſee no reaſon to induce vs to think it.
To this end you ad, that the Apoſtle doth ſhewe vs
how he was dead, and how he was aliue, by adding
dead fleſh, and quickened ſpirit. The verie text (as I
take it) will denie you this: for it hath not, that the
ſpirit was quickened, and the fleſhe killed: but that
Chriſt was killed in the fleſhe, and quickened in the
<pb n="95" facs="tcp:178019:60"/>
ſpirit: which is all one, as if he had ſaid, that the ſuf<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>fered
death as he was man, and ouercame death as
he was God. And this Paull doeth ſpeake in other
wordes, that he was crucified in his infirmities: yet
liveth he through the power of God. Fourthlie, you
ſay that the Scripture doeth joine this his going and
preaching, cloſe to his paſsion: As if it had ſaid: As
ſoon as he had ſuffered, he went and preached. This
(as if) includeth no neceſſarie matter. We expect de<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>monſtration,
and wil not be caried with (as) and (if)
Fiftlie, you argue out of the 6. of Geneſis, that the
preaching of <hi>Noah,</hi> is attributed to the third perſon
of the Deitie, and not to the ſecond. The wordes be
theſe, My Spirit ſhall not alwaies ſtriue with man, be<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>cauſe
he is but fleſh. Which wordes fewe (or rather)
no interpreters, that euer I ſaw, expound as you doe
of the third perſon of the Deitie. <hi>Tremelius</hi> and <hi>Iuni<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ns,</hi>
whoſe great panies, learning, and judgement, all
ſinceare hearts do reuerence, expound them thus. I
will not long diſpute with my ſelf (ſaieth the Lorde)
what to doe with theſe men: for my ſentence ſhall
ſtand, that except they ſpedelie repent, I wil deſtroy
them. Neither maketh it much againſt vs, though it
were as you would haue it. For, ſeeing the actions of
the Deitie are co<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>mon to all the three perſons, he er<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>reth
not that giueth the<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g> to any of the three. So doth
the ſcripturs in many places attribute the reſurrectio<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>
of Chriſt, ſometimes to the Father, ſomtimes to the
ſonne, and ſometimes to the Spirit of ſanctification.
And Chriſt himſelfe telleth vs, that whatſoeuer the
Father doth, the ſame he doeth alſo. After this you
object that <gap reason="foreign">
                  <desc>〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉</desc>
               </gap> &amp; <gap reason="foreign">
                  <desc>〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉</desc>
               </gap>, that is, diſobedient, &amp;
ſome-time, doth ſeparate the time of their diſobe<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>dience,
and his preaching. But heere I muſt put you
in minde, that <gap reason="foreign">
                  <desc>〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉</desc>
               </gap> and <gap reason="foreign">
                  <desc>〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉</desc>
               </gap>, that
is, went diſobedient &amp; preached, be all of one tenſe
<pb n="96" facs="tcp:178019:61"/>
in the Greeke, and muſt needes be referred to one
time, ſo that hee went, and preached to them euen
then, when they were diſobedient. And this the word
(diſobedient) doth confirme. For, to whome I pray
you, were they diſobedient? but to the ſpirit that
preached to them. As for the adverbe (ſometime)
it is not ſet heere to ſeparate words of one time: but
to diſtinguiſh the time of their inpriſonment, which
was preſent, from the daies of their rebellion, which
was paſt in the dayes of <hi>Noah,</hi> when the long patie<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>ce
of the Lord, exſpected their amendement. Whereas
you argue, that this cannot bee ſpoken of <hi>Noah</hi> his
preaching, becauſe he preached to men, and not to
Spirits: I am perſwaded that no man can preache to
men, and not to their Spirites: becauſe hee that tea<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>cheth
a man, inſtructeth his Spirit, which is his rea<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ſonable
ſoule. And yet heere you may marke (if it
pleaſe you) that there be two things heere ſpoken of,
preching &amp; priſon: the on pertayning to theſe ſpirits
when they were men with ſpirits: the other now, that
they are onelie ſpirits: and that therfore the Apoſtle
did diſcreetlie chooſe the name ſpirit, which is com<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>mon
to both theſe tymes. Laſtlie, you charge this
conſtruction with viole<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>ce: for that we take the word
(ſpirit) in one place, for the Deitie of Chriſt, and
ſtreight way againe, for the ſpirits of men in priſon.
I hope you will not denie, but that the word is vſuall
in both ſignifications, &amp; that it is no wrong, to giue
words their own ſignifications, when the drifts and
circumſtances of the place doth requyre them. Hi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>therto,
I haue dealt with your objections againſt <hi>Be<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>za.</hi>
Nowe I will proue with vnfallible reaſons, that
your ſenſe, cannot ſtand with this text. You take the
word (fleſh) onlie for the bodie of Chriſt, which died
and was buried: and the word (ſpirit) for his humane
ſoule, which you beare vs in hand, did deſcend into
<pb n="97" facs="tcp:178019:61"/>
hell, and did preach there to the ſoules that had ben
diſobedient, and rebellious in the dayes of <hi>Noab.</hi> If
this your conceit ſhall go for current: that which the
Apoſtle ſpeaketh heere of Chriſt, may be verified as
well of anie other man. For when we die, our ſoules
die no more then his did. But let vs look a little nea<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>rer
the matter. The ſpirit heere, (as it appeareth by
the text) doeth ſignifie that which gaue life to that
that was dead. That (I truſt) was not his humane
ſoule, but his deuine and heauenlie ſpirit. Thirdlie,
in this Participle (mortified) is compriſed death,
which giuen to Chriſt, is neuer taken in al the Scrip<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tures,
for the temporal death of his bodie onlie: but
whatſoeuer Chriſt ſuffered, either in ſoule or bodie,
for the redemption of our ſoules and our bodies, &amp;
doth compryſe his whole paſsion. Which, (if it bee
true) then the word (fleſh) muſt be the whole ſubject
of all this paſsion: that is, both his ſoule and body,
or the whole man Chriſt. For hee ſuffered as well in
ſoule for our ſoules, as in bodie for our bodies, or
elſe he had beene but half a Redeemer. Fourthlie,
ſeeing his bodie was quickned, that is, reſtored from
the graue, as well as his ſoule from hell: If you take
(ſpirit) heer for his humane ſoule: then ſhal you con<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>found
thoſe things, that the Apoſtle doth diſtinguiſh
attributing that to the ſoule alone, which is commo<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>
both to the ſoule and the bodie. Fiftlie, ſeing (quik<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ned)
is to receaue life, either which it neuer had, or
els had loſt: the ſoule cannot be ſaid to be quickned
becauſe, it neuer loſt life, after that it once liued
with the bodie. Heere you tell vs, that quickened is
to be deliuered from miſeries and ſorrowes. Howe
the Engliſh word may be taken, I leaue it to the diſ<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>cretion
of the diſcreete and indifferent reader: But
ſure I am, it will proue a hard thing to finde that ſig<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>nification,
either in the Latine word <hi>viuificari,</hi> or the
<pb n="98" facs="tcp:178019:62"/>
greeke word <hi>Zoopoteiſthas,</hi> which bee ſo mixed with
life, that if they ſignifie deliuerie from miſeries, then
life it ſelf muſt ſignifie miſeries and ſorrowes, which,
(though they follow on it) are neuer ſignified by it.
If this deuiſe may ſtand, you wil ouerthrow the <hi>An<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>titheſis</hi>
betweene dead and quickened. For, if quick<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ned
doth not ſignifie a reſtitution to life, what con<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>trariety
hath it with mortefied or dead, which ſigni<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>fieth
the extinguiſhing of life. Sixtlie, (ſpirit) doeth
heere ſignifie that, which was free from death, and
the violence of his enemies: This (I hope) you will
not ſay, was his humane ſoule, wherein hee ſuffered
the death of the ſoule: that is, the torments of Hell,
as well as in bodie, the death of the bodie. Seuinth<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>lie,
the ſoule of Chriſt could not preach, beeing de<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ſtitute
of a tongue, mouth, and other organes of ne<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ceſsitie
required in that action. Eightlie, to what
end ſhuld Chriſt preach to thoſe damned ſoules, who
were paſt the frute of his preaching? that which you
ſay, that he went to reproue them, is not liklie. For
me<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g> are reproued, either for amendement, or to take
away excuſes, which to theſe was needleſſe, beeing
paſt all remedie, and excuſe. Ninthlie, this prea<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ching
was then, when their diſ-obedience was re<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>form-able,
which was in the dayes of <hi>Noah,</hi> and ne<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>uer
ſince. Add to theſe (if it pleaſe you,) that moſte
infallible reaſon of <hi>Bezaes,</hi> taken from the drift and
ſcope of the text: to whoſe notes I referre you, being
not able to handle it ſo well, as hee hath done it
himſelf.</p>
            <div type="reply">
               <head>HIL his Reply.</head>
               <p>HEere you play the Captaine, and will beate
down bulwarks, and therefore you ſhould haue
theſe 4. properties in you: vertue, knowledge, autho<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>rity
and felicity, for the firſt two they are in you (God
<pb n="99" facs="tcp:178019:62"/>
                  <note n="365" place="margin">Such a word out of your mouth, might haue lifted vp my hart: if you had not ſaid ſection the 7. that I wanted either ſcience or conſcience or both: How<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ſoeuer your wordes agree I hope I was the ſame, whe<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g> you wrot that &amp; when you wrote this.</note> grant you vſe the<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g> to his glory) but what autho<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>rity
you haue to interpret the word I know<note n="366" place="margin">Then I will tell you. the ſame, that all Chriſtians haue to know God, &amp; de<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>fend his truth</note>
not,<note place="margin">The Paralo<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>giſmes in the D. reply.</note>
therefore in this caſe (I<note n="367" place="margin">If my co<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>
                     <g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>miſsion be warrantable this hope may hoppe.</note> hope) you ſhall haue
no felicitie. Where you ſay, that this word (ſpirit)
doth ſignifie the deity: and this word (fleſh) the huma<g ref="char:EOLunhyphen"/>nity
of Chriſt, and that there is an antitheſis betwene
the diuine &amp; humane nature. I confeſſe y<hi rend="sup">•</hi> (ſpirit) ſome
time doeth ſignifie the Godhead, and (fleſhe) the hu<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>manity
of Chriſt. But they doo not ſo ſignifie in this
place:<note n="368" place="margin">Heere you promiſe to proue.</note> as I proue by the circumſtances of the
text and the woords them ſelues.<note n="369" place="margin">And heere you fall to confute: ſo ſoone you haue forgot your ſelf.</note> For where
you ſay <gap reason="foreign">
                     <desc>〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉</desc>
                  </gap>; killed or put to death,<note n="370" place="margin">You alter the concluſion: I ſaid that the Scriptures neuer giueth death to Chriſt, but for his whole paſsion: which thing you ſhould confute, if you could anſwere mee.</note> doth ſig<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>nifie
the whole paſſion of Chriſt,<note n="371" place="margin">Still you change the queſtion: though quickned went neceſſarilie before his reſurrection, I neuer ſaid, that it ſignifieth it.</note> 
                  <gap reason="foreign">
                     <desc>〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉</desc>
                  </gap>
ſignifieth the reſurrection of<note n="372" place="margin">I brought reaſon for the things I ſaid: and you anſwere al, with that cannot be.</note> Chriſt, that can
note be:<note n="373" place="margin">See the anſwere in the rejoynder.</note> for of the paſſion of Chriſt is mention
made before in the ſame 18. verſe, <hi>Chriſt ſuffered for
vs, the juſt for the vnjuſt, to bring vs to God.</hi> Now af<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ter
his ſufferings ended,<note n="374" place="margin">If you can proue that Peter ſaid ſo, I will proue that he was like an Iriſh man, that comming out of a battell, boaſted that hee had killed fiue men in the feet, that wanted the heads before he came at them.</note> as <hi>Peter</hi> ſaith, he was
both killed and made aliue.<note n="375" place="margin">What then</note> Now of his reſur<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>rection
is mention made in the 21. verſe, as of his aſ<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>cention
in the 22. verſe. Therfore, ſeeing the ſuffe<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>rings
of Chriſt are mentioned before: and his reſur<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>rection
is namelye ſet downe after:<note n="376" place="margin">Is there no thing els to apply theſe things to? or is no repetition tollerable?</note> whereof
can theſe words he vnderſtood, but of the ſeperation
of the body and the ſoule, and of the ſtate of them du<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ring
their ſeperation,<note n="377" place="margin">How doth this (for) proue anie of theſe things that you haue ſaid.</note> for an antitheſis as you
<pb n="100" facs="tcp:178019:63"/>
know is of contrary,<note place="margin">378 Betwene theſe two * markes ther is a moſt diſ<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                        <desc>•</desc>
                     </gap>r<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>de<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                        <desc>•</desc>
                     </gap>ed <hi>hyper<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>balon,</hi> of ma<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>nie wordes, &amp; not two lines together di<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>rected to one purpoſe.</note> or diuers things, as in this place
you ſee, in (killed and quickned.) now how both theſe
were true at on time,<note n="379" place="margin">Peter ſheweth not.</note> 
                  <hi>S. Peter</hi> doth ſhew, for at
the<note n="380" place="margin">This is foiſted in the text.</note> ſame time, he was dead as concerning his
body, he was aliue in ſpirit, that is in ſoule:<note n="381" place="margin">That pro<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                        <desc>•</desc>
                     </gap>
                     <g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>veth not that <hi>ſpirit</hi> is the ſoule heere.</note> for
the ſoule ſeperate from the body, is aptly called a ſpi<g ref="char:EOLunhyphen"/>rite.
<hi>Eccle. 12. 7. And duſt returne to earth as it was,
and the ſpirite returne to God that gaue it.</hi> So is it
taken, <hi>Heb. 12. 23. Act.</hi> 7. 49. and<note n="382" place="margin">You beg the queſtion.</note> ſo doth this
woord ſignifie in this place:<note n="383" place="margin">He ſuffe<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>red the death of both. You leaue the word of the text (morti<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>fied) and cho<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ſes a word, that taketh a<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>way the duble death which he ſuffered this is pelting with the text.</note> for Chriſt was not
killed both in body and ſoule, but only in body and
in fleſh:<note n="384" place="margin">True, but who ſaith ſo.</note> for if the ſoule of Chriſt had bene killed,
then had it bene mortall. Therefore <hi>Athanaſius, Epi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>phanius,</hi>
and all the Fathers, which did confute the
Heretiques called <hi>Damoerite</hi> and <hi>Appolinaris,</hi> which
denyed Chriſt to haue a ſoule, do co<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>fute them by this
place, prouing that his ſpirite was among the ſpirits,
that his ſoule ſeperate from his body,<note n="385" place="margin">And wer all the ſoules ſeparated from their bodies in the hell of the damned: that he could not bee a<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>mongſt ſuch ſoules but in hell.</note> was a<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>mong
the ſoules ſeperate from their bodies. This in<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>terpretation,
you,<note n="386" place="margin">Truelie, I ſee it not.</note> ſee is gathered out of Gods
woord, &amp; is made more manifeſt by<note n="387" place="margin">I ſee not that, neither.</note> the wordes
following: <gap reason="foreign">
                     <desc>〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉</desc>
                  </gap>,
<hi>which we tranſlate. In which ſprite he went and prea<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ched
to the</hi>
                  <note n="388" place="margin">
                     <gap reason="foreign">
                        <desc>〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉</desc>
                     </gap> implyerh the Participle <gap reason="foreign">
                        <desc>〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉</desc>
                     </gap>, &amp; cannot ſtand without it. Wher<g ref="char:EOLunhyphen"/>fore if you had caſt an eie that way, you would haue tranſlated it, that nowe are in priſon.</note> 
                  <hi>ſpirits in priſon,</hi>
                  <note n="389" place="margin">You dream, we tranſlat it not (by the which)</note> Firſt you
tranſlate <gap reason="foreign">
                     <desc>〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉</desc>
                  </gap> by the which. But in the 1. <hi>pet.</hi> 16 you
do not ſo tranſlate it, nor in the 2. Chap. and 12. ver.
the ſame woorde <gap reason="foreign">
                     <desc>〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉</desc>
                  </gap> are <hi>Eph.</hi> 1. 13. 2. 22. 5. 18.<note n="390" place="margin">And you did, you wold loſe your labour.</note>
and ſo could I cite at the leaſt, an hundreth texts in
the new Teſtament, where if you tranſlat <gap reason="foreign">
                     <desc>〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉</desc>
                  </gap> by the
which, or by whome, you ſhall ouerthrow the mea<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ning
of the holy ghoſt. The next word conſtruing, is
<pb n="101" facs="tcp:178019:63"/>
                  <gap reason="foreign">
                     <desc>〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉</desc>
                  </gap> w<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap>ich as I haue ſaide before<note n="391" place="margin">You ſaid th<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                        <desc>•</desc>
                     </gap>t no verb of motion could be give<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g> to the Deitie, fol. 11 pag. 2. That I hope you are gone from. Now you haue no reaſon, why this word ca<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>
                     <g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>not pertaine to the Deitie, but becauſe it cannot per<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>taine to the Deitie, which is as if a man would fay, D. H. could not get a Biſhop<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>rick, becauſe D. H. coulde not get a Bi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ſhopricke.</note> ſo I a<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>uouche
ſtill, is ſpoken no<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap> of the deity neuer in all the
Scriptures,<note n="392" place="margin">That is not of neceſ<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ſitie neither.</note> and therefore muſt needes be ſpo<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ken
of the ſoul of Chriſt. To con<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap>ute this, you alleadg
<hi>Gen. 18. 21. Exod.</hi> 3. 8. Firſt, I muſt tell you theſe
bookes were written<note n="393" place="margin">Are they the fitter for that, to ſpeak improperlie of God.</note> in the Hebrewe tong and
not in the Ere<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap>ke, I craued an inſtant out of the<note n="394" place="margin">Why ma<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>, is the old te<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ſtament Apo<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>crypha with you: you are a nice man.</note>
new Teſtament. Secondly, in thoſe places that you
haue named y<hi rend="sup">•</hi> interpreters do tra<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>ſlate <hi>Iarad</hi> by y<hi rend="sup">•</hi> greek
word<note n="395" place="margin">
                     <hi>Katabaino</hi> and <hi>erchoma<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                           <desc>•</desc>
                        </gap>
                     </hi> be verbs of mo<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                        <desc>•</desc>
                     </gap>io<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>, as well as <hi>poreuomai.</hi>
                  </note> 
                  <gap reason="foreign">
                     <desc>〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉</desc>
                  </gap>, nor<note n="396" place="margin">
                     <hi>Eltho</hi> I neuer red nor you neither in the preſent tenſe.</note> 
                  <gap reason="foreign">
                     <desc>〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉</desc>
                  </gap>, &amp; not by
<gap reason="foreign">
                     <desc>〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉</desc>
                  </gap>. And this I proue, <hi>Iohn,</hi> 16. 7. <gap reason="foreign">
                     <desc>〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉</desc>
                  </gap>.
<note n="397" place="margin">How can this place proue that? Iohn tranſlateth not IARAD heere.</note> 
                  <hi>For if I ſhall not depart
the comforter wil not come vnto you, but if I ſhal de<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>part,
I will ſend him vnto you.</hi> Heere you ſee when he
ſpeketh of the deſcending of the deity, he vſeth y<hi rend="sup">•</hi> word
368 <gap reason="foreign">
                     <desc>〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉</desc>
                  </gap>,<note place="margin">398. <hi>Eleutho</hi> is out of vſe. You ſhame your ſelf.</note> but when he ſpeaketh of the humanitie
<gap reason="foreign">
                     <desc>〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉</desc>
                  </gap>.<note n="399" place="margin">This place proueth your tranſlating of IARAD,
as the other doth. And heere you may mark that <hi>ercheſ<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                           <desc>•</desc>
                        </gap>ai</hi> is ſpoken of the manhood<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>as
well as <hi>poreueſthai.</hi> and ſo by your reaſon, <hi>ercheſthai</hi> cannot pertaine to the Dei
tie, more then <hi>poreueſthai.</hi>
                  </note> And in the ſame chapter verſe the 28.
<gap reason="foreign">
                     <desc>〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉</desc>
                  </gap>.
<hi>I came
out from the Father and cam into the world: againe,
I leaue the world<g ref="char:punc">▪</g> and goe to my father.</hi>
                  <note n="400" place="margin">Proprietie of ſpeach: allace ſillie man, ſee the anſwer</note> And
this proprietie of ſpeach which the holy ghoſt vſeth,
ought to be obſerued. I confeſſe the ſcriptures vſeth
the figure <hi>Anthropopatheia</hi>
                  <note n="401" place="margin">A vaine dreame.</note> but when God is ſaid
to come downe, there is vſed the verb <gap reason="foreign">
                     <desc>〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉</desc>
                  </gap>, or ſome
one of the forenamed, and when mention is made of
<gap reason="foreign">
                     <desc>〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉</desc>
                  </gap>, it is alwaies ſpoken of the humanitie<note n="402" place="margin">Doth anie of theſe places affirme your aſſertion?</note>
                  <pb n="102" facs="tcp:178019:64"/>
as it is to be ſeen <hi>Luk. 4. 30. 9. 51. 52. 56. 57. Luk.</hi> 13.
22. <hi>Ioh.</hi> 8. 1. And in this place of <hi>Peter,</hi> the laſt verſe, is
vſed the ſame word <gap reason="foreign">
                     <desc>〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉</desc>
                  </gap> 
                  <hi>He went vp in<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>to
heauen.</hi>
                  <note n="403" place="margin">I haue quoted 8. and could h<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                        <desc>•</desc>
                     </gap>ue quoted 20. ſee the anſwere. But with what face can you challenge a place of me, that is ſo v<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ſed, when you ca<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g> bring nei<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ther reaſon nor place to the contrarie.</note> Therfore, if you can quote but one
text in the new Teſtament, that <gap reason="foreign">
                     <desc>〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉</desc>
                  </gap> is figura<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tiuely
applied to the deitie, your interpretation may
<note n="404" place="margin">wil it but ſeem tollera<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ble, when I haue done? then it is bet<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ter alreadie, for now it is a known truth.</note> ſeeme tolerable: but if yon can not (as I knowe
<note n="405" place="margin">Your knowledge was but a ges, and I haue be guiled you.</note> it is impoſſible) then can you neuer proue your
interpretation to<note n="406" place="margin">I haue proued it both agreable and neceſſary which I nee<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ded not. I ſtand at de<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>fence. It was your part to proue, which you cannot do, if you had 7. wits as good as your owne.</note> be agreaeble to faith, becauſe
it is not agreable to y<hi rend="sup">•</hi> word. Out of the next word <gap reason="foreign">
                     <desc>〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉</desc>
                  </gap>
this I note: he that was killed<note n="407" place="margin">Ware ſheep, that is againſt the text: that wherein he was mortified preached not.</note> and quick<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ned,
did preach: but Chriſt was killed and quickned,
<hi>ergo,</hi> Chriſt, &amp;<note n="408" place="margin">Chriſt, and not this Deitie? If I had ſaide ſo, you woulde haue exclaimed vpon igno<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>rance.</note> not the deitie preched. He preched
not vocally, for he was<note n="409" place="margin">I hope the ſoule wherin you ſay he preached, was not killed.</note> killed, <hi>ergo,</hi> he preached
<note n="410" place="margin">I neuer heard a reall ſermon, without words.</note> really in ſoule: for here is noted. Firſt, who prea<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ched?
Chriſt, To whom? to the ſpirits. Where?<note n="411" place="margin">That is out of the text.</note>
in hell. When?<note n="412" place="margin">So is that alſo <hi>petitio principij</hi> twiſe together.</note> after his death, and before his
reſurrection.<note n="413" place="margin">You beg the queſtion againe.</note> This is the order of <hi>Peter,</hi> and of
our Creede, which cannot bee by man ouerthrowen.
The word <gap reason="foreign">
                     <desc>〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉</desc>
                  </gap>, that is ſpirits alſo, is not as you
take it,<note n="414" place="margin">Where, when, and to whome ſaid I ſo.</note> for you ſay it ſignifieth the men in <hi>No<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ahs</hi>
time, but you can not bring one ſcripture to proue
it.<note n="415" place="margin">It followes not.</note> Therfore, I ſay as I ſaid before, it ſignifieth
ſoules ſeperated from the body. That my expoſition
is true, I haue prooued by three Scriptures. <hi>Ecleſ-</hi>
12. 7.<note n="416" place="margin">Theſe ſcriptures proues it not.</note> 
                  <hi>Heb. 12. 23, Act.</hi> 7, 59. Now, as mine is
true, ſo will<note n="417" place="margin">You dreame, that is not mine.</note> I proue yours to be falſe &amp; impoſ<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ſible
by Chriſts owne words. <hi>Luke.</hi> 24, 59. where our
Sauiour, to proue himſelfe to bee noe ghoſte, but to
<pb n="103" facs="tcp:178019:64"/>
haue a true body after his reſurrection, thus reaſo<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>neth:
<hi>Behold my hands &amp; my feet, that I am the ſame
handle me, for a ſpirit hath no fleſh and bones as yee
ſee me haue.</hi> This was Chriſts argument, I haue a
body, therefore I am not a ſpirit,<note n="418" place="margin">You fight with your own ſhadow.</note> and ſo I rea<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ſon
againſt you and your teachers. The men in <hi>No<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ahs</hi>
time<note n="419" place="margin">That <gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                        <desc>•</desc>
                     </gap>ol<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>lowes not A man may ſay as well D. Hill is a wrang<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ling ſpirit, as he calleth his aduerſaries phantaſticall ſpirits fol. 24. of his ſermon and yet both he and they haue bodies.</note> had bodies, <hi>ergo,</hi> they could not be cal<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>led
ſpirits,<note n="420" place="margin">you ſhuld hane left this to the boyes in Oxford: it is heere a de<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>formed patch</note> Euery boy can tel you in <hi>Oxford,</hi> that
<hi>ſubſtantia</hi> is deuided into <hi>corpus</hi> and <hi>ſpiritum,</hi> and that
one of theſe oppoſite <hi>ſpecies</hi> can not be affirmed of an<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>other.
And therfore, to be ſhort, when you can proue
out of<note n="421" place="margin">You do well to holde you in that corner, but I hope you will refuſe not the Canonical ſcripture, for al this.</note> the new Teſtament, that <gap reason="foreign">
                     <desc>〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉</desc>
                  </gap> that
is, iournying, is ſpoken figuratiuely of the deity, or
<hi>Pneuma</hi> that is ſpirit, ſignifieth a man y<hi rend="sup">•</hi> hath a body.
<note n="422" place="margin">Then I ſee it bootles to hope for your promiſe.</note> I will giue you the goale, but if you will runne
on this courſe, vntill you haue proued<note n="423" place="margin">A narrow ſhift.</note> theſe 2.
points (which you muſt doo, if you will haue me to
recant) then take heede leaſt you run your ſelfe out of
breath. Laſtly, the word <hi>Phylake,</hi> that is, priſon, doth
ſignify hel, as it is to be ſene<note n="424" place="margin">The thing is true: your proof is naught like al the reſt.</note> 
                  <hi>Apoc. 20. 7. When
a thouſand yeeres ſhall be fulfilled, Satan ſhall be lo<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ſed
out of his priſon.</hi> Thus thou ſeeſt (good reader)
how<note n="425" place="margin">Hand-ſomlie: in good ſadneſſe D. you cannot tell howe to ſettle your ſelf to proue anie thing.</note> I haue proued my interpretatio<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g> out of the
word of God for euery word, which<note n="426" place="margin">Bluſh for ſhame, ſe the anſwere</note> our aduer<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ſaries
can not doo for their interpretation: therfore,
thou maiſt<note n="427" place="margin">Vpon your vnſure
geſſe? he were mad then.</note> ſafely aſſure thy ſelf, ours to be good
and theirs to be falſe. And that this word priſon doth
ſignify hell, you may ſee <hi>Epiphanius, Athanaſius, Fulgen<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tins
centuria 1. lib. 2. cap. 14. Peter Martyr</hi> on the Crede
<hi>Nowell</hi> in his Catechiſme, <hi>Beacon</hi> in the ſick mans
ſalue, <hi>Crowlev</hi> in his anſwer to the reaſons of <hi>Pound</hi>
the Papiſt: All theſe<note n="428" place="margin">Firſt you ſay that they take priſon f<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                        <desc>•</desc>
                     </gap>r hell: &amp; you con<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>clude, that they al alle<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                        <desc>•</desc>
                     </gap>dge this place as you do: your pen runnes at random</note> old and new writers, haue
<pb n="104" facs="tcp:178019:65"/>
alleadged this Scripture as I haue done, with good
<note n="429" place="margin">Their conſc<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                        <desc>•</desc>
                     </gap>ence I hope, was bet<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>t<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                        <desc>•</desc>
                     </gap>r then their warrant</note> warrant and conſcience. Now that I haue pro<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ued
this my owne interpretation, I will (by Gods
grace) proue your anſwere<note n="430" place="margin">You haue promi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ſed that once alreadie.</note> to be friuolous. Firſt
you<note n="431" place="margin">It was ne<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>uer denied: what needs a confeſsion in a known caſe</note> confeſſe, that killed and quickned are Par<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ticiples
of one tenſe, and yet you ſay, they are not
referred to Chriſt at one time, this is meerlye falſe,
as I thus proue: Chriſt was after his paſſion dead &amp;
aliue, or neuer; if he were neuer dead and aliue at one
time, then<note n="432" place="margin">Now for your credites ſake, tell me wher Pet. ſaith that hee was dead &amp; aliue at one time.</note> 
                  <hi>Peter</hi> ſaith not truly, if he were dead
and aliue at on time then you ſpeak falſely. Now you
<note n="433" place="margin">For ſham M. D. ſpeake truth.</note> your ſelfe confeſſed that he was dead and aliue
at on time alittle before, and proued it out of the 2.
<hi>Cor. 13. 4. He was crucified concerning his infirmity,
yet liueth hee by the power of God.</hi>
                  <note n="434" place="margin">A tauta<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>logie.</note> Heere
by your own woords, Chriſt was aliue when he was
<note n="435" place="margin">But not when he was dead.</note> crucified: ſo may<note n="436" place="margin">You will ſay that with Peter, which Peter neuer ſaid.</note> I ſay w<hi rend="sup">t</hi> 
                  <hi>Pet.</hi> he was aliue
when he was dead, &amp; at one time, Then you ſay, the
(fleſh) ſignifieth the manhode, and (ſpirite) the deitye:
this alſo is vntrue, for the body may be<note n="437" place="margin">This word expreſ<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ſeth not the Greeke <hi>thana totheis.</hi>
                  </note> killed,
but the<note n="438" place="margin">And yet the whole ma<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g> may be morti<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>fied.</note> ſoule can not. Again, ſhew me any Scrip<g ref="char:EOLunhyphen"/>ture
where<note n="439" place="margin">See the anſwere.</note> on and the ſam word in on ſentence
and period, is taken for diuers things: for in this ſen<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tence,
<hi>In which ſpirite, hee went and preached to the
ſpirits that ar in priſon,</hi> Heer the word (ſpirit) in the
beginning of the ſentence ſignifieth the deity, in the
latter end, the ſame woord ſignifieth the<note n="440" place="margin">Not ſo, but the ſpirits that now are in priſon,</note> men
that liued in <hi>Noahs</hi> time by your interpretation: but
by my interpretation, it ſignifieth the ſoule ſeperate
from the body in both places. For as <hi>Cirill</hi> ſaith, as
Chriſt was with the liuing in body and ſoule, ſo to
ſhew himſelfe a true man, his body was among the
dead bodies, and his ſoule among<note n="441" place="margin">And ſo it was but not in hell</note> the ſoules,
Then you auouch the preching of <hi>Noah,</hi> is attributed
<pb n="105" facs="tcp:178019:65"/>
to the whole Trinity, be it ſo, but can you proue that
Chriſt after he was killed did prech in <hi>Noah,</hi> for this
<note n="442" place="margin">How proue you that?</note> preaching was after Chri<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="2 letters">
                     <desc>••</desc>
                  </gap>s death,<note n="443" place="margin">The death and re<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ſurrection of Chriſt, &amp; his preaching in the dayes of Noah, ar heer mentioned <hi>obiter,</hi> and as occaſions led them in, &amp; ex<g ref="char:EOLunhyphen"/>preſſeth not the order, when they were done. If this reaſoning be good, the paſsion in the beginning of the 4 cap. fol<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>lowing the aſcenſion, ex<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>preſſed in the laſt verſe of the third.</note> which
is mentioned in the 18. verſe, and before his reſur<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>rection,
which is ſpoken of in the 21. verſe. You goe
forward and tell mee, that <hi>pote,</hi> doth not determine
the Participle <hi>apeitheſaſi</hi> that is, diſobedient: but
<hi>ekeryxen</hi> that is, preached. I muſt tell you plaine you
ſpeak neither like a Deuine, nor a Gramarian. For
<note n="444" place="margin">But moſt commonlie with a verbe.</note> an Aduerb is ſome time put to a Participle, as
<hi>Math. 2. 7. Tote erodes lathra kaleſas tous magous. <hi>Then
Herod calling priuilye the wiſe men.</hi>
                  </hi> Sometime to a
Noune<note n="445" place="margin">This is like <hi>ſalue Do<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>mine,</hi> I am glade to ſee you wel. M. D. begins w<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                        <desc>•</desc>
                     </gap>th greek out of the new Teſtament and ends in latine out of the Engliſh accidents.</note> as <hi>homo egregie impudens.</hi> Somtime to an
Aduerb as <hi>parum honeſte ſe gerit.</hi> Therfore the Aduerb
<hi>pote,</hi> comming<note n="446" place="margin">Euerie aduerb affecteth not the word it ſtandeth by.</note> after <hi>apeitheſaſi,</hi> next &amp; immedi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>atly,
and being diſtinguiſhed from <hi>ekeryxen</hi> by<note n="447" place="margin">Put out that <hi>comma,</hi> it is an vſur<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>per</note>
a Comma, cannot by any example in diuinitye, or by
any rule of Grammer be<note n="448" place="margin">Nor ſeparated from it.</note> coupled with the verb
<hi>ekeryxen</hi>
                  <note n="449" place="margin">That promiſe is twiſe made now.</note> Now to anſwer your infallible reaſons.
Firſt your reaſon againſt me, that if my conſtruction
bee true,<note n="450" place="margin">I ſaid that nothing is ſpoken of Chriſt in theſe words, (mortified in the fleſh, &amp; quickned in the ſpirit) which may not, &amp;c.</note> then nothing did happen to Chriſt
which might not be verified of any man.<note n="451" place="margin">Did you not bluſhe to rack my wordes to the wh<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                        <desc>•</desc>
                     </gap>le diſcourſe, which are ſpoken but of one member.</note> And
did you not bluſh whe<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g> you wrote theſe things?<note n="452" place="margin">No forſooth.</note>
                  <hi>Can any mans ſoule goe to hell, and returne againe?</hi>
For his going downe to hell<note n="453" place="margin">thoſe be without my bounds.</note> I proue in the 19.
verſe, and his returning from<note n="454" place="margin">thoſe be without my bounds.</note> hell in the 21.
verſe: Secondly, you ſay the word ſpirit doth ſignifie
that which gaue life, what then? as God giueth life
to the body effectually,<note n="455" place="margin">That is, the forme giueth the forme to the <gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 word">
                        <desc>〈◊〉</desc>
                     </gap>
                  </note> ſo the ſoule giueth life
to the body formally.<note n="456" place="margin">Why mine more then yours.</note> Your Geueua tranſlation
<pb n="106" facs="tcp:178019:66"/>
which you follow, ſaith hee, was quickned<note n="457" place="margin">So ſay we</note> in
the ſpirite, not of the ſpirit. And this I note againſt
your ſide, <hi>en</hi>
                  <note n="458" place="margin">
                     <hi>En</hi> is not in that verſe at all expreſ<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ſed.</note> in the 18. verſe you tranſlate (In)
But in the next verſe, as though you had not done
well in the former, you tranſlate it<note n="459" place="margin">You dreame.</note> (by) Now
you know the prepoſition <hi>dia,</hi> ſignifieth (by) and not
<hi>en,</hi> as it appereth in the 21. verſe and in many places
mo.<note n="460" place="margin">You pro<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>miſe to proue that <hi>en</hi> ſigni<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>fieth not by, &amp; proue that <hi>dia</hi> ſignifieth by: this is co<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>mon with you, &amp; a cunning point.</note> 
                  <hi>dia anaſtaſeos,</hi> that is, by the reſurrection.
Moreouer, if you had ſaid quickned<note n="461" place="margin">You ſay it cannot bee ſo taken: and would that anſwere ſeme probable?</note> of the ſpi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>rite,
then had you made a probable anſwer: but no di<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>uine
is able to proue this expoſition, that Chriſt was
quickned in the ſpirit: that is, in the deity, for the dei<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ty
is life it ſelfe. Your third pregnant reaſon is, that
<hi>thanatotheis,</hi> ſignifieth not only the death of the body,
but alſo the whole paſſion of Chriſt.<note n="462" place="margin">A flat ne<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>gatiue, for an inſtance.</note> This can
not be, for the<note n="463" place="margin">A tauto<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>logie.</note> ſuffrings of Chriſt are ſet downe
before in the ſame verſe: then in this word, <hi>thanatotheis</hi>
is ſhewed the maner of the death, that Chriſt ſuffered,
that is, hee was<note n="464" place="margin">I haue ſaid that this worde fitteth not the greek</note> killed, and ſuffered a violent
death. For <hi>thanatotheis</hi> being deriued of<note n="465" place="margin">A Paſſiue participle fro<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g> a verb actiue.</note> 
                  <hi>thanateo,</hi>
muſt<note n="466" place="margin">Why ſo?</note> needs ſignifie put to death. Now I hope
you wil not ſay, Chriſt was put to deth in<note n="467" place="margin">But I will ſay he ſuffered death in ſoule and bodie.</note> ſoul &amp;
body, but in body only. And wher you ſay, that Chriſt
ſuffered in ſoule aſwell as in body, that is true, &amp; that
is gathered<note n="468" place="margin">But why not?</note> not of <hi>thanatotheis</hi> y<hi rend="sup">•</hi> is killed, but
out of theſe words antecedent (<hi>for Chriſt ſuffered the
iuſt for the vniuſt,</hi>)<note n="469" place="margin">What reaſon ſhould moue a reaſonable man, to denie that Chriſt ſuffered the death of the ſoule.</note> No reaſonable man but hee
will ſay, that the ſufferings of Chriſt, are compriſed
rather in the word (ſuffered) then in y<hi rend="sup">•</hi> word (killed.)
To your<note n="470" place="margin">This will not anſwere my reaſon.</note> fourth reaſon I reply, that Chriſt
was rayſed from the dead, but it is ſpecially ſignifi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ed
in the word reſurrection, ver 21. &amp;<note n="471" place="margin">A confuſed negatiue of confuſion. Put your antecedents to this (therfore) if your skill can do ſo much.</note> therfore I
do not confound thoſe things that are diſtinguiſhed,
<pb n="107" facs="tcp:178019:66"/>
but your ſelfe:<note n="472" place="margin">where M. D.? the<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g> were I worthie to we are a bable A rogue bur<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ned in the ear ſuffereth, but is not killed.</note> for you make ſuffered and killed
all one,<note n="473" place="margin">where M. D.? the<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g> were I worthie to we are a bable A rogue bur<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ned in the ear ſuffereth, but is not killed.</note> and quickned and the reſurrection all
one, and ſo mak not only a confuſion, but a tautology
and needeleſſe repetition which neuer<note n="474" place="margin">Vntruth D. the ſcrip<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ture vſeth ma<g ref="char:EOLunhyphen"/>nie tautolo<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>gies to help our memo<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ries and vn<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>derſtanding: though this in mens writing<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                        <desc>•</desc>
                     </gap> be a fault, in ſcriptures it is moſt neceſ<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ſarie, that one place may help another.</note> was read
in the word of God. To your fift argument, where
you ſay, <hi>zoopoi<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                        <desc>•</desc>
                     </gap>iſthai</hi> is to receaue life, I confeſ<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap>e it is
to be made aliue. Then you vrge, it can not be ſpoken
of y<hi rend="sup">•</hi> ſoule which neuer loſt life: Then by y<hi rend="sup">•</hi> ſame reaſon
more ſtrongly, it can not be ſpoken of the<note n="475" place="margin">This an<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ſwere were ſomewhat if you could make it good that we giue this participle to the Deity.</note> God<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>head,
which hath, doth, &amp; ſhal liue for euer: for God ca<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>
not receaue life, but y<hi rend="sup">•</hi> ſoule is ſaid to liue,<note n="476" place="margin">The que<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ſtion is, whe<g ref="char:EOLunhyphen"/>ther the ſoule is quickened, or made to liue, when it is out of the bodie.</note> when
he is out of the body, not becauſe he liued not before,
but<note n="477" place="margin">Non cauſa pro cauſa.</note> becauſe y<hi rend="sup">•</hi> body doth hinder y<hi rend="sup">•</hi> actions of the
ſoule, <hi>Iohn.</hi> 11. 25.<note n="478" place="margin">Theſe places proue not the queſtion</note> 
                  <hi>He that beleeueth in mee.
though he were dead yet ſhall he liue. Sap.</hi> 9, 15.<note n="479" place="margin">Theſe places proue not the queſtion</note>
                  <hi>The corruptible body is heavie vnto the ſoule, &amp; the
earthie manſion keepeth downe the minde that is
full of cares. 2. Cor.</hi> 4, 16.<note n="480" place="margin">Theſe places proue not the queſtion</note> 
                  <hi>Therfore, we faint
not, but though our outward man periſh, yet our in<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ward
man is dayly renewed.</hi> Heere<note n="481" place="margin">Paull ſaith not ſo heere.</note> 
                  <hi>Paul</hi> ſayth,
the weaker the body is, y<hi rend="sup">•</hi> ſtronger is his ſoule,<note n="482" place="margin">It followeth not.</note>
therefore the death of the body is the life of the ſoule.
To drawe to ane ende, your Antitheſis of the<note n="483" place="margin">The <hi>Antitheſis</hi> there ex<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>preſſed is between mortified and quickned.</note>
Deuinitie &amp; humanitie is anſwered before. For your
Antitheſis muſt be of things contrary, or at the leaſt
diuers<note n="484" place="margin">But diuerſe, but not alwaies ſepa<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>rate.</note> and ſeperate, but as you affirme truly,
the Godhead was never ſeperated from the humani<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tie:
<note n="485" place="margin">This therefore is builded on the wrong ſide of the way.</note> therefore this antitheſis is of the body and
ſoule, which at this time were deuided, and not be<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tweene
the deity and humanitie which were alwaies
vnited:<note n="486" place="margin">You call it in your margent <hi>fortiſſimum argumentum,</hi> but it is a ſtarued ſhrimpe. It cannot ſtand though it be not touched.</note> wherfore, this bulwarke I can aſſure
<pb n="108" facs="tcp:178019:67"/>
you will ſtand, and you haue ouerſhot both it, &amp; your
ſelf in attempting to ouerthrow it. For the very ſcope
of the Apoſtle is this, all Chriſtians muſt ſuffer affli<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ctions
for well doing, for Chriſt did not only ſuffer
both in body and ſoule, but alſo was put to a ſhame<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>full
death in his body,<note n="487" place="margin">Be ſure that that be one.</note> and in his ſoule went
downe to the ſoules in<note n="488" place="margin">That is out of the way: Chriſts going downe to hel is no perſuaſion for vs to ſuffer af<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>flictions.</note> hell, which were vnbe<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>leeuers
in the dayes of <hi>Noah:</hi> but Chriſt did ariſe a<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>gaine
from hel, and the graue, and aſcended both in
body &amp; ſoule to heauen: therfore, ſhal you, that ſuffer
for wel doing, be deliuered from death and hel by his
merits, and goe vp into heauen, and be partakers of
his glory, as you haue ben partakers of his affliction
Moreouer, as you referre mee to reade <hi>Bezas</hi> greate
notes one this text, ſo I pray you to reade <hi>Aretius</hi>
handling this place, whoſe words ar theſe. Generally
(ſayth <hi>Aretius) Pet.</hi> repeateth three effectes of Chriſts
death, if you marke it wel. The firſt pertaineth to the
damned, The ſecond to the elect. The third the per<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ſon
of Chriſt. The firſt was declared in his deſcen<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ding
in to hell. The ſecond in his reſurrection. The
third in his aſcention into heauen. This is the true
and naturall meaning of this place which wee will
follow, leauing the intrications of other interpretati<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ons.
I willinglye confeſſe this place is very hard, for
<hi>Auguſtine</hi> doubteth of it, &amp; <hi>Luther</hi> douteth of it how
it is to bee vnderſtoode; but this obſcurity aryſeth
not of the place, but of the varietie of interpretations,
If thou marke the plainneſſe of the place, the matter
will be eaſye, but that pleaſeth not all men: therefore
that euery on may eſtabliſh his owne ſence, they ap<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ply
the words of the Apoſtle <hi>Peter</hi> to their owne con<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ceit.
But leauing theſe, let vs imbrace that which the
words do teach vs: in the which, if we attaine to the
truth, it is well: if not, yet they ſhall bee probable, be<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>cauſe
they haue warrant out of the ſcriptures, and
<pb n="109" facs="tcp:178019:67"/>
leane to the very letter <hi>to reto,</hi> otherwiſe it is cer<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tain,
the knowledge of man to be vnperfect in many
queſtions of holie ſcripture, of the which the Apoſtle
doth warne vs, 1. <hi>Corin. 15. For now wee knowe vn<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>perfectlie.</hi>
I haue ſayd here is declared three effects
of Chriſts death which differ in time, &amp; are ſet in or<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>der
in the Creede. The firſt effect is, that Chriſt being
dead, denounced eternal paines to the wicked in hell.
The words of the Apoſtle are theſe. <hi>In which ſpirite
he went and preached to the ſpirits detained in pri<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ſon.</hi>
I take the place ſimply of the deſcence into hell,
for ſo the words do plainly ſound, and I ſee al the Fa<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>thers
ſo to interpret them: <hi>Auguſtine Epiſt.</hi> 99. and
<hi>Ciprian</hi> doth manifeſtly interpret this place of the de<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ſcending
into Hel. Neither doth the word priſon hin<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>der
this Interpretation: which in the <hi>Apocal.</hi> 20. 5. is
taken for hel. <hi>When a thouſand yeers ſhal be fulfilled,
Satan ſhall be loſed out of his priſon.</hi> Therefore, the
priſon that <hi>Peter</hi> heere ſpeaketh of, is the place depu<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ted
to the damned. Hyther came Chriſt, as we confes
in the Creede, He went downe into Hell.<note n="489" place="margin">But you make no dout but that hel is vnder the earth, in your ſermon fol. A<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                        <desc>•</desc>
                     </gap> pag. 2. in print</note> where
Hell is, it is a fooliſh &amp; curious queſtion to enquire,
ſith no man co<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>ming to that place euer returned but
only Chriſt. Furthermore, what Chriſt did there, <hi>Pe<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ter</hi>
expreſſeth, he preached to the ſpirits, that is, he de<g ref="char:EOLunhyphen"/>clared
that he ſhewd himſelfe manifeſtly to the world
and made that dire and mornefull ſermon; namely, to
y<hi rend="sup">•</hi> wicked, that the mirit of his death did nothing per<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>taine
vnto them, but by his preſence, were confirmed
thoſe puniſhments of the which <hi>Noah</hi> and other pro<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>phets
had forwarned them. And the tyme of this
Preaching, I referre not to the tymes of <hi>Noah,</hi> but to
the tyme of hys deſcending into Hell. Wherevnto
agreeth the worde <hi>pneumaſi,</hi> that is, ſpirits, for hee
preached to the ſpirits, that is, to dead, and not to li<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>uing
men. Thus ſarre <hi>Aretius.</hi>
                  <note n="490" place="margin">You ſhould waſte winde, and break your promiſe.</note> I could heere
<pb n="110" facs="tcp:178019:68"/>
alleage many other newe Writers, whiche are of my
iudgement, but becauſe you yeelde them no credite,
therefore of purpoſe I will omit them.</p>
            </div>
            <div type="rejoinder">
               <head>HVME his Reioynder to the 12. ſect.</head>
               <p>THis berrie is ſo confuſed, that I can not finde
where to enter my firret. Firſt, I prooued that
<hi>Beza,</hi> whome we follow in this place, doth no vio<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>lence
to the wordes: but vſeth them as hee findeth
them vſed by Iohn, Paull, and Peter. Which foun<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>dation
beeing laide, I anſwere your 10. reaſons, and
put other 10. to the other ſcale, to counter-weigh
them. You neither defend your owne, nor anſwere
mine, in order as they ly: But like a mad Dog, ſnatch
heere one, and there another, and let them goe, that
you cannot bite. I cannot follow your ſteppes, they
be ſo crooked. Wherefore, I will walke on my firſt
ſteppes, and ſeeke your anſweres, where I can finde
them. That which I ſay of the vſe of the words, you
confeſſe, and diuers of my reaſons, you ſlip without
an anſwere.</p>
               <p>The firſt of my reaſons was from theſe wordes,<note place="margin">1. Reaſon.</note>
(mortified in the fleſh, and quickened in the Spirit)
Thus, If (fleſh) heere doth ſignifie the body, and (ſpi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>rit)
the humane ſoule: then nothing in theſe words
is ſpoke<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g> of Chriſt, that may not be verified of other
men. But in theſe words ſome ſingular matter is at<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tributed
to Chriſt, that other men are not capable
of: For, we cannot ſay, that <hi>Auguſtine, Ierome</hi> or <hi>Cy<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>prian,</hi>
are mortified in the fleſh, and quickened in the
ſpirit in that ſenſe, as it is heere ſpoken of Chriſt. <hi>Er<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>go,</hi>
(fleſh) is not the bodie, and (ſpirit) the humane
ſoule of Chriſt.<note place="margin">Anſwere. Reply.</note> That which you anſwere of his deſce<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>
                  <g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ding
into Hell, and returning thence, is not compri<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ſed
in theſe words, wheron my argument is builded,
<pb n="111" facs="tcp:178019:68"/>
though you gaue them your owne liverie, and cloa<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>thed
them in your owne cullours.</p>
               <p>The ſecond was this. The Spirit heer doth ſignifie
that,<note place="margin">2. Reaſo<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                        <desc>•</desc>
                     </gap>.</note> which gaue life to that which was dead. But
the humane ſoul gaue not life to that that was dead,
<hi>Ergo,</hi> the ſpirit doth not ſignifie the humane ſoule.
Heere you denie the <hi>maior,</hi> and alleadge againſt the
<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 span">
                     <desc>〈…〉</desc>
                  </gap> which you call ours,<note place="margin">Anſwers. Reply.</note> and ſhould bee
yours as well as ours, if you and others of <gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 span">
                     <desc>〈…〉</desc>
                  </gap>
highlie
<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 span">
                     <desc>〈…〉</desc>
                  </gap>
in the (fleſh, and <gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 span">
                     <desc>〈…〉</desc>
                  </gap>
mortified as hee was man, and quickened as hee
was God by himſelfe.<note place="margin">Iohn 10. 18.</note> According to that of Iohn. I
haue power to lay downe my life, and I haue power
to take it vp againe. Take your note of (in) and (by)
and make a wheele-barrow of it. But you moue me
heere another queſtion of ſome importance: and
craue an inſtance (if I can) in all the Scripture. Howe
one word in one period can carie two ſignifications
You are not (I hope) ſo verie an novice in Gods
booke,<note place="margin">Math. 8. 12. Ioh. 6. 27. Mar. 8. 33 Ioh. 8. 55. Ioh. 4. 24.</note> as you make your ſelfe. Haue you not read,
Let the dead, burie their dead: Or, labour not for
the meat that periſheth, but the meate that laſteth,
&amp;c. Or, Who ſo will ſaue his life, ſhall loſe it. Or <hi>A<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>braham</hi>
rejoiced to ſee my day, and ſaw it. Or, God
is a ſpirit, and will be worſhipped in ſpirit, wher you
haue the ſame word in both ſignifications. O howe
you would be-ſlouen mee, if you could finde ſuch a
hole in my hoſe! Now, I feare nothing, but that you
craued an inſtance out of the olde Teſtament.</p>
               <p>The third was, If death, whenſoeuer it is attribu<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ted
to Chriſt in the Scriptures,<note place="margin">3. Reaſon.</note> compriſeth the whole
paſsion, the fleſhe in this text, muſt be the ſubject of
the whole paſsion: that is, the whole manhoode of
<pb n="112" facs="tcp:178019:69"/>
Chriſt. But deth is neuer attributed to chriſt, but for
the whol paſsio<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>. <hi>Ergo,</hi> fleſh muſt be the ſubject of the
paſsion, that is, the whole manhood of Chriſt. Heer
you denie the <hi>minor,</hi> and like a skilfull Logician, giue
inſtance in the queſtio<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>. If you haue not forgot your
olde logicke, the argument, and the thing argued
ſhould not be one. You ſupplie the imperfection of
this anſwere, with two arguments <gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 span">
                     <desc>〈…〉</desc>
                  </gap>,
that death in this place cannot ſignifie the
paſsion. <gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 span">
                     <desc>〈…〉</desc>
                  </gap>.
Your firſt reſon is, that
the paſsion is mentioned before in the word ſuffred,
Be it ſo: Yet it may bee repeated in more ſpeciall
tearmes. By your reaſon, in the beleef, where a repe<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tition
is leſſe tollerable, crucified and died, belong
not to the paſsion; becauſe they are expreſſed before
in the word ſuffered. Suffering, which may be in tor<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>turing,
whipping, and impriſonment, is too ſlacke
a tearme, to expreſſe the helliſh tormentes of Chriſts
paſsion. The other is, if (mortified) pertaine to the
ſoule, and bodie, it will followe, that the ſoule is alſo
mortall. You tell mee out of <hi>Athanaſius</hi> in the reply
to my fift ſection, that by the double puniſhment in<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>flicted
on Adam, the ſoule ſhould die the death. And
I heard you preach in our Ladie Church at <hi>Sarum.</hi>
That when it was ſaide to Adam, thou ſhalt die the
death, the meaning was, he ſhould die the death of
ſoule and bodie. Now, if you wil apply theſe two ſig<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>nifications
of death to Chriſt: the one to the bodie,
and the other to the ſoule: I hope this objection wil
neither ſcratch nor byte.</p>
               <p>My fourth reaſon was this. In this: <hi>Antitheſis</hi> mor<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tified
in the fleſh, and quickened in the ſpirite: mor<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>fied
<pb n="113" facs="tcp:178019:69" rendition="simple:additions"/>
belongeth not to the ſpirit, nor quickened to
the fleſhe: but mortified belongs to the ſoule, for it
died the death of the ſoule, and quickened to the
<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 word">
                     <desc>〈◊〉</desc>
                  </gap> for it receaued life againe. <hi>Ergo,</hi> fleſh is not the
bodie onlie, and ſpirit the humane ſoule. To this you
anſwere, that Chriſt was raiſed from the dead, and
that was ſignified in the word reſurrection, verſ. 21.
and therefore you do not confound theſe diſtingui<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ſhed
things, antitheticallie oppoſed. But wee, that
make mort<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="2 letters">
                     <desc>••</desc>
                  </gap>ed, &amp; ſuffered; quickned &amp; reſurrection
all one. How this may anſwere mee, I leaue it to the
<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap>ead that bred it to explane. But you do vs wro<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>g, we
make not mortified, &amp; ſuffered one, &amp;c. Suffered and
quickned ar tearms more general, mortified &amp; raiſed
againe more ſpeciall: expreſsing things more plain<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>lie
and particularie, which were touched before
more covert<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="2 letters">
                     <desc>••</desc>
                  </gap> and generallie.</p>
               <p>My fift reaſon was. To be quickened is to receaue
life,<note place="margin">5. Reaſon.</note> which the thing that is quickened either neuer
had, or els had loſte. But the ſoule had life in the bo<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>die,
and neuer <gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 word">
                     <desc>〈◊〉</desc>
                  </gap> after: <hi>Ergo,</hi> the ſoule cannot bee
quickened. To this you anſwere nothing: but tell vs
by the ſame reaſon,<note place="margin">Anſwere.</note> it can much leſſe pertaine to the
Deitie. Thus, thinking to wound vs with our owne
weapon, you ſtrike ſhort, and with the back, drawe
blood at your owne brow. I told you in my anſwere
to your ſecond objection, that quickened is not heer
attributed to the Deitie, but to the whole Chriſt, by
the participatio<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g> of proprieties. How can you excuſe
your ſelf heere of wilfull falſification? But you mend
the matter, with a more ſufficie<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>t anſwere out of Ioh.
That the ſoule of the beleeuer liueth, though hee
were dead. What then? Iohn telleth not your tale,
that the ſoule of the beleeuer, is quickened when hee
is dead: That it liueth, is not the queſtion. The bur<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>den
of the bodie, which you alledge out of the book
<pb n="118" facs="tcp:178019:70"/>
of Wiſd. loadeth the ſoule, but killeth it not. And
therfore, when it is deliuered of that load, it is not
quickened, but releeued. And the renewing of the
inward man, which you alleadge from Paule, quick<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>neth
not the ſoule, being dead: but addeth courage
and comfort, to the living and languiſhing ſoule by
Gods promiſes. Heere I ſee you are quite thruſt fro<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>
your hold at Chippenham, that to bee quickned is,
to bee deliuered from miſeries. Ingenuitie woulde
haue confeſſed a fault. You conclude with a confu<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tatio<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>
of the <hi>Antitheſis,</hi> between the divinity &amp; huma<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>nity:
but my reaſon is fro<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g> an <hi>Antitheſis</hi> between mor<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tified
&amp; quickned, fleſh &amp; ſpirit: which you (by a cor<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>rupted
gloſe) taking quickned for a deliuerie fro<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g> mi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ries,
did ouerthrow. Yet becauſe I ſaid that Paul ma<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>keth
that <hi>antitheſis,</hi> Rom. 1. It ſhal not be impertine<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>t
to view your reaſons. An <hi>Antitheſis</hi> muſt be (ſay you)
of things oppoſite and contrarie. I add, the Diuini<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tie
and humanitie bee thinges oppoſite: <hi>Ergo,</hi> there
may be an <hi>Antitheſis</hi> of the Diuinity, and the huma<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>nitie.
But they are vnited, ſay you. What then? So
be the fleſh, and the ſpirit; and yet Chriſt ſaieth, the
Spirit is readie, but the fleſhe is weake. A common
Logician,<note place="margin">Mat. 26. 41.</note> (much more a Doctor) ſhould know, that
no vniting of thinges, betweene which a difference
may be obſerued, can let an <hi>Antitheſis,</hi> if occaſion
ſerue. Notwithſtanding the vniting, a man may wel
ſay, Chriſt as hee was man, was paſsible, as hee was
God, he was impaſsible.</p>
               <p>To theſe reaſons, I added more in my latine which
I ſent you. The ſpirit heere doth ſignifie that, which
his enemies,<note place="margin">6. Reaſon.</note> (hell &amp; death,) could not touch: accor<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ding
to the text, he was quickened in the ſpirit. But
his humane ſoule eſcaped not the violence of his e<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>nemies:
<hi>Ergo,</hi> the word (ſpirit) heere doth not ſigni<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>fie
his humane ſoule. To this you make no anſwere.</p>
               <p>
                  <pb n="119" facs="tcp:178019:70"/>
The ſeaventh was.<note place="margin">7. Reaſon.</note> This ſpirit of which he ſpeaketh
heere, did preach: But the humane ſoule cannot
preach: <hi>Ergo,</hi> the ſpirit heere, is not the humane
ſoule. To this you anſwere, that he preached not vo<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>callie,
but reallie,<note place="margin">Anſwere. Reply.</note> that is, not in words but in deeds.
A dumb man may preach ſo, as well as D. Hill. If
you ſtand 7. dayes in the pulpit of the great Church
at Sarum, and ſay nothing: there bee not 7. men
within 700. myles, that wil commend your ſermon.</p>
               <p>The eight was.<note place="margin">8. Reaſon.</note> Whoſoeuer doth preach, he doth
it either to amend the enormities of the hearers: or
to inſtruct them in the waye of ſaluation. But this
was not to be hoped for in damned ſpirits: <hi>Ergo,</hi> hee
preached not in Hell,<note place="margin">Anſwere Reply.</note> to damned ſpirits. Heere you
anſwere, that he preached to reproue them of their
infidelitie: but you fall ſtill in one ditch. He that re<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>proueth
infidelitie, doeth it either to mend it, or to
take away excuſes: But there was no ſuch hope in
theſe, that were paſt all remedie and excuſe.</p>
               <p>The ninth was. This preaching was, when the diſ<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>obedience
of the hearers,<note place="margin">9. Reaſon</note> was reforme-able. But
this was onelie reforme-able in the dayes of Noah:
<hi>Ergo,</hi> this preaching was not, but in the daies of No<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ah.
This hath no anſwere.</p>
               <p>The tenth was from the circumſtances of the text
and neceſſarie <hi>Analyſis</hi> thereof:<note place="margin">10. Reaſon</note> Which I remitted
to <hi>Beza,</hi> who hath done that better, then I can, and
whoſe notes, it is not likelie that you want, hauing
ſuch a Librarie, as you ſpeake of ſect 7. You in the
margent will mee to read <hi>Aretius</hi> and <hi>Aleſius.</hi> The
one I haue read, and the other cannot moue mee,
though hee be my countrie-man. I haue learned to
preferre truth before men, what euer they be. Theſe
were my reaſons, which I joined to the lawfull vſe of
the words, proved by Iohn, Paul, and Peter. In them
(ſo ouer-ſmoked is your ſenſe) you ſmell no reaſon
<pb n="116" facs="tcp:178019:71"/>
at all: But tell your reader that we cannot proue ou<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap>
interpretations by the Scriptures, as you do yours:
and yet you bring nothing for your owne, but that
the words may bee ſo taken: and a fewe ſillie conje<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ctures
anſwered before by mee. Nowe, having ſet
downe mine, let mee ſee howe ſtoutlie you haue de<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>fended
yours.</p>
               <p>THe firſt was. <hi>Poreutheis,</hi> (that is, went) doth ſig<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>nifie
motion, from one place to another. But
the Deitie cannot moue from anie place,<note place="margin">M. D. reaſons confuted, and his anſwere diſplayed.</note> being at al
times, in all places: <hi>Ergo, poreutheis,</hi> is not attributed
to the Deitie. To the <hi>minor</hi> of this argument, I aun<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ſwered
out of the 18. of Geneſis, and 3. of Exodus.
That the God-head is ſaide to mooue from place to
place,<note place="margin">Anſwere.</note> by a figure called <hi>Anthropopatheia.</hi>
                  <note place="margin">Reply.</note> You reply,
that the bookes that I cite, are written in Hebrewe,
And that the interpreters doe tranſlate that hebrew
word by <hi>katabainein</hi> or <hi>ercheſthai,</hi> and not <hi>por<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                        <desc>•</desc>
                     </gap>ueſtha<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                        <desc>•</desc>
                     </gap>.</hi>
As if the Hebrewe tongue,<note place="margin">Rejoynder</note> which is called <hi>lingua ſan<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>cta,</hi>
were fitter to ſpeak improperly of God, then the
Greeke, or that <hi>poreueſthai,</hi> had gotten ſome ſpeciall
licence, more then anie other verbs of motion, to be
free from that figure. Yet if it will pleaſe you to read
Exod. 13. 2. Nomb. 14. 14. Deut. 1. 33. Exod. 33. 3.
Pſal. 132. 8. Deut. 31. 3. Pſal. 71. 12. Pſal. 88. 7. and
infinite ſuch places more, you ſhall find that plakket
deere of a naked q. without a cap. But ſuppoſe that
I could not finde it attributed to the Deitie in all
theſe Scriptures, yet you were not the nearer your
marke. For, if you bee remembred, your reaſon was
in Chippenham, that <hi>poreueſthai</hi> cannot bee giuen to
the Deitie, becauſe it is a verb of motion. Now, the
<hi>maior</hi> of your ſyllogiſm muſt be, that no verb of mo<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tion
can bee attributed to the Deitie. Which <hi>maior</hi>
being craſed by my firſt anſwere, and the examples
there alledged. There is no reaſon left you, why <hi>po<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>reueſthai</hi>
                  <pb n="117" facs="tcp:178019:71"/>
cannot be attributed to the Deitie, as wel as
<hi>ercheſthai,</hi> or <hi>katabainein:</hi> and no reaſon you knowe, is
too weake againſt ten ſuch ſtout reaſons, as I haue
ſent you, forcing this ſenſe vpon this place.</p>
               <p>Your next argument,<note place="margin">2. Objection.</note> was from the participle
(quickned) thus. No paſsiue can agree with the De<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>itie:
Quickned is a paſsiue: <hi>Ergo,</hi> it cannot agree
with the Deitie. This ſyllogiſm I granted to be good
and told you withall,<note place="margin">Anſwere.</note> that wee doe not attribute this
Participle to the Deitie, but to the whole Chriſt, by
participation of proprieties, following the text
which ſaith not, that the fleſh was mortified, and the
ſpirit quickned:<note place="margin">No reply, no rejoinder.</note> but that Chriſt was mortified in the
fleſh, and quickened in the ſpirite. This anſwere, you
ſtroke off your skore.</p>
               <p>Your third argument was from the tenſe or time
<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 span">
                     <desc>〈…〉</desc>
                  </gap>
bee attributed to Chriſt at one time,<note place="margin">3. Object.</note> they note, that
hee was deade and aliue at one time. But the firſt is
true: <hi>Ergo,</hi> the laſt is true. To this I anſwere, denying
the <hi>maior,</hi>
                  <note place="margin">Anſwere.</note> That participles or verbs of one time at<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tributed
to one thing, muſte needes pertaine to one
time. In the beleef, wee ſay, that Chriſt was crucified,
dead, and buried: where crucified, dead, &amp; buried, be
all of one tenſe or time, &amp; yet agree not all to Chriſt
at one inſtance of time. To this you reply, that they
muſte pertaine to one time, and proue your <hi>maior</hi>
thus. Chriſt was after his paſsion dead or aliue at on
time, or elſe neuer. If he were neuer dead and aliue at
one time, S. Peter ſpeaketh not trulie. If hee were
dead and aliue at one time, then I ſpeake falſelie. In
this Syllogiſme is neither mood nor figure: and be<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ſides
that, it ſtandeth on a begging of the queſtion,
That Peter ſaieth hee was at one time deade and a<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>liue,
is the queſtion, and you take that, as if it were
granted.</p>
               <p>
                  <pb n="114" facs="tcp:178019:72" rendition="simple:additions"/>
Your fourth reaſon was.<note place="margin">4. Objection.</note> If Peter ſaith, that the fleſh
was dead, and the Spirit quickened, then doeth hee
ſhew, that he was both dead and aliue at one time.
But the firſt is true: <hi>Ergo,</hi> the laſt is not falſe. The <hi>mi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>nor</hi>
of this Syllogiſme,<note place="margin">Anſwere.</note> I did denie: ſhewing, that it is
flat againſt the text, which ſaieth not, that the fleſhe
was dead, and the ſpirit quickened. But that Chriſt
was dead in the fleſh,<note place="margin">No reply, no Rejoynder.</note> and quickned in the ſpirit. This
reaſon it pleaſeth you of your courteſie to ſend away
in ſecrete, without a God be with you.</p>
               <p>Your fifth reaſon was.<note place="margin">5. Objection.</note> The Scripture doth join this
going &amp; preaching cloaſe to his paſsion, as if it wold
ſay: As ſoone as hee had ſuffered, hee went and prea<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ched.
I anſwered you, that (as) and (if) did carie too
weake a conſequence,<note place="margin">Anſwere.</note> in ſo waightie a matter.<note place="margin">No reply, no Rejoynder.</note> This
aſſe ſadled with an if (<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 span">
                     <desc>〈…〉</desc>
                  </gap>.</p>
               <p>Your ſixt reaſon was,<note place="margin">6. Objection.</note> out of the 6. of Geneſ. That
the preaching of Noah, is there attributed to the
third perſon of the Deitie, and not to the ſecond.
The words of that text bee. The Lord ſaid, My ſpirit
ſhall not alwaies ſtriue with man, becauſe hee is but
fleſhe.<note place="margin">Anſwere</note> Which wordes I anſwered you in the Latine
that I ſent you, that I neuer ſawe anie interpreters.
that doe conſent with you in this expoſition, and in<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>terprete
theſe words of the third perſon of the Dei<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tie.
<hi>Tremelius</hi> and <hi>Iunius</hi> their judgement I ſet down,
as that I liked beſt: who take theſe words to be a He<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>braiſme,
ſounding as if he had ſaid, I wil not alwaies
ſtand diſputing with my ſelfe, what to do with theſe
men which yeeld no frutes, but of fleſh &amp; blood: for,
nowe I am determined (except they repent) to de<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ſtroy
them at the day appointed. Notwithſtanding,
granting you that it were as you would haue it, I
tolde you, ſeeing the actions of euery perſon of the
Deitie, are common to all three, hee erreth not that
<pb n="115" facs="tcp:178019:72"/>
giueth them to anie of the three.<note place="margin">Reply.</note> This you confeſſe
to be true. But you ask me, if I can proue that Chriſt
preached in Noah after his paſsion: affirming con<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>fidentlie,
that this was attributed to him of Peter, af<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ter
the paſsion.<note place="margin">Rejoynder.</note> It were requiſite that you had good
proof according to the waight of this caſe, and your
confidence in ſpeaking it. But I will eaſe you of that
burden. Proue it out of the text, with anie reaſo<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>nable
ſhew of truth, and you ſhall haue my hart and
hand. The order of the wordes which you ſtand ſo
ſtoutlie vpon, is not ſo ſtrict, as you would haue it.
For the purpoſe and drift of the Apoſtle heere, is to
perſwade vs to patience by the example of our Savi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>our,
and not to ſet out his death, deſcending and re<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ſurrection,
in order as they were done: but <hi>obiter</hi> as
they fall in hand, and followe the matter that heere
he driveth to perſwade.</p>
               <p>Your ſeauenth reaſon was,<note place="margin">7. Objection.</note> if Chriſt was raiſed
from the dead, by the firſt perſon of the Deitie, and
not by the ſecond: then the word ſpirit heere, ca<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>not
be conſtrued of the Deitie: but Chriſt was raiſed by
the firſt perſon,<note place="margin">Anſwere</note> and not by the ſecond. <hi>Ergo,</hi> &amp;c. I
might well haue tolde you, that this <hi>minor</hi> is abſurde
and flat againſt the plaine text, Ioh. 5. 21. Whatſoe<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>uer
thing the Father doth, the ſame the ſonne doeth
alſo with him. And Ioh. 10. 18. which wordes I did
quote not farre before, in the defence of my ſecond
reaſon. I haue power to lay downe my life, and I
haue power to take it vp again. But then ſparing you
and refraining all hard ſpeeches, how euer they were
due, I onelie tolde you; that I ſawe not howe that
could ſtand with the trueth of the Scriptures, which
telleth mee,<note place="margin">Reply Rejoynder.</note> that the ſecond perſon did put on man,
and did not forſake him in all his diſtreſſes. You re<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ply
in the margent of your written copy, ſee contra<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>rie
to this Act, 4. 40: Act. 13. 30. 1. Cor. 15. 15. Which
<pb n="120" facs="tcp:178019:73"/>
places I haue marked &amp; obſerued, to make nothing
againſt my aſſertion. In them the raiſing vp of chriſt,
is attributed to the God-head, which worketh not
(as I haue noted alreadie) one perſon without an<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>other.
Which thing, if it bee an errour, it was Iohn
that ſeduced mee. cap. 5. 7. The Father worketh, and
I work. As the Father doth raiſe vp the deade, ſo the
ſonne likewiſe, doth raiſe vp whome he will. And in
the 17. verſe, quoted a little aboue. The ſame is agre<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>able
to other infinite places of Scripture, and the
ſomme of our Faith, called the beleef, which ſaieth;
the third day hee roſe againe, and not that hee was
raiſed againe.</p>
               <p>Your eight reaſon was.<note place="margin">8. Objection.</note> If the time that they were
preached to, and of their diſobedience, was not one:
then this preaching is not to bee vnderſtood of No<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ah
his preaching, in the time of their diſobedience.
But the adverbe <hi>pote</hi> doth diſtinguiſh thoſe times.<note place="margin">Anſwere</note> 
                  <hi>Er<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>go,</hi>
&amp;c. To this I anſwere, that the Adverb <hi>pote,</hi> doth
not determine the participle <hi>apeitheſaſi,</hi> but the prin<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>cipall
verbe <hi>ekeryxen,</hi> You replie, that I ſpeak neither
like a Divine,<note place="margin">Reply.</note> nor like a Grammarian. To proue me
no divine, which indeede I am not: and no Gram<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>marian,
which I am but little: you alledge no Diuini<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tie,
and little grammer. It will not followe, that be<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>cauſe
it may ſtand with a Participle, therefore it is ſo
heere: or, that becauſe it is diſtinguiſhed from the
verb, with a <hi>comma,</hi> therefore it cannot determine it
at all. You are not ouer-loden with Grammar, if
you knowe not,<note place="margin">Rejoynder</note> that diuerſe and manie reaſons, may
part wordes depending one on the other, by a <hi>com<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ma.</hi>
And as for this place, <hi>pote,</hi> if it did depend (as
you would haue it) vpon <hi>apeitheſaſi,</hi> it cannot bee di<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ſtinguiſhed
from <hi>ekeryxen</hi> with a <hi>comma,</hi> ſeing <hi>apeithe<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ſaſi</hi>
it ſelf, is gouerned of <hi>ekeryxen,</hi> without commix<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ture
of anie interjected member to parte them. What
<pb n="121" facs="tcp:178019:73"/>
euer your book hath, take heed, that it be not a ſtain
to your skill in grammar, to credite a book in ſuch a
caſe.</p>
               <p>Your ninth argument was. Noah preched to men
Theſe were ſpirits &amp; not men: <hi>Ergo,</hi> Noah preached
not to theſe. I anſwered, that whoſoeuer preacheth
to men, preacheth to ſpirites, becauſe no men want
ſpirits, that is, reaſonable ſoules. And now I ad, that
they are heer called Spirits, in reſpect of their impri<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ſonment,
not in reſpect of his preaching. If hee had
called them men, then the name of priſon wherein
they are now datained, had beene improper. The A<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>poſtle
wiſelie chooſed that worde, which might beſt
agree with both thoſe times. <hi>Bezaes</hi> opinion alſo,
whereto <hi>Andradius</hi> the Papiſt agreeth, is moſt pro<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>bable,
that <hi>pote</hi> doth determine the ſame Participle
<hi>apeitheſaſi,</hi> and doeth diſtinguiſh it from <hi>tois en phylake
pneumaſi,</hi> which muſt needs be vnderſtood in the pre<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ſent
time, by vertue of the participle <hi>ouſi,</hi> in that kind
of phraſe in Greek, moſt neceſſarily alwaies implyed.
You reply not one worde to the purpoſe: but char<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ging
vs with that we neuer ſpake, nor thought (that
we take theſe ſpirits for the men in Noahs time) you
alleadge Chriſts words againſt vs, Luk. 24. 39. But if
you were a man, that coulde marke the wordes of
them that diſpute againſt you, &amp; take them as they
are ſpoken: you ſhould finde, that wee ſay not that
hee preached to the ſpirites in the dayes of Noah:
But to the ſpirites that nowe are in priſon, and were
diſobedient in the dayes of Noah. If you can anie
waies turne Chriſts wordes in Luke, to confute this,
you neede not to care, what thinges you take vpon
you to proue. If you can proue, that Noah prea<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ching
to the men of his time, did not preach to
their Spirites: or that theſe ſpirits in priſon, which
Peter ſpeaketh heer of, were not the ſame that rebel<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>led
<pb n="122" facs="tcp:178019:74"/>
in the dayes of Noah, you may driue vs from this
holde: otherwiſe you may throw your cap at vs.</p>
               <p>Laſt of all, you charge our conſtruction with vio<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>lence.
I anſwered,<note place="margin">10. Objection.</note> that you do vs wrong, charging vs
with things, that none of vs do ſpeak. Which anſwer
you paſſe by with ſilence,<note place="margin">Anſwere</note> and ſo allow it for currant.</p>
               <p>To theſe you haue added two new ones, which (to
take away all ſcruple, I will anſwere alſo.</p>
               <p>Firſt,<note place="margin">11. Objection.</note> ſay you, if the word <hi>phylake</hi> doth ſignifie hel,
then Chriſt did deſcend into hell: But <hi>phylake</hi> doeth
ſignifie Hell. <hi>Ergo,</hi> &amp;c. I denie the <hi>maior,</hi> it will not
follow, though <hi>phylake</hi> doeth ſignifie hell (as heere it
doth indeed Metaphoricallie) that therefore Chriſt
deſcended into Hell:<note place="margin">Anſwere.</note> neither doth the place that you
quote of Math. proue that you would haue: except
you can proue alſo, that <hi>phylake</hi> hath no other ſignifi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>cation,
then the priſon of vtter darkneſſe, &amp;c.</p>
               <p>Your other reaſon is.<note place="margin">12. Objection.</note> He that was killed, dead, and
quickened, did preach. But it was Chriſt that was
killed, dead, and quickned: <hi>Ergo,</hi> it was Chriſt that
preached, and not his Deitie. Chriſt, and not his De<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>itie,
M. Doctor? Can Chriſt preach, and not his De<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>itie?
You may ſay what you will. If I had let fall ſuch
a word, you would haue cried, <hi>Crucifige.</hi> But to an<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ſwere
you,<note place="margin">Anſwere.</note> I denie the <hi>maior.</hi> It is againſt the text. He
was mortified, that is, killed and dead in the fleſhe,
and that preached not. Hee was quickned in the ſpi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>rite,
and in that hee went and preached. That which
preached, was neither killed nor dead: neither was it
ſelf quickened: but Chriſt was quickened in it.</p>
               <p>Theſe are all your objections. In my anſwere to
your ſermon, I anſwered 10. of them. You haue re<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>plyed
to 6. of them, and to the other 4. you haue gi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>uen
a pardon at large, neuer to be troubled by you.
Your ſix replyes I haue heere rejoyned too, and haue
met your newe ſupplies at the encounter, and haue
<pb n="123" facs="tcp:178019:74"/>
ſent them home to you for new help. All your forces
thus defeated, and ſo mightie and reſolute an armie
againſt you, (if there bee anie conformitie in you, if
your neck be not ſo ſtiffe, that no bridle can turn it)
I hope you will get you to <hi>Chippenhames</hi> pulpit, and
performe your promiſe.</p>
            </div>
         </div>
         <div n="13" type="section">
            <head>HVME Sect. 13.</head>
            <p>THeſe things being thus, I pray you (good M. D.)
ſeeing you woulde haue vs vndoubtedly to be<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>leeue,
that Chriſt deſcended into Hell. Tel vs vndou<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tedly
to what ende he ſhould deſcend thither. I truſt
you will not teach vs, neither Auguſtine, neither Ie<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>romes
leſſon, that he went thither to deliuer priſo<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ners.
As for that new leſſon, that he went thither to
triumph: it ſtandeth not with the maner of conque<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>rours,
to ſhew the glorie of their conqueſt amongſt
the conquered: but amongſt them to whom the ioy
of the victorie doth appertaine: and for mine owne
part, I haue oftentimes read the name of Hell, ioy<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ned
with ſhame and ignomie: but to this day, I ne<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>uer
hard it ioyned with triumph and glorie. Nei<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ther
ſeemeth it probable, that if Chriſt had purpo<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ſed
to ſhewe the pompe of his conqueſt, he woulde
haue done it before his reſurrection, leſt being yet in
the handes of his enemie, he had me<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                  <desc>•</desc>
               </gap>t him with the
proverbe, <hi>Ante victoriam, &amp;c.</hi> To theſe reaſons, may
be added, that ſeeing his triumph was celebrated at
one inſtance, in Heauen, Earth, and Hell: if the pre<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ſence
of his ſoule was required, as you beare in hand
it will followe, that his ſoule was at one inſtant in
theſe three places, which is contrary to the nature of
a ſoule. You adde two other cauſes, to binde the de<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>uill,
and deliuer vs from hel. You bring vs many pla<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ces
of Scripture, to confirme this geare. Gen. 3. 15.
<hi>The ſeed of the woman ſhal break the Serpents head.</hi> Oſe. 13
<pb n="124" facs="tcp:178019:75"/>
15. <hi>O death, I will be thy death, O hell I wil be thy deſtructio<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>
               </hi>
1. Cor. 15. 55. <hi>O death, where is thy ſting, O hell where i<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap>
thy victorie.</hi> In all which places, there is not a ſillable
ſounding, that Chriſt deſcended into hell. As for his
triumphing ouer Hell, we neuer denied it, and do a<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>vouch
that he performed, that moſte gloriouſlie, by
the power of his God-head, which did preſent his vi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ctorie
ouer his enemies, hell and death: both to he<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ven
earth and Hel, without the preſence of his ſoule.</p>
            <div type="reply">
               <head>HIL his Reply.</head>
               <p>YOu aſke me why Chriſt deſcended into hell,<note place="margin">The Paralogiſ. of this ſection.</note> and
yet you co<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>fes I noted<note n="491" place="margin">Thoſe 3 ends in your opinion, are not ends in<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>deede.</note> three ends of Chriſts
deſcending into hell, the one to<note n="492" place="margin">He trium<g ref="char:EOLunhyphen"/>phed ouer hell &amp; death in heue<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>, earth and hell: not in hell onelie</note> triumph ouer
the Diuels: the other to<note n="493" place="margin">If it was all one actio<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g> to binde the Diuel, &amp; to take away his power, that he did, by his death, Heb. 2. 14.</note> binde the Diuels, and
to take away their power ouer mankind:<note n="494" place="margin">That he did by his death alſo.</note> the
3. to deliuer vs from hell. There was alſo ſet downe
a fourth end, that is,<note n="495" place="margin">
                     <hi>Dic ſodes:</hi> Had the Di<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>uels neuer known his death, except he had gone downe to the damned.</note> to manifeſt his death vnto
thoſe in hel, and to reproue them of their incredulity:
and heer labouring to catch me in a ſnare, you are fal<g ref="char:EOLunhyphen"/>len
into it your ſelfe: for firſte you ſay, Chriſt conque<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>red
hell on the Croſſe, then as hauing forgotten your
ſelfe you aſke this queſtion with admiration. Howe
could he<note n="496" place="margin">You forge: my words were, how could he triumph ouer death, being in the bands of death.</note> conquer being in the graue? Is it lik<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ly
that hee would triumph before his victory? Firſt
you ſtoutly affirme that he had conquered, then you
boldly<note n="497" place="margin">Not it that I ſaid.</note> deny it.<note n="498" place="margin">Aſt ego mihi ſatis con<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ſentio.</note> 
                  <hi>Co<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>neniet nnlli qui ſecu<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g> diſsidet
ipſe.</hi> Next you ſay, you haue not read the<note n="499" place="margin">So ſaith Auguſt. I neuer read the name of Hell <hi>in bonam partem.</hi> ad Evod. epiſt. 99.</note> name
of hell, but ioyned with ſhame and infamie: why
do you write then, that the<note n="500" place="margin">In theſe places the name of hel, is ſeparate fro<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g> triu<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>ph &amp; glory</note> 
                  <hi>Godhead did tri<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>umph
ouer hel;</hi> Did you not read your owne writing
I am ſure in this place? 1. <hi>Cor. 15. 55. O death where
is thy ſting,</hi>
                  <note n="501" place="margin">In theſe places the name of hel, is ſeparate fro<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g> triu<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>ph &amp; glory</note> 
                  <hi>O hell where is thy victory,</hi>
                  <note n="502" place="margin">In theſe places the name of hel, is ſeparate fro<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g> triu<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>ph &amp; glory</note>
                  <pb n="125" facs="tcp:178019:75"/>
The nam of hel is ioined with triumph. But you an<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ſwere
theſe places with a flat negatiue.<note n="503" place="margin">That is not his deſe <gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 word">
                        <desc>〈◊〉</desc>
                     </gap> ding into hel Frame this ar<g ref="char:EOLunhyphen"/>gument in mood &amp; figur, and you ſhall be collector the next lent.</note> heere is not
a ſillable to proue the deſcending of Chriſt into hell.
I am ſure <hi>Paule</hi> proueth heer, the<note n="503" place="margin">That is not his deſce<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>ding into hel Frame this ar<g ref="char:EOLunhyphen"/>gument in mood &amp; figur, and you ſhall be collector the next lent.</note> reſurrection
of Chriſt and of our ſoules, and how can he proue the
reſurrection, vnleſſe hee proue the knitting together
of the body and ſoule? for as death is the parting of
body &amp; ſoule, ſo reſurrection is the reuniting of them
togither againe, and heer <hi>Paule</hi> ſheweth that the bo<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>dy
comming out of the graue,<note n="504" place="margin">Wherein doth Paule ſhew that?</note> &amp; the ſoule from
hell, Chriſt did conquere both. And therefore it is not
the deity<note n="505" place="margin">Where ſaid I ſo: what will you bluſh to charge me with?</note> as you ſay, but the humane nature of
Chriſt, y<hi rend="sup">•</hi> did vanquiſh death &amp; Hell.<note n="506" place="margin">You haue a ſpecial grace to proue things not denied.</note> 
                  <hi>Heb.</hi> 2. 14.
<hi>For as much then, as the children were partakers of
fleſh and bloud, he alſo him ſelfe likewiſe took parte
with them, that hee might deſtroy through death,
him that had power of death, that is the Diuil.</hi> There
fore <hi>Hemingius</hi> on the <hi>Col.</hi> 2. ſaith. As on the Croſſe
he conflicted with the diuill, ſo by the glorious deſcen<g ref="char:EOLunhyphen"/>ding
into hell, reſurrection and aſcention hee did tri<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>umph.
<note n="507" place="margin">It follow<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>eth not.</note> Therfore theſe places proue his deſcen<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ding
into hell as well as the buriall, for the reaſon of
y<hi rend="sup">•</hi> apoſtle is this. Chriſt cam out of the graue, <hi>ergo,</hi> he
conquered death,<note n="508" place="margin">Where ſaid the Apoſt ſo? Where is now <hi>Procuſtes</hi> his rack.</note> and Chriſt came out of hell.
<hi>ergo</hi> he ouer came hell. Therefore thus I reaſon<note n="509" place="margin">Not mee, but your own ſhadow.</note>
againſt you, that did conquere which did fight, but
the human nature of Chriſt, did fight, <hi>ergo</hi> it did alſo
conquere,<note n="510" place="margin">If this were doutfull you conclude more, then you include in the premiſ<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ſes.</note> &amp; is gone vp into heauen, to whom
the Angels: powers and mightes be ſubiect.<note n="511" place="margin">Theſe quotations are impettinent,</note> 1.
<hi>Pet. 3. 22. Col. 2. 25. phil. 2. 9. 10. Eph.</hi> 1. 20. 21. 22.
Therefore, ſith all theſe Scriptures do witnes, that
Chriſt as man did triumph, and is exalted, and hath
al power, I doubt not but in your next anſwere you
will reforme your<note n="512" place="margin">My judgement was neuer deformed with this ſcare<g ref="char:punc">▪</g> and therefore needeth heerein no reformation.</note> iudgement.</p>
            </div>
            <div type="rejoinder">
               <pb n="126" facs="tcp:178019:76"/>
               <head>HVME his Reioynder to the 13. ſect.</head>
               <p>I Beſeech thee, (good Reader) take a little paines
heer, to mark the honeſt dealing of this D. Whet
I ſay, Chriſt could not triumph beeing in the bonds
of death: hee for (triumph) ſets (conquer) to make
them contrarie to my former words, that Chriſt did
conquere Hell vpon the croſſe. It is one thing to co<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>
                  <g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>quere,
another thing, to triumph. <hi>Pompey</hi> conque<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>red
the mightie <hi>Mithridates</hi> in <hi>Syria,</hi> but hee trium<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>phed
at Rome amongſt his freends,<note place="margin">Aug. ad Evod. <gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                        <desc>•</desc>
                     </gap>9.</note> that were perta<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>kers
of the joy. Againe, where I ſay with <hi>Auguſtine,</hi>
that the name of Hell is joined with ſhame, not with
honour: meaning the name of hell is ſhamefull, not
glorious: he takes mee to ſay, that the name of hell
cannot ſtand in a ſentence, with a word of honour, &amp;
quotes againſt mee. 1. Cor. 15, 55. Hell, where is thy
victorie? in which place; hell and victorie, are ſepara<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ted,
as if hee had ſaide, Hell thou haſt no victorie.
Thirdlie, whereas I ſay, that Chriſt triumphed by
the power of his Deitie: preſenting his victorie to
heauen, earth and Hell; he giues out that I ſay, that
the Godhead triumphed, and not the humanitie, &amp;
notes in the margent, <hi>Hume</hi> contrarie to Paule and
Peter: and wils mee to reforme this fault in my next
reply. This is M. D. arte: If his cauſe were ſo good, as
he would haue it ſeeme: he needed not this cunning:
or, if he caried as honeſt a minde, as he did proteſt in
Chippenham pulpit: hee would rather performe his
promiſe, then ſeeke ſuch vn-chriſtian-like ſhiftes to
maintaine a bad cauſe.</p>
               <p>Now to anſwere his cavils. I ask you M. Doct. why
you ſend Chriſt to hell, notwithſtanding the three
ends that you had noted, becauſe thoſe endes, were
no endes thereof: and becauſe the Scripture doeth
<pb n="127" facs="tcp:178019:76"/>
teach, that hee had performed all thoſe ends by the
conqueſt of Hel, vpon this croſſe. You brought texts
of Scripture to prooue them, and I anſwered truely,
that not one of them ſoundeth anie ſillable that way.
For, in all thoſe places there is not a letter, neither
of his deſcending into hell, nor of his triumphing o<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>uer
hell. You replie, that thoſe texts do proue the re<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ſurrection
(which is not true of all neither) and that
the reſurrection is a knitting of the ſoule and bodie
together: and that the knitting of them together,
was by bringing his ſoule from Hell (this is your
principle) and his bodie from the graue. Now, add
the concluſion, that hee that proueth Chriſts reſur<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>rection,
proueth his deſcending into hell. If this rea<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ſon
bee good, I will yeelde. For, now (if it will holde)
you haue found a way to proue your opinion, by all
the Scriptures. When Chriſt cured the blinde mans
eies with ſpittle, it is plaine, that he was a man: If he
was a man, he was mortall, and died: If hee died, his
ſoule went to hel, (this is your vndoubted principle)
and his bodie to the graue. <hi>Ergo,</hi> he that writes that
Chriſt cured the blinde mans eies with ſpittle, doeth
write that hee went to Hell. By this hooke, you may
pull all the Scriptures out at the window, and make
them proue what pleaſeth you.</p>
            </div>
         </div>
         <div n="14" type="section">
            <head>HVME his 14. Sect.</head>
            <p>YOu alledge for confirmation of the ſecond. How
can a man enter into a ſtrong mans houſe and
ſpoyle his goodes, except firſt hee binde the ſtrong
man. Here is not that which you vndertooke, to
prooue that he deſcended into hell, to binde the de<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>uilles.
This houſe whereof here is ſpoken, is to any
man of judgments eye, by circumſtance of the place,
not Hell: but this worlde, whereof the deuill had ta<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ken
<pb n="128" facs="tcp:178019:77"/>
poſſeſsion, and polluted many hearts: out of the
which, he was caſt by Chriſt, who thereby prooueth
himſelfe to be ſtronger then he: and not to woorke
myracles in the name of Beel-zebub, as the Phariſes
did beare the ſimple people in hand.</p>
            <div type="reply">
               <head>HIL his Reply.</head>
               <p>YOur interpretation is true:<note place="margin">The Paralo<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>giſmes in the D. Reply.</note>
                  <note n="513" place="margin">That ca<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>
                     <g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>not be, ſee the anſwere.</note> and the other
true alſo, for<note n="514" place="margin">How oft haue you told this tale, and neuer pro<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ued it.</note> Chriſt did not onlie ouercome
the Diuell in y<hi rend="sup">•</hi> world, but alſo in Hell. For, as <hi>Cyrill</hi>
noteth on this place: there was before the comming
of Chriſt much violence, taking away the flock of
God, and carrying them to his owne houſe: where<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>fore
before the comming of Chriſt, the heathen and
people of the worlde went into eternall death: But
Chriſt hath deliuered both their bodies fro<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g> the graue
and their ſoules from Hell, by his death and<note n="515" place="margin">Quote the place: theſe wordes are ſuſpitious, and ſound more like Hill then Cyril</note>
perſonall deſcending into Hell. This place is allead<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ged
by one <hi>Georgius Princeps Anhaltinus,</hi> in his
learned commentaries on the 16. Pſalm, which you
may read, if you pleaſe.<note n="516" place="margin">This (for) is as doutfull, as the thing it is brought for</note> For as Dauid tram<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>pled
on the face of <hi>Goliah,</hi>
                  <note n="517" place="margin">Crambe, twiſe at one ſeruice: you might haue ſpared it till the next courſe.</note> ſo did the ſoule of
Chriſt trample on Satan in hell,<note n="518" place="margin">Euen as you haue painted it in your book.</note> and trode on
his face: and this is noted by the Propheteſſe <hi>Sibilla,</hi>
as alſo by the <gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap>eathen Poets, whoſe wordes I haue
ſet down in my ſermon at large. And therefore <hi>Cle<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>nard</hi>
in his grammer giueth this obſeruation, <hi>katel<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>thonta
eis adou,</hi> id eſt, <hi>eis otkian tou adou,</hi> he went down
into hell, that is, into<note n="519" place="margin">A Grecian wol<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                        <desc>•</desc>
                     </gap> haue tranſlated it, into the houſe of Pluto, Lord of Hell: or more Chriſtian like, in<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>to the houſe of death.</note> the houſe of Hell.</p>
            </div>
            <div type="rejoinder">
               <head>HVME his Reioynder to the 14. Sect.</head>
               <p>YOu graunt my interpretation to bee true: but I
will not graunt yours, except you bring better
<pb n="129" facs="tcp:178019:77"/>
warrant then your ſelf, and a man that I neuer ſawe.
You will mee to buy him. I am not ſo well purſt as
to buy him onlie, to ſee this that you quote him for,
my interpretation is defend-able without him. It
ſtandeth ſo ſure vpon the text, that you confeſſe it
your ſelfe. You would faine ſhoulder in yours too,
and make the Scriptures double tongued: but I
haue learned, that one text, hath but one true mea<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ning.
Though mans opinions may differ, there is
but one that hits the naile on the head. I neede no
better proofe therfore, to confute your interpreta<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tion,
then your own confeſsion. Onelie this I add,
that ſeeing your interpretation is doubtfull, it can
bring no vndoubtfull proof, to your doubtfull and
falſe opinion. As for the Sybiles, and Heathen Poets
you did well to ſpare them. The quoting of them
would haue beene more laborious, then their teſti<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>monies
would haue beene effectual in this caſe. Whe<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>
you haue to doe with a heathen (as ſome of the Fa<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>thers
had) they may ſtand you in ſtead,
<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 span">
                     <desc>〈…〉</desc>
                  </gap>. As for the greeke <hi>eis tou
adou,</hi> you conſtrue it wrong, into the hous of hel. Hel
hath not a houſe. They that ſpeak ſo, meant the hous
of <hi>Pluto,</hi> called <hi>ades</hi> in greek: the Lord of death, as the
heathen did imagine. So is that word vſed by <hi>Nonnus</hi>
ſpeaking of <hi>Lazarus</hi> raiſed from the death by Chriſt.</p>
               <lg>
                  <l>
                     <gap reason="foreign">
                        <desc>〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉</desc>
                     </gap>
                  </l>
                  <l>
                     <gap reason="foreign">
                        <desc>〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉</desc>
                     </gap>.</l>
               </lg>
            </div>
         </div>
         <div n="15" type="section">
            <head>HVME his 15. Sect.</head>
            <p>NOw one thing remaineth, wherein you ſeemed
to runne beyond your ſelfe, and moſt men did
wonder, what you ment thereby. Whereas our Sa<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>viour
vpon the Croſſe, did vtter to the hearers then,
&amp; all poſterities after, that he had finiſhed the work
of our Redemption: You took vpon you to prooue,
<pb n="130" facs="tcp:178019:78"/>
that he meant not ſo: bearing the worlde as it were
in hand, that wee can ſpeake nothing ſo trulie, but
that you ca<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g> confute it. To this purpoſe you alleaged
theſe places.<note place="margin">Ioh 15. <gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap>
               </note> I haue finiſhed the worke which thou
gaueſt me.<note place="margin">Act 13. 19.</note> As they had finiſhed all things that were
written of him.<note place="margin">Ioh. 19. 28.</note> And ſeeing all thinges now finiſhed
that the Scriptures might bee fulfilled. Out of all
which places (ſay you) it is apparent, that there re<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>mained
ſome things to be done after. What needeth
all theſe proofes in a matter that no man denieth. It
is confeſſed of all men (I hope) that when hee ſpake
this, he had not yet giuen vp the ghoſt. But I truſt,
you will not denie, that his meaning was, that his
worke was finiſhed, when hee had breathed the laſte
breath. Which thing (if you grant) you haue proued
nothing againſt our aſſertion. It is a common thing
(you knowe) to ſpeak that in the time paſt, which is
meant that it ſhall come to paſſe ſhortlie after. Such
were theſe words of Chriſt, it is finiſhed. And like to
<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 span">
                  <desc>〈…〉</desc>
               </gap> wordes in another place. Beholde, the
houre commeth, and it is <gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 span">
                  <desc>〈…〉</desc>
               </gap>
ſhalbee ſcattered. Where he ſaieth, that the houre is
alreadie come, which was to come ſhortlie after.
This muſt needs be the meaning of Chriſts wordes.
Neither could he otherwiſe (as man) ſhewe to thoſe
malitious perſecuters that ſtood about him, and vs
that read it now to our comforts, that he had made
an end of his worke, and was paſt the malice of all
his enemies, except he ſhould haue tolde it them, af<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ter
that hee had giuen vp the ghoſt. Which thing
could not haue beene done, without the miraculous
aſsiſtance of his God-head, which did in all his paſ<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ſion
(as it were) hide it ſelf, and ſuffer the innocent
man, as man, to pay the ranſom of mans redemptio<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>
Heere you gaue vs a diſtinction of <hi>conſummatum re,</hi> &amp;
<hi>conſummatum ſpe.</hi> Deliuer it againe, to the dunces
<pb n="131" facs="tcp:178019:78"/>
whence you had it. There is no haire ſo ſmall, which
thoſe ſubtile wits, wil not finde a wedge to cleaue,
rather then confes it to be a haire, if it make againſt
their conceit, be it neuer ſo groſſe, and erroneous.
And tell thoſe <hi>Harpya quae tactu ſuo optimas dapes foeda<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>runt:</hi>
that a thing may bee <hi>conſummatum ſpe,</hi> which a
man meaneth not to begin 20. yeares hence, &amp; per<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>happes
neuer finiſhe. Heere wee all wondered what
you meant, and were affraied, leaſt you would haue
ſent Chriſt downe to Hell to ſuffer. Which if you did
you muſt needes argue him of an vntrueth, who is
trueth it ſelfe. For his worke had then beene ſo farre
from an end, that hee had not beene flea-bitten in
reſpect of that, which was to come. This trulie M.
Hill, was not ware worthie of your wit.</p>
            <div type="reply">
               <head>HIL his Reply.</head>
               <p>
                  <note n="519" place="margin">What I haue ſpoken is either pro<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ued, or needs no proof.</note> HEer you haue ſpoken much and proued
nothing,<note place="margin">The Paralogiſ<g ref="char:EOLunhyphen"/>mes in this ſect</note>
                  <note n="520" place="margin">I knowe but one reaſo<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g> in all the ſer<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>mon vnanſwe<g ref="char:EOLunhyphen"/>red, and that was not worth an anſwere.</note> for of thoſe reaſons which
I haue laide downe in my Sermon concerning this
point, not one is anſwered. Onely as you tolde mee
before<note n="521" place="margin">Both vntrue He is not well in his wits that could pike ſuch a mad ſenſe out of ſo tame words.</note> I was immodeſt, ſo now you tell mee
<note n="522" place="margin">Both vntrue He is not well in his wits that could pike ſuch a mad ſenſe out of ſo tame words.</note> I am a mad man, and the wonder of the world.
<note n="523" place="margin">I objected no<g ref="char:EOLunhyphen"/>thing to you. I pray God you vſe theſe words as Dauid did. I wiſh you no more ill.</note> I muſt anſwere you with <hi>Dauid, I am become
as a monſter vnto many, but my truſt is in thy lawe.</hi>
                  <note n="524" place="margin">Your malice is ſharper then your accuſation.</note> But what will men Iudge of you, that in one
and the ſame matter affirme and deny.<note n="525" place="margin">There remained ſomewhat whe<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g> he ſpake theſe words, and nothing after his death on the croſſe, are not contra<g ref="char:EOLunhyphen"/>ries, if both your eies could looke one way.</note> You
confeſſe in the begining, that there remaine ſome<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>what
to doo, and in the ende you wonder at mee be<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>cauſe
I ſayd, al things wer not finiſhed on the croſſe.
<pb n="132" facs="tcp:178019:79"/>
Your next words are theſe, whe<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g> our Sauiour cryed
it is finiſhed, he had not giuen vp the ghoſte which
was the end of his work.<note n="526" place="margin">It could not be other<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>wiſe: for it had beene ſtrange if hee had cried that, af<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ter that he had giuen vp the ghoſt.</note> It is true, that after
the ſpeking of <hi>Conſummatum eſt,</hi> it is finiſhed, he gaue
up y<hi rend="sup">•</hi> ghoſt,<note n="527" place="margin">Then wer chriſts vntrue</note> but that was not y<hi rend="sup">•</hi> finiſhing of his
worke,<note n="528" place="margin">That hee ſhed before</note> for he muſt alſo ſhed his bloud. <hi>Heb.</hi>
9. 2<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap>. <hi>Without ſheading of blood their is no forgiue<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>nes
of ſins. 1. Pet. 1. 19. Iohn, 1. 7. Apoc.</hi> 1. 5.<note n="529" place="margin">You can doe well to proue things not denied, we haue pro<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ued your ſtre<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>gth alrea<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>die.</note> In
all which ſcriptures it is ſet down, that we are rede<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>med
with the pricious blood of Chriſt. The blood of
Chriſt doth purge vs from all ſinne: he hath loued vs
and waſht away our ſins in his blood.<note n="530" place="margin">I denie the ſequele.</note> There<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>fore
the giuing vp of the ghoſt, was not the ende of
his worke.<note n="531" place="margin">Or elſe by you.</note> Heere is a fault committed by you,
<note n="532" place="margin">I thank you, you favour me much.</note> but I will not wonder at you, nor ſay you are
runn beſides your ſelfe,<note n="533" place="margin">I thank you, you favour me much.</note> but you runn againſt
your ſelfe,<note n="534" place="margin">Proue that, &amp; I haue done.</note> and reſiſt alſo the holy ghoſt. Then
you ſcornefully reiect my deſtincion of <hi>Conſummatum
re,</hi> and <hi>Conſummatum ſpe,</hi> that is, finiſhed in hope, and
finiſhed in deede. I will defend it, for it commeth not
out of the Du<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap>ces,<note n="535" place="margin">It neuer grew in that ſoile.</note> but out of Gods ſacred
word. <hi>Rom.</hi> 8. 24. it is ſaid,<note n="536" place="margin">What makes all this or any thing heer to proue that Chriſt hath conſum<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>mat our ſalua<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tion <hi>ſpe no<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g> re.</hi>
                  </note> 
                  <hi>We are ſaued by
hope.</hi>
                  <note n="537" place="margin">What makes all this or any thing heer to proue that Chriſt hath conſum<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>mat our ſalua<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tion <hi>ſpe no<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g> re.</hi>
                  </note> 
                  <hi>Gal. 5. 5. for we through the ſpirit, wait
for the hope of righteouſnes throgh faith.</hi>
                  <note n="538" place="margin">What makes all this or any thing heer to proue that Chriſt hath conſum<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>mat our ſalua<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tion <hi>ſpe no<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g> re.</hi>
                  </note> 
                  <hi>Luc.</hi>
21. 24. <hi>Lift vp your head</hi> (ſaith Chriſt to his Diſiples)
<hi>for your redemtion draweth nigh.</hi>
                  <note n="539" place="margin">What makes all this or any thing heer to proue that Chriſt hath conſum<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>mat our ſalua<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tion <hi>ſpe no<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g> re.</hi>
                  </note> 
                  <hi>Rom.</hi> 8. 23.
<hi>And not onely the creature, but we alſo which haue
the firſt frutes of the ſpirite doo fight, even we doo
fight in our ſelues waiting for adoption, even the re<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>demption
of our body.</hi>
                  <note n="540" place="margin">This is not to the purpoſe.</note> 
                  <hi>Muſculus</hi> on the fourth
Chapter of the <hi>Epheſians</hi> thus writeth, the places ar
theſe, That we are called in hope, not in deede, &amp; that
the hope of future bleſſings, is y<hi rend="sup">e</hi> ſtore of our faith, as
long as we are in this fleſh, for we are ſaued, <hi>nondum
in re ſed in ſpe,</hi> not yet in deede but in hope. By all theſe
<pb n="133" facs="tcp:178019:79"/>
ſcriptures it is manifeſt, that<note n="541" place="margin">The que<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ſtion is not of our conſum<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>mation: but bow Chriſt hath conſum<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>mat the work of out redem<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tion.</note> our coſummation
is in hope, and not in deed (as <hi>Muſculus</hi> noteth) nei<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ther
ſhall be actually perfited, vntil the day of iudge<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ment.
Therfore, I did with this diſtinction<note n="542" place="margin">You wold ſay anſwere.</note> re<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>fute
the argument which is made of thoſe that ar on
your ſide,<note n="543" place="margin">We con<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>clude not ſo, ſee the anſwer</note> who thus conclude. Chriſt ſayde on
the croſſe (It is finiſhed) <hi>Ergo,</hi> hee went not downe to
to hell. By the ſame reaſon I thus argue. Chriſt ſaid
on y<hi rend="sup">•</hi> croſſe (It is finiſhed)<note n="544" place="margin">This is a wonderful ar<g ref="char:EOLunhyphen"/>gume<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>t. Chriſt ſaying, it is fi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>niſhed, died by ſhedding his blood: <hi>ergo</hi> he ſhed no blood.</note> 
                  <hi>Ergo,</hi> he did not ſhed
his bloud,<note n="545" place="margin">Theſe wer ad<g ref="char:EOLunhyphen"/>juncts, but not works of our redemption.</note> nor was buried,<note n="546" place="margin">Theſe wer ad<g ref="char:EOLunhyphen"/>juncts, but not works of our redemption.</note> nor roſe a<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>gaine,
<note n="547" place="margin">Theſe wer ad<g ref="char:EOLunhyphen"/>juncts, but not works of our redemption.</note> nor aſcended into heauen to fulfill all
things. <hi>Epheſ.</hi> 4. 10. for if all things were then fulfil<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>led
on the croſſe, what neede he to aſcende, to fulfill
all things.<note n="548" place="margin">You can neuer proue it.</note> Therfore, I did proue that this ar<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>gume<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>t
of yours, did mak no more againſt the deſcen<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ding
into hell, then againſt the ſheading of his bloud,
burial, reſurrection, aſcention or iudgement, al which
are neceſſary to our<note n="549" place="margin">That is not the queſt.</note> weale, and perfit conſum<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>mation.
<note n="550" place="margin">To no purpoſe.</note> Farther, to proue my diſtinction to be
true, I did then quote, that as Chriſt is ſaid to be the
Lamb, ſlaine from the beginning of the world, ſo the
death of Chriſt did reach to the firſt beleeuers, and
ſhall do to the laſt. Which conſummation by hope,
is ſo enioyed, as if wee poſſeſſed it already: <hi>for all the
promiſes of Chriſt, are yea, and Amen, 2. Cor.</hi> 1. 20.
<note n="551" place="margin">But our argument wil not take that ſtaine.</note> Therfore, I told you this argument, (It is fini<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ſhed)
<hi>ergo,</hi> Chriſt went not down to hel was a fallacy
<hi>a dicto ſecundum quid ad ſimpliciter.</hi> And I noted how
theſe words were to be vnderſtod.<note n="552" place="margin">All theſe be an<g ref="char:EOLunhyphen"/>ſwered, fol. 16. &amp; 17. of your ſermon.</note> Firſt, that al
the ſcripture and prophecies were fulfilled, for ſo the
text noteth.<note n="553" place="margin">All theſe be an<g ref="char:EOLunhyphen"/>ſwered, fol. 16. &amp; 17. of your ſermon.</note> Secondly, it is finiſhed, doth ſigni<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>fye,
there is no other ſacrifice for ſinne: <hi>for by one ſa<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>c<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                        <desc>•</desc>
                     </gap>ifice
once offred, he hath made perfite all that ſhall
be ſanctified, Hebr.</hi> 10, 14. And therefore the Papiſts
ioyning y<hi rend="sup">•</hi> merits of Saints with the mirits of Chriſt,
doo erre moſte ſhamefully.<note n="554" place="margin">All theſe be an<g ref="char:EOLunhyphen"/>ſwered, fol. 16. &amp; 17. of your ſermon.</note> Thirdly, it was
<pb n="134" facs="tcp:178019:80"/>
finiſhed as concerning all his labours and ſorrowes.
<note n="556" place="margin">All theſe be an<g ref="char:EOLunhyphen"/>ſwered, fol. 16. &amp; 17. of your ſermon.</note> Fourthly al his ſuffrings both of body &amp; ſoule
were ended, which he finiſhed on y<hi rend="sup">•</hi> croſſe.<note n="556" place="margin">All theſe be an<g ref="char:EOLunhyphen"/>ſwered, fol. 16. &amp; 17. of your ſermon.</note> Brief<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ly,
his obedience to his Father was ended, for he yel<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ded
a pure, perfit, and perpettuall obedience to his
Father, and therfore had al power giuen him in hea<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>uen,
earth, and hel. Moreouer, I did proue this inter<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>pretation
by this text,<note n="557" place="margin">That text proues it not.</note> 1. <hi>Cor. 15. 54. Then ſhall
be brought to pas the ſaying that is written, ô death
where is thy ſting, O hell where is thy victory,</hi>
                  <note n="558" place="margin">Theſe men deny not that he fini<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ſhed our re<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>demption on the croſſe</note>
and did alleage <hi>Beda, Peter Martyr,</hi> and <hi>Muſculus</hi> vp
on this place, all which were of my iudgement, and
therefore you had noe more cauſe to wonder at mee,
then at theſe learned men, whome<note n="559" place="margin">Theſe be perrilous words. Be there anie Churches in England vn<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>reformed?</note> all the refor<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>med
Churches of <hi>England</hi> doe reuerence. Laſt
of al, you ſeeme to charge me, as though I had ſayd
that Chriſt went downe to ſuffer, which thing I ne<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>uer
mentioned, but that hee wente downe to<note n="560" place="margin">That was an obſcurema nifeſtation.</note>
manifeſt his death, to triumph in<note n="561" place="margin">Who ſayes he tri<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>umphed in an other perſon then his own?</note> his owne per<g ref="char:EOLunhyphen"/>ſon
ouer the Diuell,<note n="562" place="margin">Did he re<g ref="char:EOLunhyphen"/>deem vs on the croſſe by a deputie?</note> and perſonally to redeme
vs from hell. Then you call them dunces whence I
had that deſtinction.<note n="563" place="margin">You had it not from him, nor he from the word of God.</note> I had it from <hi>Muſculus,</hi>
and <hi>Muſculus</hi> from the word of God,<note n="564" place="margin">I denie the ſequele.</note> &amp; there<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>fore
you muſt embrace theſe diſtinctions, or elſe you
will ſpeake erroneouſlie. <hi>Omnia prohate, quod bonum eſt
tenete.</hi> Try all things, holde that which is beſt.<note n="565" place="margin">Baſeware it is, howſoe<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>uer your wit and it doth a<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>gree.</note>
This work is worthy my wit or any other Inter<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>preters.
Neither will I leaue the ware that is in my
poore pack for all the treaſures of <hi>Egypt.</hi>
               </p>
            </div>
            <div type="critique">
               <head>An abſurditie in the D. Reply.</head>
               <p>That Chriſt beeing nailed handes and feete to the
Croſſe, died without ſhedding of blood.</p>
            </div>
            <div type="rejoinder">
               <head>HVME his Reioynder to the 15. ſect.</head>
               <p>OVr opinion is, that Chriſt vpon the Croſſe, did
offer a perfect ſacrifice for our ſinnes, and finiſh
<pb n="135" facs="tcp:178019:80"/>
the whole worke of our redemption. This we proue
by his owne laſt words, It is finiſhed. For, after the
manner of men, who hauing brought their worke to
the laſt ſtroake, ſay (they haue done) &amp; withall make
an end: Hee hauing borne all the malice that death
and Hell could inflict, told the ſtanders by, that hee
had done. And this hee did immediatlie before hee
gaue vp the ghoſt: becauſe hee could not as hee was
man, tell them the ſame after that he was dead. Nei<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ther
wanted this ſpeach great reaſon. It was to make
full our hope, and to confirme our faith, which o<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>therwiſe
might haue ſtood in ſuſpenſe. For, ſeeing
our ſinnes had deſerued, not onelie the temporall
death, which the beholders did ſee him die: but al<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ſo
all the deathes of Hell, which they, nor no mortal
eie, could ſee him ſuffer: He tolde them himſelf, that
hee had finiſhed and done all, that there might re<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>maine
no ſcruple for vs to doubt of. Thus therefore
wee reaſon againſt theſe men. If Chriſt finiſhed the
whole worke of our Redemption vpon the croſſe,
there remained nothing for him to do in hel. But he
did finiſhe the whole worke of our redemption vpon
the Croſſe: <hi>Ergo,</hi> there remained nothing for him to
do in hell. This Syllogiſme is ſo ſtrong, that you dare
not denie one ſyllable of it. Wherfore, when I hard
you in the pulpit violate the text wheron it ſta<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>deth,
I could not chooſe but tell you, that you ranne be<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>yond
your ſelfe, and made your audience feare, leaſt
you would haue ſent Chriſt to Hell to ſuffer, an error
indeede, but ſuch, as ſome better divines then your
ſelf, that ſealed the truth with their blood, to avoid
the abſurdities of your opinio<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>, did fall into in King
Edwards time, when your opinion was moſt gene<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>rallie
embraced, and confirmed by convocation.
Whereas you ſay, that I ſay much and proue little: I
proue as much as I intend. It was not my purpoſe
<pb n="136" facs="tcp:178019:81"/>
to confute anie thing that you had ſpoken trulie. For
theſe words (it is finiſhed) are not to be referred to
the inſtant, when they were ſpoken, but to the end
of his paſsion, which immediatly followed. This you
confeſſe, and why ſhould I confute you? Or which is
ſtranger, howe could you finde a contrarietie in my
wordes, and ſee none in your owne ſpeaking the
ſame, that I doe. But this is amongeſt much more
worſe then this, the frute of your malice. And heer
in your ſermon at Chippenham, there was no more
between vs, but onlie that you made a countenance
to confute that which we avouch, &amp; you confes: con<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>vaying
your batterie in ſuch ſorte, that you made the
beholders thinke, that you plaied vpon our ſconce,
but in very deede, did <gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap>euell all your ordinance an<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>other
way. But now you are growne ſomewhat fur<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ther
from mee: for, though you confeſſe that Chriſt
went not to hell to ſuffer: and that he died immedi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>atlie
after he ſaid, (It is finiſhed:) yet you denie, that
this was the end of his worke. Your reaſon is, that
hee had not ſhed his blood, and that without ſhed<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ding
of blood, there is no remiſsion of ſinnes. And
may wee beleeue you M. Doctor? That Chriſt was
nailed hands and feet to the croſſe, without ſhedding
of his blood? If you will haue vs ſo credulous as to
thinke this may be true, firſt reſolue vs of what grief
Chriſt died, in not much more, then three of our co<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>
                  <g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>mon
houres: being onelie wounded in the hands &amp;
feete, if not of the effuſion of his heart blood. Your
diſtinction of <hi>conſummatumre,</hi> and <hi>conſummatum spe,</hi>
you will needes haue vs beleeue, that it was bred in
Gods booke. You muſt bring better proofe then I
ſee, or elſe it neuer receaued bark nor branch in that
ſoile. The thing that you ſhould proue, is, that the ſa<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>crifice
of Chriſt was finiſhed in hope, not in deede.
That we are ſaued in hope, Rom. 8. 24. That we wait
<pb n="139" facs="tcp:178019:81"/>
for the hope of our righteouſneſſe. Gal. 5. 5. That
we lift vp our heades, becauſe our redemption draw<g ref="char:EOLunhyphen"/>eth
neere. Luke. 21. 8. That we ſigh, waiting for the
hope, euen the redemption of our bodies. Rom. 8.
23. What makes all this, to proue that Chriſt did fi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>niſhe
our redemption onelie in hope? The queſtion
is heere, how Chriſt hath finiſhed our redemption?
not, how we poſſeſſe it. Seeing our hope is not vn<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>certaine
and vnſtable, but ſetled on a ſure ground:
doth not theſe places rather proue, that Chriſt hath
done al fullie and abſolutely? For if he did but hope
how could wee be ſure? Your vnſhapely argument
that you would fain faſten on vs, and your other ar<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>guments
caſt in the ſame moulde, to ſhew the abſur<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ditie
of it, with your long impertinent tale of the
reſt of your ſermon, I will let paſſe, as helping you
as little, as hurting vs. Your counſel concerning the
Dunces, I am not yet readie for: when I haue read
all better bookes, then I will read them. For as wor<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>thie
men as they are in your eies, I cannot hope that
they will confirme my judgement, to make mee goe
ſure: ſeeing your ſelf beeing ſo well acquainted with
them, cannot keep your owne feet from ſtumbling.</p>
            </div>
         </div>
         <div n="16" type="section">
            <head>HVME Sect. 16.</head>
            <p>IN the end of your ſermon, you produce two in<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>conueniences
that you ſay, muſt needs followe, if
this article bee not beleeued. The queſtion is not a<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>bout
the trueth, but about the meaning of this arti<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>cle.
Heere, you do vs open wrong, and accuſe your
ſelf of an vntruth. You tolde vs in the beginning of
your ſermon, that neither <hi>M. Chaulfont,</hi> nor <hi>M.
Wiſedome</hi> did doubt of his deſcending into Hell, and
why now labour you to load your aduerſaries with
<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                  <desc>•</desc>
               </gap>nuie: as if they tooke away hell, and the benefite of
<pb n="138" facs="tcp:178019:82"/>
Chriſts paſsion. What Rhethorick ſoeuer this bee,
it is bad Diuinitie. Wee neuer denied that hee went
downe into Hell, but that euer hee deſcended into
the pit of the damned. From whence, if you will in
good logick, gather your concluſion: your wit rea<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>cheth
manie myles beyond our capacities. For, wee
are perſwaded, that there can be no ſurer argument,
neither of Hel, nor of the certaintie of our redemp<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tion;
then that he ſuffered all the tormentes of Hell
vpon the croſſe, and made a full ſatisfaction for all
our offences. Which thing, he could not haue done,
if there were no hell: and which thing, if hee hath
done (as we are ſurelie perſwaded) there is nothing
more ſure then our redemption. For, ſeeing hee ſuf<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>fered
vpon the tree, the paine of al our ſinnes, as Pe<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ter
witneſſeth, and hell was due to our iniquities: it
is as ſure, (as what is moſt ſure) that vpon the tree,
that is, vpon the croſſe, hee deſcended into the low<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ermoſt
Hell: that is, into the heauieſt torments that
Hell could yeeld: and this, except you will confeſſe,
you muſt grant that the Symboll (as wee call it) of
the Apoſtles, and doe ſo reuerentlie embrace, is vn<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>perfect.
For ſeeing the greateſt part of our redemp<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tion,
conſiſteth in Chriſts ſuffering in ſoule, for our
ſoules: it was more needfull in that Symbol to make
mention of them, the<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g> of the deth of his body, both
becauſe they were more horrible vnto him, and fur<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ther
remooued from our ſenſes. Which thing, if it
be true, (as it is moſt certaine) in what other words
(I pray you) of that Symboll, is that contained?
but in theſe, he deſcended into hell? For, that which
goeth before, hee was crucified, dead and buried,
may be as well affirmed of the the theeues, that ſuf<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>fered
with him.</p>
            <div type="reply">
               <pb n="139" facs="tcp:178019:82"/>
               <head>HIL his Reply.</head>
               <p>
                  <hi>I</hi> Brought two inconueniences,<note n="566" place="margin">This ground was vncertaine: you are ready to gueſſe, whe<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g> you are wil<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ling to ſpeak.</note> if this arti<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>cle
were denyed.<note n="567" place="margin">To moue me<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g> not to do that, that you cannot name one man that doth.</note> to moue the people, not to
leaue out any.<note place="margin">The Paralogi<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                        <desc>•</desc>
                     </gap>ſ of this ſection.</note> It is not vnknowne to you, that<note n="568" place="margin">Ser<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>uetus I neuer ſaw. Carlill doth not deny it: bluſh for ſhame.</note>
                  <hi>Seruetus</hi> and<note n="569" place="margin">Ser<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>uetus I neuer ſaw. Carlill doth not deny it: bluſh for ſhame.</note> 
                  <hi>Carlill</hi> deny it, and<note n="570" place="margin">Name one.</note> diuers
others now liuing among vs (by reaſon of the<note n="571" place="margin">Vntruth.</note>
negatiue doctrine which is preached of your ſide) wil
not repete this branch of the creed (he deſcended into
hel.)<note n="572" place="margin">Twentie to one, they were men of your owne ſide.</note> And ſome haue ſayd to my face, that <hi>Tho<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>mas
Aquinas</hi> did inſert it into the Creede.<note n="573" place="margin">Anie is too manie: but I beleeue, your manie is not anie</note> Of
theſe men I know too many, againſt whome I did
direct my ſpeach,<note n="574" place="margin">Except I am de<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ceaued. your feare wanted a ſubject.</note> for feare leaſt ſome might bee
in that populous aſſembly.<note n="575" place="margin">Who be they M. Doctor?</note> Bad do they, that
deny y<hi rend="sup">•</hi> perſonal deſce<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>ding, but worſe do they, which
deny both perſonal and potentiall.<note n="576" place="margin">And worſe do you, if you know none ſuch.</note> Therefore
I was not contrary to my ſelf, but contrary to thoſe
which haue giuen<note n="577" place="margin">But you were, except you can coine a better ex<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>cuſe then this.</note> occaſion, that ſo comfortable
an article of our Chriſtian faith, ſhould be<note n="578" place="margin">They that hold not heere a negatiue, did not giue ſuch an occa<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ſion with a negatiue.</note> put
out of the Creede. You ſay, it was my parte to deale
plainely,<note n="579" place="margin">A priuate mans fault cannot wel be called the putting out of an article.</note> for I preached the truth. <hi>Obſequium
amicos, veritas odium parit.</hi> Flatterye getteth freends,
truth getteth hatred. I knowe the eares of that<note n="580" place="margin">So you ſay.</note>
Auditory did itche for other<note n="581" place="margin">Not at your hand: and yet the common ſort were well pleaſed. <hi>Obſecutus multis, paucos irritaſsi.</hi>
                  </note> matter, but I am
Gods Miniſter, &amp; I haue preached Gods truth, which
I will (by the help of my God) defend,<note n="582" place="margin">So there be manie that diſſent fro<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g> you.</note> againſt
all gainſayers what ſo euer.</p>
               <note n="583" place="margin">Hard and ſcarſe.</note>
            </div>
            <div type="rejoinder">
               <pb n="140" facs="tcp:178019:83"/>
               <head>HVME his Reioynder to the 16.
Section.</head>
               <p>BEtter a bad excuſe, (ſaith the proverb) but bet<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ter
to confeſſe a fault. You alledged theſe inco<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>
                  <g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ueniences,
(you ſay) to moue the people not to leaue
out anie of the articles of their faith. Men vſe to ap<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ply
ſalues to ſores, but I beleeue you knowe not one
ſore for this ſalue. Yet you ſay, you know manie that
will not repeat this article, by meanes of the nega<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tiue
on our ſide. I thinke it is like true, that you
know anie ſuch, and that we holde this article nega<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tiuelie.
Wee holde that Chriſt deſcended into Hell,
and ſuffered all his torments for our redemption,
which I haue beene taught to be an affirmatiue, by
better Logicians, then Doctor Hill. But one tolde
you, that <hi>Thomas Aquinas</hi> did inſert this article: A
diſcreet Paſtor, would haue admoniſhed one man ra<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ther
priuatlie: then haue troubled ſuch an aſſemblie
with ſuch a doubt in publick. Whoſoeuer hee was
that tolde you that, hee learned it not by anie ne<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>gatiue
that wee holde, but of one of your Doctors.
<hi>Eraſmus</hi> is the firſt that euer I heard bring that in
queſtion, a man on your ſide, and one of your cheef
ankers. Calvine in his booke of the Inſtitution of
Chriſtian Religion ſaieth, that ſome are of that
judgement, moſte likelie noting him, and men that
followed his opinion. But how-ſo-euer it came,
there hee proves it to bee an article, both conſo<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>nant
and agreeable to the Scriptures, and neceſſa<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>rie
to the perfection of the Symboll of our Faith.
Therefore, Maiſter Doctor, you doe not well, to
lay the faultes of your owne favorites and freendes,
to our charges.</p>
               <p>
                  <pb n="141" facs="tcp:178019:83"/>
It was the improbabilitie of your opinion, that
droue a man of ſo much judgement as <hi>Eraſmus</hi> was,
to make that doubt. But <hi>Carlill</hi> and <hi>Servetus</hi> you ſay
do denie it. In your printed ſermon, as you call it,
you lay your malice more open. There you alledge
for this antiquitie joined with veritie, (ſo there you
call your owne opinion) all the learned of all ages,
old and new: all the Prophetes and Apoſtles, and ſy<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>billes
of the heathen: all the creatures in heauen &amp;
earth, liuing and dead: and laſtlie, all the Divels the<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>
                  <g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ſelues.
Onelie ſome poſſeſſed (you ſay) with Divels,
as the Iewes, <hi>Seruetus</hi> and <hi>Carlill</hi> denie it. Heere you
vtter your choller more plainelie, challenging to
your owne ſide, all the learned of all ages, olde and
newe, and leauing nothing to your aduerſaries, but
block-iſme, dol-tiſme, and diueliſh giddineſſe. But,
(God bee thanked) you haue not the diſpoſing of
gifts and ſpirits. There be men that denyes your o<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>pinion
to haue anie ground in the word, as farre ex<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>celling
you in all kindes of learning, as you count
your ſelf before Sir <hi>Thomas</hi> your Curat at Gooſage:
and of ſuch zeale and conſtancy in Gods cauſe, with
out regard of wordlie preferments, as I pray God a
man that can holde two benefices, and would haue
ſeauen if he could get them, might mend that fault,
and ſhew himſelf as farre from Diueliſh giddineſſe,
as they. As for <hi>Servetus,</hi> I neuer ſaw his book, which
Calvine in his Epiſtles doth ſay, was printed at <hi>Vien<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>na.</hi>
But this I know, that he held many groſſe errors,
concerning the Trinitie, Humanitie, and Deitie of
Chriſt: as it is apparent in an Epiſtle written by the
Miniſters of Baſil, to the Syndicks and ſenate of Ge<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>neva.
As for this queſtion, I know not what he held
but it is not likelie, that euer he touched it. And this
I am ſure of, that he was burned, by the greateſt fa<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>vorites
of our opinion, I meane the Genevites.</p>
               <p>
                  <pb n="142" facs="tcp:178019:84"/>
                  <hi>Carlill,</hi> (excepting his fault) was a man for judge<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ment
and learning, manie degrees before your ſelf:
He made a ſlip, indeede, as who hath not? Though
you throwe the firſt ſtone at him, you are not cleare
your ſelf. Beſides the mani-ſlips made in this book,
and other pulpits alſo: you taught on S. Iames his
day in <hi>Trubridge Anno</hi> 1591. If I do wel remember
the yeare, that weomen did beare children without
pain, in time of innocencie. And becauſe you would
be ſure not to be miſtaken, you did repeate it in the
after noone, in the ſame tearmes that you ſpake it in
the fore-noone: a fault of leſſe judgement and lear<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ning
then <hi>Carlils</hi> was. The Iewes bee enemies to our
faith, and therefore doe not meete with vs, nor ac<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>knowledge
the truth that we do holde in this article
As for the place that they take from you in the He<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>brew
Pſalme, and wherupon your choller doth riſe,
I ſee no cauſe why they are not to bee beleeued in
their owne tougue, before all others that haue lear<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ned
that tongue of them. Their opinion of thoſe
words (if they be taken right) doth impeach Chriſts
paſsion, not ſo much as your own: what euer it plea<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ſeth
you and Aepinus, to dreame and ſuſpect, with<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>out
cauſe and matter. But vpon the Iewes, the ene<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>mies
of our faith, &amp; <hi>Servetus</hi> an Hereticke, with <hi>Car<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>lill,</hi>
whome for his fault, (not ſo foule as your owne)
you boldlie and peremptorlie tearme poſſeſſed with
a Diuell, in this place, you would faine lay the firſte
broaching of our opinion, to deceaue the ſimple. I
hope you will leaue this craft one day. Howſoeuer
you may purcheſſe a plauſe amongeſt the ignorant,
the wiſe and learned will hiſſe you out of the ſchoo<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>les,
if you runne this courſe, as you haue begunne.</p>
            </div>
         </div>
         <div n="17" type="section">
            <pb n="143" facs="tcp:178019:84"/>
            <head>HVME his 17. Sect.</head>
            <div type="body_of_section">
               <p>THey ſay that you preached the ſame at <hi>Leycock,</hi>
condemning all men that diſſent from you, of
furie and madneſſe, as men fighting againſt the ho<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>lie
Ghoſt, and ſpurning at a doctrine ſo profitable,
ſo godlie, ſo wholeſome, and ſo full of all comfort,
and ſolace. Heere M. Hill, I appeale to your owne
conſcience, what profite, what commoditie, what
health, ſafetie or ſolace, is in your opinion, that ours
compriſeth not? Seeing our whole ſolace and ſafe<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tie,
comfort and commoditie, conſiſteth in this, that
we vnderſtand that Chriſt, God and man, hath take<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>
vpon him our curſe, and paying a full ranſome for
our ſinnes vpon the Croſſe, hath reconciled vs to the
loue of his Farher, which we had loſte by our Father
<hi>Adam,</hi> that nowe wee aſſure our ſelues of heauen,
without all feare of Hell. What either comfort or
commoditie, can the ſending of Chriſt into a place,
where ther was left no comfort nor commoditye,
adde to this ſo perfite, and full a joy? All good men
are ſorie, that you, carrying the commendation of
zeale and learning, haue joined your ſelfe with <hi>M.
Chalfont,</hi> who enterpriſed this matter ſo vnaduiſedly
(to ſay no worſe) and hath almoſt ſhaken the foun<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>dation
of the Church, (which God forbid) with a
dangerous diviſion. Your ſide (I confeſſe) hath ma<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>nie
great defendants, which doe rather ſpeake for
you, then confirme your opinion, either with ſcrip<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ture,
or reaſon. I was my ſelf of your opinion, till the
ſway of truth, (which I haue alwaies rather follow<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ed,
then mine owne fantaſies) did carie mee to the
contrarie. I am perſwaded, that manie of your au<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>thors,
if they had heard the reaſons that you heare,
would neuer haue ſaid, as you doe. But becauſe the
<pb n="144" facs="tcp:178019:85"/>
ignorant may not think, that you haue all the world
on your ſide. Whether you regarde the nomber or
the excellencie of the men: our cauſe is nothing in<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>feriour
to yours. As for <hi>M. Wiſedome,</hi> if he had er<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>red,
it had beene more Chriſtian-like, to haue con<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>futed
him by priuate conference. But ſeeing his do<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ctrine
hath the conſent of moſt of the learned of our
times, and is ſo fortreſſed with Scripture and reaſon
as heere you ſee: it wanteth all excuſe of modeſtie to
handle him in open audience, before ſuch a multi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tude
in ſuch ſort, as <hi>M. Chalfont</hi> did, and you confir<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>med
in action, though not in words. For my part, I
am, and will be on his ſide, till I heere better reaſon
from you. Which when it commeth, it ſhal carie me
to anie truth, that you can proue. Further, I wil not
wagge the bredth of a naile. If you can plainelie
without cloak and colour, confute my reaſons and
confirm your owne: I promiſe you to turne my ſong
If otherwaies, I hope you will bee as good as that
word which you paſt in the pulpite, before ſo manie
witneſſes. If you will ſatisfie mee, you muſt anſwere
me by writing. For ſpoken words paſſe faſter away,
then my dull ſenſes can digeſt the reaſons. I wrote
this in Latine, becauſe I wold not haue it vnderſtood
of the common ſort. I tranſlated it into Engliſhe, at
the ſute of a Gentleman, that lay heer the laſt ſpring.
That copie (by ſome negligence,) went farther a<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>broad,
then I was willing. I left it with a freend or
two, to deliuer it to you, when I went in Scotland.
They conferring together, delayed it till my returne
leaſt I might ſeeme to haue fled the brunt of your an<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ſwere.
I am ſorie that it fell out ſo. For (God is my
witneſſe) I ſought not mine own praiſe, but did ſeek
the truth. Ex<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap>uſe my raſhe enterpriſe in writing to
you without anie acquaintance. Let my loue of the
truth, which pricked mee for-warde, and your chal<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>lenge
<pb n="145" facs="tcp:178019:85"/>
which ſet mee a worke, excuſe that fault, if it
was anie. Far-well in the Lorde. God giue vs al vn<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>derſtanding
hearts.</p>
               <closer>
                  <signed>Your freend though vnacquainted,
ALEXANDER HVME.</signed>
               </closer>
            </div>
            <div type="reply">
               <head>HIL his Reply.</head>
               <p>
                  <note n="584" place="margin">Then you denie not but that you co<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>demned all your aduerſa<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ries of fury &amp; madnes.</note> Truth it is,<note place="margin">The Paralogiſ. of this ſection.</note> I did preach ſince a <hi>Leicock,</hi> &amp;
becauſe I hard that M. <hi>Wiſdome</hi> had ſet
that opinion of yours abroche againe at <hi>Coſham,</hi> I
did heere alſo confirme mine, Not becauſe<note n="585" place="margin">You hard<g ref="char:EOLunhyphen"/>lie winde fro<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g> that ſuſpition</note> I am
deſirous to be cont<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap>tious, but becauſe I would haue
no<note n="586" place="margin">Did M. Wiſdom per<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ſwade men to d<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                        <desc>•</desc>
                     </gap>ubt?</note> Chriſtian man to doubt of the articles of his
Faith<g ref="char:punc">▪</g> you aſke me what comfor<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap>able or neceſſarye
matter you denye, that wee doe preach. I anſwere
<note n="587" place="margin">Arrigea<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="2 letters">
                        <desc>••</desc>
                     </gap> res Pamphil<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                        <desc>•</desc>
                     </gap>.</note> and I pray you conſider o<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap> it.<note n="588" place="margin">That we teach alſo.</note> wee are
borne in ſinne: how are we deliuered from ſinne but
by Chriſt, which was conceiued by the holy Ghoſte.
<note n="589" place="margin">And that if not ſo elo<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>quentlie, yet as trulie.</note> wee haue the magnitude of ſinnes with <hi>Peter,</hi>
                  <note n="590" place="margin">And that</note> the multitude of ſins with <hi>Mary Magdalen</hi> the
turpitude of ſins with the woman taken in adultery,
the infamy of ſinnes with the Publican: the diuturni<g ref="char:EOLunhyphen"/>ty
of ſinnes with the theefe on the gallowes: the cru<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>elty
of ſinnes with paule, and the recidiuation into
ſinnes with diuers of the Saints: yet if wee repent
wee are pardoned for Chriſ<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap>es ſake, who purely,
perfectly, &amp; perpetualy obeyed the law of God.<note n="591" place="margin">And tha<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                        <desc>•</desc>
                     </gap>
                  </note>
By reaſon of our ſins we ar ſubiect to al puniſhme<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>ts<g ref="char:punc">▪</g>
both corporal, and ſpiritual, and to the wrath of God:
All the puniſhments due to vs did Chriſt ſuffer vpon
the croſſe, both in body and ſoul, and therfore it is cal<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>led
his Paſſion. He ſuffered in the Garden, in <hi>Annas</hi>
and <hi>Caiphas</hi> houſe, in <hi>Pilats</hi> hal, but vpon the croſſe
(as you ſay truly) he ſuffered the agonies of death &amp;
tormenets of hell.<note n="592" place="margin">And tha<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                        <desc>•</desc>
                     </gap>
                  </note> Further by reaſon of ſin this
<pb n="146" facs="tcp:178019:86"/>
was laide vpon the firſt Parentes, Thou ſhalt die the
death: ſo by reaſon of this ſentence, not only the body
was condemned to death, but the ſoul to damnation.
<note n="593" place="margin">There is the differe<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>ce that we teach not: but wee teach an<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>other thing far more co<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>
                     <g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>fortable, that Chriſt deſce<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>
                     <g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ded into all the torments of hell, to quite vs of them: by that he deliuered vs from Hell.</note> To deliuer vs from theſe two puniſhments, the
ſoule of Chriſt went to hell and returned, and the bo<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>dy
of Chriſt that lay dead in the graue, roſe again mi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ghtily,
naturallye, ſpeedily and happely.<note n="594" place="margin">All that we teach as wel as you</note> Bee<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ſides,
Chriſt roſe in deede,<note n="595" place="margin">All that we teach as wel as you</note> he gaue himſelfe to
be felte and handled, herevpon wee are aſſured that
he conquered death and hell.<note n="596" place="margin">All that we teach as wel as you</note> He aſcended into
Heauen, and therfore our praiers are hard, when we
pray vnto him,<note n="597" place="margin">All that we teach as wel as you</note> and he giueth vs gifts for our
miniſtry,<note n="598" place="margin">All that we teach as wel as you</note> and ſo he ſhall come to iudgement at
the laſt day, to giue vs perfect bleſſednes. You confeſſ
that Chriſt was borne in deede, liued and fulfiled the
law, in the likenes of our fleſh (ſinne excepted) he dy<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ed
in deede, he was buried in deede,<note n="599" place="margin">And that he deſce<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>ded into hell indeede: why paſt you by that? aha D. aha D</note> he roſe and
aſcended in deede,<note n="600" place="margin">Wee ne<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>uer denied that: ſpeak truth for ſhame.</note> and yet you will not confeſſe
that he perſonalye deſcended. How can al theſe arti<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>cles
going before, and comming after be vnderſtode
of the perſon of Chriſt, and of his humanity,<note n="601" place="margin">Fie man: who ſayes ſo?</note> &amp;
not this. Therefore you denying this<note n="602" place="margin">You ſ<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                        <desc>•</desc>
                     </gap>a<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>
                     <g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>der.</note> perſon<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>all
deſcending of Chriſt into hell,<note n="603" place="margin">We take not away that comfort.</note> take away
the greate comfort of our deliuerance from hell. You
ſay we are deliuered from hell by Chriſts<note n="604" place="margin">And by his diſce<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>ding into hell.</note> death:
ſo are we too by his birth.<note n="605" place="margin">So you may ſay, that we are deliuered by Adam: if he had neuer ſinned, we had neuer needed Chriſt.</note> For if Chriſt had not
bene borne he had not dyed? ſo if there had not beene
a ſeperation of the body and ſoule of Chriſt,<note n="606" place="margin">He conquered when he conflicted, and he conflicted be<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>fore the ſeparation.</note> he
could neuer haue conquered death or hell: for by de<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ſcending
into<note n="607" place="margin">This Diuinitie is ſcarſe currant, ſee the anſwere.</note> the graue, and that perſonally,
he conquered death, &amp; hath deliuered vs from death,
<note n="608" place="margin">This Diuinitie is ſcarſe currant, ſee the anſwere.</note> &amp; by going downe into hell perſonallye, he hath
conquered hel. And for this cauſe, the ſcripture appli<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>eth
<pb n="147" facs="tcp:178019:86"/>
it to the death of Chriſt,<note n="609" place="margin">Not ſo: but becauſe in death he conflicted with theſe e<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>nemies.</note> becauſe death was
(as <hi>Paul</hi> ſaith, <hi>Phil. 3. A diſſoluiton of body and ſoule</hi>
And theſe 2. parts being diſſolued, Chriſt came from
the graue and from hel,<note n="610" place="margin">This i<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                        <desc>•</desc>
                     </gap> like the 606.</note> and Chriſt did conquer
both, and triumph ouer them in him ſelf, as it is <hi>Col.</hi>
2. 15. Theſe Jewes do aſke aſigne from heauen,<note n="611" place="margin">This is ſuperfluous.</note>
                  <hi>Math. 22, 38. Luk.</hi> 11. 29. to whom Chriſt ſaid, <hi>A wic<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ked
and addulterous Generation doeth aſke a ſigne,
but no ſigne ſhal be giuen them, but the ſigne of <hi>Ionas</hi>
the prophet, for as <hi>Ionas</hi> was in the whales belly three
dayes and three nights: ſo ſhall the ſonne of man bee
in the hart of the earth, three daies and three nights.</hi>
Which words <hi>Baſilius Magnus</hi> interpreteth very wel.
Theſe words (a ſigne) is a matter made manifeſt co<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>
                  <g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>teyning
y<hi rend="sup">•</hi> declaration of ſome thing that was hidden
as y<hi rend="sup">•</hi> ſigne of Ionas, repreſenteth y<hi rend="sup">•</hi>
                  <note n="612" place="margin">take <hi>inferi</hi> for the dead, &amp; theſe men turne not this text to your byas</note> deſcending
of Chriſt into hell, and the reſurrection of Chriſt, and
as <hi>Bede</hi> ſaith,<note n="613" place="margin">take <hi>inferi</hi> for the dead, &amp; theſe men turne not this text to your byas</note> &amp; <hi>Rhab.</hi> alſo, he gaue the<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g> a ſign,
but not from heauen, becauſe they were vnworthy to
ſee it, but from the depth of hel: Therefore (M. <hi>Hume</hi>)
this is a moſt comfortable doctrine, that<note n="614" place="margin">That is not the thing you promiſed We teach that as wel as you.</note> Chriſt
doth deliuer vs from hell: which albeit you agniſe as
well as wee,<note n="615" place="margin">We deny it not, ſee the anſwere.</note> yet becauſe you deny the meanes
where by it was purchaſed, you deny a moſt comfor<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>table
doctrine: for not only the body of Chriſt was in
the heart of the earth,<note n="616" place="margin">Simplie ſay you? with<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>out a figure, if you do, I deny it.</note> but the ſon of man, which
ſignifieth the whole humanitye, that is, the ſoule and
the body. <hi>Ionas</hi> was in the whales belly aliue and yet
came forth, Chriſt was in the graue dead in fleſh,<note n="617" place="margin">Petitio principij.</note>
and aliue in hel, and yet came forth<g ref="char:punc">▪</g>
                  <note n="618" place="margin">I denie the argume<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>
                     <gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                        <desc>•</desc>
                     </gap>.</note> Therefore
to take away this maner of deſcending, taketh away
from the Church a ſingular comfort,<note n="619" place="margin">It fol<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>lowes not.</note> and ope<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>neth
a gap to many errors confuted already by the
Fathers. For, if Chriſt did conquer hel, by the power
of the<note n="620" place="margin">That is your dreame</note> Godhead only, and not as he is a man,
what neede had he to take vpon him our nature? but
<pb n="148" facs="tcp:178019:87"/>
becauſe as man he might be Lord not a heauen, and
the Angels, but of the earth and of the inhabitants
therof, and of hell and the diuels.<note n="621" place="margin">
                     <hi>I ſaide</hi> Pi<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                        <desc>•</desc>
                     </gap> do<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="3 letters">
                        <desc>•••</desc>
                     </gap>t.</note> You ſay the
world is ſory for me. <hi>In the world</hi> ſaith Chriſt <hi>you ſhal
haue affliction. And he telleth me the world wil hate
me.</hi> I way not theſe things:<note n="622" place="margin">If you be. I would you were not.</note> for I am noe man<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>pleaſer,
nor lover of the world. But if in my Sermon
I had diſagreed with <hi>Dauid; Ezechiel, Eſay, Peter<g ref="char:punc">▪</g>
Paule,</hi>
                  <note place="margin">623. Wordes, ſee the an<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ſwere.</note> &amp; Chriſt himſelfe 923 as you haue done in
your an were, I hope I ſhould be both ſory<note n="624" place="margin">But you cannot b<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                        <desc>•</desc>
                     </gap>u<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                        <desc>•</desc>
                     </gap>h.</note> and
aſhamed. Touching M. <hi>Chalfont</hi> whome you terme
a man without iudgement, and that he ſpake impu<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>dently
and enuiouſly, I neuer ſawe him before that
time and but once ſence<g ref="char:punc">▪</g> but by that ſpeech and con<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ference
which I had with him I ford him to be lear<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ned
<note n="625" place="margin">His lear<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ning I will not meddle with, But if you had enquired, how he vſed tha<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                        <desc>•</desc>
                     </gap> g<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                        <desc>•</desc>
                     </gap>od ſoul M. W. ſedome: you might haue ſeen his gale runne ouer</note> and v<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap>id of gail. Such of his neighbours
as I haue talked with, did giue him y<hi rend="sup">•</hi> deſerued praiſe
of a learned and honeſt man.<note place="margin">626 That is the queſtion.</note> And for asmuch as hee
hath preached 926 ſound doctrine in preaching the
affirmatiue, and that doct<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap>in which is allowed by the
learned conuocation of this land, it doth not become
you to<note n="627" place="margin">Can a private letter be a <gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                        <desc>•</desc>
                     </gap>bel<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                        <desc>•</desc>
                     </gap>?</note> lible againſt him. for in ſpeaking againſt
him<note n="628" place="margin">Fancie. They take neither your part nor his.</note> you traduce al thoſe reuerend and learned
men, which made an Iuiunction for keeping of vnitie
that no other Catechiſme ſhould bee taught of any
Schoolmaiſter then M. <hi>Nowels.</hi> Therefore becauſ you
are<note n="629" place="margin">I am no ſtranger in the church of Chriſt</note> a ſtra<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>ger you ought not to be<note n="630" place="margin">Let the<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g> that know me better then you be asked if this be trve.</note> 
                  <hi>pertergos</hi>
&amp; ſpeak euil of thoſe Miniſters which vphold the doc<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>trine
<note n="631" place="margin">Your o<g ref="char:EOLunhyphen"/>pinion is not eſtabliſhed.</note> eſtabliſhed: and becauſe you are a Schole<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>maiſter,
you ought to teache and not to gainſaye it.
<hi>Qui pergit dicere ea, quae vult, audiet ea, quae non vuls.</hi>
as you reuile at M. <hi>Chalfont,</hi> ſo doo<note n="632" place="margin">Is truth a reueiling?</note> you and
your frends priuilye againſt me, calling me a Biſhop
pling and a time-ſeruer.<note n="633" place="margin">Tell when, where, and before whome I ſaid ſo, <gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 word">
                        <desc>〈◊〉</desc>
                     </gap> you can.</note> Indeed I was brought
<pb n="149" facs="tcp:178019:87"/>
vp vnder<note n="634" place="margin">You did well<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="2 letters">
                        <desc>••</desc>
                     </gap> put that in <gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 word">
                        <desc>〈◊〉</desc>
                     </gap> but <hi>
                        <gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 span">
                           <desc>〈…〉</desc>
                        </gap> in, Vertute d<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                           <desc>•</desc>
                        </gap>cer non ſangui<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                           <desc>•</desc>
                        </gap>e niti.</hi>
                  </note> Biſhop Iewell, who catechiſed<note n="635" place="margin">I ſearſe thi<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                        <desc>•</desc>
                     </gap>ke it</note>
me in this ſaith, &amp; therefore I will not eaſily or raſhly
depart from it. I confeſſe my ſelfe alſo to be a timeſer<g ref="char:EOLunhyphen"/>
                  <gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap>er,
<note n="636" place="margin">There was neuer worſe time you h<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                        <desc>•</desc>
                     </gap>ue laid me<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g> ſo faſt a ſleep, with this lu<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                        <desc>•</desc>
                     </gap>labie, that now they dreame, tha<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                        <desc>•</desc>
                     </gap> there is nei<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ther heauen nor hell: God nor Deuill: That Moſes was a Politican, and Chriſt a deceauer. Are theſe your dayes of ſalvation? Th<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                        <desc>•</desc>
                     </gap>ſe are the times that Paull did pr<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                        <desc>•</desc>
                     </gap>phecie of 2. Tim. 3. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5 and Peter 2. Epiſt. 3 3. and <gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                        <desc>•</desc>
                     </gap>f which Chriſt ſaith the elect ſhould be deceaued if it were poſsible. Math 24. 24. Praiſe them as much as you will<g ref="char:punc">▪</g>
                  </note> 
                  <hi>for it is the day and time of ſaluation ac<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>cepted.</hi>
                  <gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap>et them murmur with <hi>Martin</hi> that liſte: I
pray God my dayes may end with this time, and my
time ma continue no longer then theſe dayes of the
ſtated our Church, that now is do continue. I haue
ſeene the begining,<note n="637" place="margin">You haue ſeene the beginning, but ſmal propagation. Men w<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                        <desc>•</desc>
                     </gap>re glader of the Goſpell in the beginning, then now: the fault muſt needes be in the teachers. I leaue that to your ſelues. God giue you hartes to mend in wrod and work<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                        <desc>•</desc>
                     </gap>.</note> I have ſeene the propagation
of the Goſpell, I haue ſeene God hath de<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap>ended our
Church merciful &amp; miraculouſly from heauen. God
grant that I and all my Auditors may walk worthy
of our calling, Godly, iuſ<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap>ly, &amp; ſoberly. Therefore I end
with this ſaying of S. <hi>Paule 1. Cor. 4. 3. As touching
me I <gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                        <desc>•</desc>
                     </gap>aſſe very little to be iudged of you, or of mans
iudgement<g ref="char:punc">▪</g>
                  </hi> and in the 5. verſe, <hi>Therefore iudge no<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>thing
before the time vntill the Lord come, who ſhall
lighten things that are hidden in darknes, and make
the counſels of the hart maniefeſt, and then ſhall eue<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ry
man haue praiſe of God.</hi>
               </p>
            </div>
            <div type="rejoinder">
               <head>HVME his Reioynder to the 17.
Section.</head>
               <p>TRuth it is that you did preach ſince at <hi>Leycocke,</hi>
not for contentions ſake, but to haue the laſte
word. For, hearing that <hi>M. Wiſedom</hi> had broached
his opinion at <hi>Coſham,</hi> and had perſwaded Chriſtian
men to doubt of the articles of their fatih, (ſo your
<pb n="150" facs="tcp:178019:88"/>
words do ſound) you could not holde your fingers.
For my parte, I am much in your favour. For you
were content to ſee mee miſuſe all the Prophetes &amp;
Apoſtles, and Chriſt himſelfe, and would not haue
ſaid to mee ſo much as black is my eie, if ſome vn<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ruelie
tongues blemiſhing your credite, had not ſet
you a worke. But blab it is, and out it muſt. You ex<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>cuſed
M. Wiſedom of this fault, in the beginning of
your ſermon at <hi>Chippenhame,</hi> and accuſed him againe
(vnawares) in the end of it. In the laſt ſection, you
ſay, that you ſpake that of <hi>Carlill, Servetus,</hi> and ſome
that tolde you, that <hi>Thomas Aquinas</hi> did inſert this
article: and now againe (vnaduiſedlie) you ſay heer,
that you preached againe at <hi>Leycocke,</hi> after that you
had heard of M. Wiſedomes preaching at Coſham,
becauſe you would haue no Chriſtian man, to doubt
of the articles of his faith. If this ſermon to this end
was need-full in your eies: Then in your conceit M.
Wiſedome had taught men at Coſham, to doubt of
the articles of their Faith: contrarie to your firſt ſer<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>mon
at Cippenhame, and your laſte ſection heere.
<hi>Carlil</hi> and <hi>Servetus</hi> did help to couer this ſlip before.
Now, what cloak will you finde, to hide this contra<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>diction
againe? My ſimple head cannot ſound into
the depth of your excuſes: and therfore, I leaue it to
your ſelf to prooue, that this ſlip did leape ouer the
hatch, againſt your will. Now, you ſay, that I do ask
you what comfortable or neceſſary matter you teach
that we denie. To this (with proteſtation praemiſed)
that I marke it conſideratlie, as though you woulde
not let one ſillable fall in waſte: you begin a long
diſcours of the magnitude, multitude, turpitude, &amp;c
of our ſinnes, and of Chriſts paines for our pardon,
of his reſurrection, aſcenſion, and many other things
which wee acknowledge, as well as you: all which,
while my eares prepared by your proteſtation, did
<pb n="151" facs="tcp:178019:88"/>
hearken for the promiſed comfort we teach not: at
length commeth out, that we beeing ſubject to two
great curſes, death and damnation, Chriſt deſcen<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ded
into the graue to deliuer vs from the one, and
into Hell to deliuer vs from the other. This is right
<hi>Parturiunt montes.</hi> That Chriſt went downe into Hell,
is not our comfort. Our comfort is, that he hath de<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>liuered
vs from the bands of hell, which we teach &amp;
acknowledge as wel as you. But if this your doctrine
be true, then is it falſe that Peter teacheth 2. 24. that
Chriſt bare our ſinnes in his bodie on the tree, and
his ſacrifice vnperfect. Wherefore to conclude, <hi>mag<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>nus
nugator, magno conatu, magnas nobis nugas parit.</hi> But
(ſay you) though we agniſe this (that is your tearm)
as well as you. Yet becauſe wee denie the meane
thereof, wee denie a moſte comfortable doctrine.
The meane of our ſalvation was not his going down
into the Hell of the damned, which wee denye: nor
the laying of him vp three daies in Ioſephs tombe
which we confeſſe. But his ſuffering in his innocent
ſoule and bodie, al the torments and miſeries of hel
and death; which wee muſt haue ſuffered, if hee had
not ſtept in betweene vs and them. I will not onelie
ſay<g ref="char:punc">▪</g> this (after your manner) but I will proue it ſo
ſufficientlie, that you your ſelf, ſhall not gaineſay it.</p>
               <p>The meane of our ſalvation, was the conqueſt of
Hell and death: But his going downe into the Hell
of the damned and Ioſephs tomb, was not that con<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>queſt:
<hi>Ergo,</hi> his going downe into the hell of the da<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>
                  <g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ned,
or Ioſephs tombe, was not the meane of our
ſalvation. Another.</p>
               <p>The meane of our ſalvation, was that immaculate
ſacrifice that Chriſt did offer for our ſinnes: But his
deſcending into the hell of the damned, and Ioſephs
tombe, was not that ſacrifice: <hi>Ergo,</hi> his going down
into the hell of the damned, and Ioſephs tomb, was
<pb n="152" facs="tcp:178019:89"/>
not the meane of our ſalvation.</p>
            </div>
         </div>
         <div type="part">
            <head>Another.</head>
            <p>There Chriſt redeemed vs where hee paide the
ranſome of our redemption: But hee paide not the
ranſome of our redemption in the hell of the dam<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ned,
and Ioſephs tombe. <hi>Ergo,</hi> hee redeemed vs not
by deſcending into the hell of the damned, nor Io<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ſephs
tombe.</p>
            <p>Heer be three reaſons in mood and figure, againſt
your comfortable doctrine, which when you haue
anſwered, I will bring a whole armie of ſuch mighty
ſouldiers, (for the ſcriptures haue enough ſuch) to
turne your comfort into murning, and your joy in<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>to
teares, if it ſtand on no better ground then this.
But ſay you, if all the articles going before the com<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ming
after, bee vnderſtood of Chriſts perſon: then
this article of his deſcending muſte ca<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                  <desc>•</desc>
               </gap>e the ſame
ſenſe: But the firſt is true: <hi>Ergo,</hi> the laſt is alſo true.
This is a good argument, but the concluſion is not
for your hand. If you had but one ſuch for your
maine-ſhot of deſcending, a whole reame of paper
royall, would bee too little for your amplifications.
But heer your malice driving you to imagine much
abſurditie in our opinion, doeth deceaue you. For
wee holde and will die for it, that Chriſt in his owne
perſon bodie and ſoule, did deſcend into all the tor<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ments,
that hel could yeelde. And this indeede is a
true deſcending into Hell. For the nature and name
of Hell, doth yeeld nothing but horrour, terror, tre<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>
               <g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>bling
and torments. But in your opinion, we muſt i<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>magine
all things contrarie. Not torments, but tri<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>umph:
nor ſorrowes, but ſolace: not ſhame and ig<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>nominie,
but honour and glory. Hell doeth yeelde
no ſuch frutes, nor the deſcending into hell, can bee
to no ſuch ende. Take therefore your potentiall de<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>cending
into Hell, and the conqueſt thereof by the
<pb n="153" facs="tcp:178019:89"/>
onlie power of the Deitie, and buy a benefice with it.
Whereas you ſay that our opinion doeth open a gap
to manie errors: you pretend a feare without grou<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>d,
to make the Reader affraied of the moone-ſhade. It
is the manner of politick men, that would faine hin<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>der
a thing, that reaſon doeth further, to ſet feare of
ſequels againſt the force of known reaſon. Heer you
flee to that ſhift, though you know, that amongeſt al
the writers, that haue embraced this opinion (which
be manie, &amp; of great name) not one yet can be tain<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ted
with one error growing in this fountaine. In this
ſection you hamper about another argument, but
cannot hit the marke. Wherefore to ſaue your la<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>bour,
I will heere make it vp, and breake the point
of it, when I haue done, that you may ſee it cannot
<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                  <desc>•</desc>
               </gap>urt vs. It is this. There is greater reaſon that Chriſt
ſhould haue beene held three daies of Hell without
paine: then three daies of the graue without cor<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ruption.
But hee was three dayes in the graue with<g ref="char:EOLunhyphen"/>out
corruption. <hi>Ergo,</hi> he was farre rather thre daies
in Hell without paine. Becauſe it is not likelie, that
the weaker did faſten faſter on him, then the ſtron<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ger:
beeing as far inferiour in malice, as it is leſſe in
power. To this I anſwere, that there is not the like
reaſon, much leſſe greater reaſon. For, hee lay three
dayes in the graue to confirme our knowledge, and
to extinguiſhe all doubt of his death. Secondlie, to
lay a grounded beleef in our hearts of the reſurrecti<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>on:
For, he was the firſt frutes of the dead. Thirdlie,
to make his reſurrection more glorious. For the lo<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>
               <g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ger
he was held in the bandes of death, the greater
glorie it was to breake them, gathering ſtrength
by continuance. Laſtlie, to take all blockes out of
the path of faith, that wee might walke in it more
ſurelie, without ſtumbling. I knowe no ſuch reaſons
why he ſhould haue deſcended into the very place of
<pb n="154" facs="tcp:178019:90"/>
hell being ſo farre remooued from our ſenſes, as we
could receiue neither knowledge nor comfort ther<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>by.
Now, whereas you take mee vp, for ſaying that
the world is ſorrie for you: my wordes might haue
had a tollerable conſtruction, if you had caſt an eie
to Chriſts words in Iohn. God ſo loued the worlde
that hee gaue his onelie begotten Sonne for it: or if
you had lookt in my latine: you ſhould haue found
my wordes leſſe ſubject to violence. <hi>Pij omnes dolent,</hi>
that is, al the godlie are ſorie, ſounding much to the
ſame ſenſe. But you loue not the world (you ſay) nor
the world loues not you: I think you ſpeake truelie.
iiij. or v. benefices to them that you haue, wold ſerue
the turne, to maintaine your skarlet hood, and half
a doſen of tall fellowes in tawnie coates, to defend
that with the ſword, which you cannot with the pen
&amp; that is but a peece of the world. But you loue not
the world becauſe it is not ſo liberall: nor the world
loues not you ſo, becaus you haue more charges al<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ready,
the<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g> you haue tongues to teach. You co<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>clude
that I beeing a ſtranger muſte not bee <hi>periergos,</hi> and
that <hi>Si pergam dicere, quae volo: audiam, quae nolo.</hi> Theſe
arguments were better in Queen Maries fierie daies
for D. Storie, then they are now in the calmes of E<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>lizabeth,
for D. Hill. You ſlander the learned con<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>vocation
of the land, and wrong good M. Nowell,
who, (as I heare) diſclaimeth your opinion. As for
mee, I am a Chriſtian, and therefore no ſtranger in
the Church of Chriſt. I will not ſpeake againſt my
conſcience, for all the counſels and convocations in
the world, and all the Doctors in both the Vniuerſi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ſities,
if they were my aduerſaries. But (God bee
thanked) it is not ſo. I began with you in ſecrete, &amp;
you haue made it common. Wherefore you are <hi>peri<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>erg<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap>s</hi>
and not I.</p>
            <div type="conclusion">
               <pb n="155" facs="tcp:178019:90"/>
               <head>HIL his concluſion to M. Hume.</head>
               <p>MAiſter Hume, in the latter end of your anſwere
you requeſt mee to recant: if your anſwere did
pleaſe mee, as it doth you: I would be as willing to
recant, as you and your freends would be glade to
heare it. But I will plainelie ſet downe my reaſons
why I doe not recant: The firſt is, I alledged <hi>Act.</hi> 2
and proued out of <hi>Peters</hi> ſermon my aſſertion, and to
the reaſons I drew out of that place, you haue an<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ſwered
nothing. Secondlie, I alledged <hi>Syra,</hi> 17. 21.
To proue, that this phraſe, (the nethermoſt parts of
the earth) doth ſignifie hell, to this you haue in like
manner ſaide nothing. Thirdlie, in all your an<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ſweres
to my allegations, you haue diſagreed
with the word of God. In anſwering of the 16. Pſal.
you ſay my allegation is to be vnderſtood of the paſ<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ſion
of Chriſt: And <hi>Peter Act.</hi> 2. ſaith, it is ſpoken of
the reſurrection, whether is to bee beleeued of <hi>Peter</hi>
or you, I referre it to the indifferent Reader. Then
I proued that <hi>ERETS TACHTITH,</hi> that is, (the ne<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>thermoſt
partes of the earth) did ſignifie hell, out of
the 63. Pſalm and 9. verſe. In anſwering of this you
diſſent from <hi>David,</hi> and M. <hi>Calvine.</hi> Now, whether
it be more ſafe to ſollowe Dauid or you, let mine e<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>nemies
iudge. I alleadged <hi>Ezechiel</hi> to proue that
point alſo 31. chapter. 5. 16. 17. 18. 19. In anſwering
to that place, you haue gain-ſaide <hi>
                     <gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                        <desc>•</desc>
                     </gap>zechiel, Eſay</hi> in
his 14. chapter <hi>Lavaterus, Munſter,</hi> and <hi>Pellicane.</hi>
Now, whether it be more fit for mee to beleeue you or
Eſay, or <hi>Ezechiel,</hi> let your owne favorites iudge.
Then I alleadged the known place of <hi>Peter,</hi> you tra<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>vailed
much about this place, yet in your interpreta<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tion
of this word <hi>pneumaſi,</hi> that is (ſpirits) which you
interprete the ſoules of the men that liued in Noahs
<pb n="156" facs="tcp:178019:91"/>
time, you contradict the words of our Saviour, <hi>Luk</hi>
24 39. <hi>For Chriſt ſaieth, a Spirit hath not fleſhe and
bones, as you ſee me haue.</hi> And yet you, and your
Maiſters <gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap>ay, that this word ſpirit may ſignifie a ma<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>
living. Now, whether it bee more expedient for mee
to beleeue you, or Chriſt, I referre it to your owne
iudgement. You <gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap>aid my Sermon at <hi>Chippenhame</hi>
did confirme you, and your frends: but I hope your
owne anſweres will not confute mee, but your ſelfe,
and cauſe your ſelf, and them both to recan<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap>: you ſay
you ſeeke to know he truth: ſo do I, (as knoweth
the knower of all hearts): wherefore, whether you
or I haue taught the trueth, let not <hi>Hume</hi> nor <hi>Hill</hi>
iudge, but the learned of the <gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap>niverſi<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap>ies. For, as
<hi>Paule</hi> ſaith. 1. <hi>Cor. 14. 32. The ſpirits of the Prophets
are ſubject to the Prophetes.</hi> That is, the labors of
the learned men, are to be iudged of the learned. <hi>The
God of patience and conſolation, giue vs grace, that
we may be like minded one towards another accor<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ding
to Chriſt Ieſus, that we may with one minde, &amp;
one mouth, glorifie God the Father of our Lord Ie<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ſus
Chriſt. Rom. 14. 5. 6. To whome bee all honour &amp;
glorie, world without end. <hi>Amen.</hi>
                  </hi>
               </p>
            </div>
            <div type="reply">
               <head>An anſwere to the concluſion.</head>
               <p>IF you had been the man that you proteſted in the
pulpite, and I promiſed my ſelfe, when I wrote:
there was good hope, that my anſwere might haue
pleaſed you, as wel as mee. But now I ſee it impoſsi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ble
to pleaſe you, except I could ſing your ſong. And
truelie M. D. I could ſing your ſong as ſoone as anie
mans, if it did tune as wel with the concent of ſcrip<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tures,
as other mens doe. But now you muſt pardon
me: I am too old to learn your diſcords. The things
in my anſwere, which I hoped might haue wrought
<pb n="157" facs="tcp:178019:91"/>
it favour with you, was truth and reaſon. But nowe
I ſee, the one is a ſtranger with you, and the other a
gueſt at will. If they had beene of that account in
your ſtudie, and ſo familiar with you, as I hoped: my
poore anſwere had not found ſuch hard handling,
nor vnreaſonable railing there, as it did. You ſent it
home ſo ragged, rent, and torne: that it coſte mee a
moneths work in the cold winter, to mend his coat.
Now, I haue quilted it better, &amp; ſent it to you once
againe, to challenge your promiſe, and to tell you
that your plaine reaſons heere ſet downe, why you
could not recant are nullified and made of none ef<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>fect:
like an obligation, that is paied at the day ap<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>pointed.
Wherefore, ſeeing your argument drawne
from the Act. 2. is anſwered ſect. 4. and ſect. 7. And
ſeeing your place out of Syrach is 7. waies defaced
ſect. 11. And ſeeing I haue proued my conſent with
the Scriptures in euerie place, where I met with that
accuſation. And ſeeing our ſenſe of the 16. Pſalm, a<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>greeth
with Peter as wel as yours, ſect. 7. And ſeeing
in my anſwere to Pſal. 63. I diſſent neither from Da<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>vid
nor Calvine, ſect 8. And ſeeing in my anſwere to
the place of Ezechiel, I diſſent neither from him nor
Eſay, ſect. 9. And ſeeing I haue proued by the worde
(ſpirit) that men living in the fleſhe are not ſignified
ſect. 12. And ſeeing now I haue ſet down your words
according to your owne requeſt: and ſeeing your
ſermon at Chippenhame, and this anwſere alſo, hath
confirmed mee: and ſeeing mine own anſwere doth
no<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap> offer me, nor anie of my freends ſufficient cauſe
to recant. I hope now you are ſatisfied, and that you
will ſatisfie me, and the populous congregation, to
whome you made your ſolemne promiſe of recanta<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tion
in the pulpite at Chippenhame. It was not a
place to diſſemble in, and therefore let vs ſee that
<pb facs="tcp:178019:92"/>
you meant as you ſpake. The Lord giue you a hart
pliable to his truth.</p>
               <div type="subpart">
                  <p>ANd heere to end, as if M. D. had ſet the bent
of his wit to ſhewe the vanitie of his worke, he
maketh the vaineſt bragge, that euer grewe in a
vaine heade. There was (good Reader) if thou
knowe it not) one <hi>Ovid,</hi> of all vaine poets the vai<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>neſt.
Amongeſt manie filthie, and vaine workes, he
wrote a book entituled <hi>Metamorphoſis.</hi> In it he ſets
the edge of all his wits (which he had as ſharp as euer
had anie Poet) to the painting of lies in all coloures
wherein he ſhot ſo neare the marke, that in compa<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>riſon
of it, the lying legend commes not neere the
whetſtone, by as manie myles as there be wordes in
them both. The concluſion of this worthie worke,
M. D. hath paſted to his hel, as moſt agreable to that
argument.</p>
                  <q>
                     <l>Iamque opus exegi, quod nec Iouis ira, nec ignis,</l>
                     <l>Nec pot<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                           <desc>•</desc>
                        </gap>rit ferrum, nec edax abolere vetuſtas.</l>
                  </q>
                  <p>In which <hi>Ovid</hi> looking back into the worke of his
owne wit, grew into ſuch loue with the fineneſſe of
his owne conceits, that he doubted not to de<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                        <desc>•</desc>
                     </gap>ie his
owne imagined God <hi>Iuppiter.</hi> Now, that thou migh<g ref="char:EOLunhyphen"/>teſt
ſee (gentle reader) that M. Doctor did thinke of
his owne worke, as well as <hi>Ovid</hi> coulde of his: hee
bruſteth out in the ſame brag. In which, if he meane
Ovids Idole by this <hi>Iuppiter,</hi> it is heathniſhe, if the
true God, it is Helliſhe. That they that vnderſtand
not the latine, may vnderſtand it, I haue thought
<pb facs="tcp:178019:92"/>
not amiſſe to engliſhe it as neere the words as I can
keeping the engliſh meeter.</p>
                  <lg>
                     <l>I haue at length made vp this work,</l>
                     <l>Which Iuppiter in raging fume:</l>
                     <l>With me, with fire, with edged ſworde,</l>
                     <l>And cankering age cannot conſume.</l>
                  </lg>
                  <p>To it I may well anſwere out of another Poet.</p>
                  <q>
                     <l>Quid dignum tanto fert hic promiſſor hiatis,</l>
                     <l>Parturiunt montes, naſcetur ridiculus mus.</l>
                  </q>
                  <p>That is,</p>
                  <lg>
                     <l>What hath this vaunting bragger done</l>
                     <l>Worth gaping mouth and lips ſo wide:</l>
                     <l>The groning Hill is brought a bed</l>
                     <l>And out a ſillie mous doth ſlide.</l>
                  </lg>
                  <lg>
                     <l>Huic latino carmine ſic reſpondero.</l>
                     <l>Nondum eſt exactum: ludit tua gloria ventos,</l>
                     <l>Ad ſat a licta redi<g ref="char:punc">▪</g> I am renovatur opus.</l>
                     <l>In cineres<g ref="char:punc">▪</g> fumoſque tui rediere labores,</l>
                     <l>Quod louis ignis agit, quod Iovis irae facit.</l>
                     <l>Aliud.</l>
                     <l>Dicere ſibellum mireris tartara coelo:</l>
                     <l>Foedera Dis ſtygius cum Ioue nulla colit.</l>
                     <l>Aliud.</l>
                     <l>Chriſtum poſt ſtygios in triſti morte dolores,</l>
                     <l>Contendit ſtygias <hi>Hillus</hi> adiſſe domos.</l>
                     <l>Complexus vano nugas, tricaſque libello</l>
                     <l>Provocat inſanus tela, manumque Iovis.</l>
                     <l>Errat: fi tutum Iovis ira acheronta putarit,</l>
                     <l>Non coquit aeternis iguibus ille ſtygem?</l>
                  </lg>
               </div>
            </div>
            <trailer>FINIS.</trailer>
         </div>
         <div type="part">
            <pb facs="tcp:178019:93"/>
            <head>CERTAINE PLACES QVO<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ted
out of Maſter Doctors owne Authours,
vpon the three principal places, where-upon
he buildeth this his opinion, wherein thou maiſt
ſee gentle Reader, how ſmall cauſe hee hath to
bragge of ſo many old and new writers. I leaning alto<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>gether
on the word of trueth, haue not q<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="2 letters">
                  <desc>••</desc>
               </gap>ted them in the
treatiſe it ſelfe, counting them vnſufficient witneſſes in ſuch
a cauſe, wherein they haue neither reveil<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                  <desc>•</desc>
               </gap>d, nor experimen<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ted
knowledg, yet becauſe I would not defraud the<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                  <desc>•</desc>
               </gap> of their
judgments, I haue thought good to ſet them downe heere.</head>
            <div type="subpart">
               <head type="sub">The firſt place is, thou vvouldeſt not leaue my ſoule in <gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 word">
                     <desc>〈◊〉</desc>
                  </gap> nor ſuf<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>fer
thy holy one to ſee corruption, vvhere M. D<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap>ct<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap>r takes <gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 word">
                     <desc>〈◊〉</desc>
                  </gap> to be
hell, vve the generall condition of them vvhich are departed this life.</head>
               <p>MOLERVS,<note place="margin">In Pſal. 16.</note> caeterum movent hic queſtionem<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="2 letters">
                     <desc>••</desc>
                  </gap> deſcenſu
Chriſti ad inferos, qua<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g> prudens omitto: cum ex hoc l<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap>co
id ſatis certo evinci non poſsit.</p>
               <p>Felinu, non deſeres ammam me<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap>
                  <g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>ſepu<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="2 letters">
                     <desc>••</desc>
                  </gap>hro, id eſt, non
deſtitues me, vt anima mea morti concedat. Per ſhe<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap>l enim quod
ſepulchrum ſignificat (vt in Pſal 6. verſ 6. d. x<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap>) ſtatum &amp; con<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="2 letters">
                     <desc>••</desc>
                  </gap>tio<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>nem
mortuorum,<note place="margin">In eundem</note> hoc eſt inferos, ſcript<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap>ra tranſnominare ſolet.</p>
               <p>Muſe Ius, non derelinques animam meam in ſepulchro, nec da<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>bi<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap>
ſa<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap>ctum tuum videre corruptionem,<note place="margin">In eundem.</note> quaſi dicat, tam certus ſum
ma<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap>ſurum me perpetuo, vt vbi etiam mortuus fuero, in m<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap>rteta.
men detineri nequeam: ideo quod, &amp;c.</p>
               <p>Hemingius: on thi pſalme ſaith, Vis verborum hunc ſenſum vt à
Petro docemur, ſuppeditat, non derelinques<g ref="char:punc">▪</g> id eſt, non ſines, ani<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>mam
meam,<note place="margin">In eundem.</note> id eſt, me: in inferno, id eſt, ſepulchro permanere.</p>
               <p>Pomeranus, Quoniam non derelinques animam meam, id eſt,
vitam meam,<note place="margin">
                     <gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 word">
                        <desc>〈◊〉</desc>
                     </gap> 
                     <gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="2 letters">
                        <desc>••</desc>
                     </gap>ndem.</note> in inferno, id eſt in morte: Chriſtus non ſolum pro no<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>bis
mortuus eſt<g ref="char:punc">▪</g> ſed etiam voluit pro nobis al<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap> quantiſper<g ref="char:punc">▪</g> id eſt, vſ<expan>
                     <am>
                        <g ref="char:abque"/>
                     </am>
                     <ex>que</ex>
                  </expan>
in tertium die<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g> deſcendere ad tenebras tartareas, vbi eſt imago mor<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tis,
&amp; ſicut Iob dicit ſempiternus horror abſque vll<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap>ordine, ho<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap>
eſt voluit tam diu in morte teneri, ad quam nos eramus in Adam
<pb facs="tcp:178019:93"/>
damnati. ſic &amp; Ioſeph de morte ſua loquitur, Gen. 37. deſcendam
ad filium meum lugens in ſheol.</p>
               <div type="section">
                  <head>Theſe be fiue of M. Doctors principall Authors, all agreeing vvith
vs, and contrary to himſelfe, theſe that follovve indeed diſſent from vs<g ref="char:punc">▪</g>
and agree not vvith him on the meaning of this place.</head>
                  <p>Aepinus the great ſuperintendent of Hamborough (as he calleth
him) on this place ſaith. Veteres ex ſcripturis reſpondent diverſa<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                        <desc>•</desc>
                     </gap>
ap<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                        <desc>•</desc>
                     </gap>d inferos manſiones fuiſſe, beataſque animas à corpore ſepara<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tas
ante Chriſti aſcenſio<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                        <desc>•</desc>
                     </gap>em, neque in terris manſiſſe, neque hinc
ad ſuperos in coelum migraſſe, ſed deſcendiſſe ad infernum<g ref="char:punc">▪</g> &amp; huic
ſententiae ſuffragetur Eccleſiae Ca<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                        <desc>•</desc>
                     </gap>h<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                        <desc>•</desc>
                     </gap>licae conſenſus, &amp; accedat
ſcripturae ſacrae autoritas: retineb<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                        <desc>•</desc>
                     </gap> hanc ſententiam donec certi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>or
ſcripturae interpretatio adferatur, &amp; haec manifeſtis ſcripturae
teſtimonijs confuretur.</p>
                  <p>Peter Mar<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                        <desc>•</desc>
                     </gap>yr in his common places holdeth the ſame in a man<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ner.
Et vero vna atque altera tum piorum, ſpirituum, tum eorum
qui damnati eſſe<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                        <desc>•</desc>
                     </gap>t, ſocietas Chriſti praeſentiam perſenſit. Etenim
fidelium ſpirituum<g ref="char:punc">▪</g> q<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                        <desc>•</desc>
                     </gap>i in loc<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                        <desc>•</desc>
                     </gap> tranquillo quieſ<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="2 letters">
                        <desc>••</desc>
                     </gap>bant, qui ſinus A<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>brahae
appoſite dicitur, vt cum ſancto illo Patriarcha eadem fide
praediti ex<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                        <desc>•</desc>
                     </gap>ectarent ſalutem per Chriſtum, qua ab Abrahamo de<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>nominabantur,
ſpiritus inq<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                        <desc>•</desc>
                     </gap>am <gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 word">
                        <desc>〈◊〉</desc>
                     </gap> magna conſolatione exhilarati
ſunt, Egeruntque Deo optimo maximo gratias, &amp;c.</p>
                  <p>Loſſius on this place ſaith. Chriſtus ad inferos vere poſt mor<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tem
deſcendit, ne nos ad eos deſcendamus. 2. vt inde Patriarchas
vt vetus credidit eccleſiae ſecum abduceret, cum quibus poſtea cum
triumph<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                        <desc>•</desc>
                     </gap> in co<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                        <desc>•</desc>
                     </gap>lum aſcendit.</p>
               </div>
               <div type="section">
                  <head>Theſe three holdeth that the Fathers vvere in hell, though Marty<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                        <desc>•</desc>
                     </gap>
dare not giue it that name, but calles it a place of reſt and the bo<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ſome
of Abraham, all vvhich M. Doctor denieth.</head>
                  <p>Luther on this place tomo 3. of his workes. Sicut Chriſtus cum
ſummo dolore mortuus eſt<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                        <desc>•</desc>
                     </gap>ta videtur dolores in inferno poſt mor<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tem
ſuſtinuiſſe, vt nobis omnia ſuperaret. Ita ego interea verbis Pe<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tri
inhaerebo donec meliora doctus fuero.</p>
                  <p>To him agreeth Latimer in his Sermons. And theſe two holde
that he ſuffered in hell, which Maſter Doctor denieth.</p>
               </div>
            </div>
            <div type="subpart">
               <head>The ſecond place is in the 4. Epheſ. verſe 9. but that he aſcended, vvhat
is it but that he firſt deſce<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>ded into the lovvermoſt parts of the earth.</head>
               <p>
                  <pb facs="tcp:178019:94"/>
Hemingius on this place ſaith. Porro, qui ex hoc loco deſcenſum
Chriſti ad inferos, &amp; locum damnatorum co<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>cludant parum firmo
nituntur fundamento. Non enim comparationem in lituit Apoſt.
vnius partis terrae ad totam terram: ſed totam te<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap>ram cum coelo
confert.</p>
               <p>Muſculus on this place bringeth two ſenſes indifferently, the laſt
accordeth with this. Poteſt exp<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="2 letters">
                     <desc>••</desc>
                  </gap> deterra ſimpliciter cu<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap>us partes
ſunt reſpectu coeli inferiores. This much agreeth with vs againſt
our Doctor.</p>
               <p>Muſculus his other ſenſe is this. Deſcendit ad nos in hunc mun<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>dum,
ad ſepulchrum, &amp; ad inferos<g ref="char:punc">▪</g> deſcendit ad eos propter quos
redimendos venit: &amp; quouſque illi in partibus terrae cum vivendo,
tum moriendo ad inferiora demiſſi ſunt: covſque ipſe ſeſe demiſit,
quo nos ex inferioribus ſecum ad ſuperiora, vnde deſcendit, ſub<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>veheret.
Where hee diſſ<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap>nteth alſo from this Doctor ho<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap>ding that
he never deſcended farther than the Sancts of God doth, whome
he came to redeeme, which was not I trowe ſo farre as the dam<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>neds
hell.</p>
               <p>Pelicanus on this place ſaith, Aſcendit redivivus in ſublime ſe<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>cum
ducens victoriae ſuae trophaeum captivoram gregem à peccati
Diabolique tyrannide liberatum. Here he holdeth that he did cary
the fathers vp to heauen, which our Doctor demeth.</p>
               <p>Petrus Martyr de vtraque in Chriſto natura contra vbiquitari<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>os.
fol. 59. in typis Chiſtoph<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="3 letters">
                     <desc>•••</desc>
                  </gap> Froſchoveri apud Tygurinos. ſaith<g ref="char:punc">▪</g>
Deſcendit ergo ad infer<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap>ora terrae, &amp; aſcendit ſuper omnes coe<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap>os,
filius Dei, vt non ſolum legem Pr<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap>phetaſque compleret: ſed &amp; ali<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>as
quaſdam occultas diſpenſationes, quas ſolus ipſe novit cum Pa<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tre.
Neque enimſcire p<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap>ſſumus quomodo Angelis, &amp; his, qui in in<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ferno
erant, ſanguis Chriſti pr<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap>fuerit &amp; tamen quin profuerit, ne<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ſcire
non poſſumus. Here this moſt excellent man avoucheth<g ref="char:punc">▪</g> that
Chriſts blood was profitable to them in hel, which our Doctor date
not <gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap>ay of the damned, howſoever Peter Martyr meant it.</p>
            </div>
            <div type="subpart">
               <head>The third place is out of the 1. Pet. 3. 18. 19. 20. mortified in the fleſh, &amp;
quickened in the ſpirit, in vvhich ſpirit, hee vvent and preached to
the ſpirits ſometime diſobedient in the daies of Noah, &amp;c.</head>
               <p>Hemingius on this place ſaith. Patet quod carnis voca<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap>ulo tota
humana natura Chriſti intelligatur: ſicut &amp; ſpiritus appellatione
ejuſdem divina natura.</p>
               <p>And a little after he ſaith, Perpe<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap>am quidam ſpiritus nomen ad
animam tantum referunt contra apertum Paul<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap> teſtimonium.</p>
               <p>Aepinus vpon the 68. Pſalme ſaith Petrus non meminit animae
<pb facs="tcp:178019:94"/>
ſeparatae à corpore ſed illius ſpiritus, quo tempore Nohae incredu<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>li<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap>
praedicavit, nondum <gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap>ſſ<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap>m ta hum<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap>na carne, &amp; q<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="2 letters">
                     <desc>••</desc>
                  </gap> vivi<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap> catus
<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 word">
                     <desc>〈◊〉</desc>
                  </gap> à morte, qui ſpiritus Deus eſt. non rationalis anima. De<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>us
enimiſculcitav<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap>t cum ſ<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap> lutis d<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap>lo<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="2 letters">
                     <desc>••</desc>
                  </gap>bus mortis. Act 2. 13. no<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g> anima.</p>
               <p>Aretios on this place ſaith. Ideo car<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap>em accipio libenter pro to<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ta
humana natura Chriſti, qua<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g> aſſumpſit in v<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="2 letters">
                     <desc>••</desc>
                  </gap>tatem perſonae. Con<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tra<g ref="char:punc">▪</g>
viu<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="2 letters">
                     <desc>••</desc>
                  </gap>catus eſt Spiritu, hoc eſt ſecundum divinam naturam.
<hi>Pneum<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                        <desc>•</desc>
                     </gap>
                  </hi> igitur eſt divina natura vt conſtet fibi <hi>antitheſis.</hi>
               </p>
            </div>
            <div type="subpart">
               <head>Theſe three agree here vvith vs againſt this Doctor, that boſteth ſo much
of their names.</head>
               <p>Vitus Theodorus in the contents of the chapters of the firſt E<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>piſtle
of Peter tranſ<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap>ated into Latine by Selneccer one of Maiſter
Doctors auth<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap>rs ſaith Singul<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap>ris haec eſt doctrina, &amp; quae alib<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap> in
ſc<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap>pturis nuſq<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="2 letters">
                     <desc>••</desc>
                  </gap>a<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g> legitur. &amp; quid Apoſtolus per eam intelligit, non<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>dum
perfecte ſcire licet. hoc certitudo eſt eum aliquot ſpiritibus
praedicaſſe ſed quot, &amp; quibus videbimus in aeterna vita. Here this
man, demeth that which he ſuppoſeth to be ſpoken heere, to haue
any other warrant in the word. &amp; that it is not knowne to what ſpi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>rits
he preached contrary to our Doctor.</p>
               <p>Pelicanus on this place. Per ſpiritum intelligo ſpiritum ſanctum
datum Apoſtolis die Pentecoſtes: &amp; per carcerem errores, &amp; Id<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap>lo<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>latrias
Gentium, &amp; Iudaeorum. Our Doctor by ſ<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap>irit vnderſtandeth
the huma<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap>e ſoule of Chriſt, by the priſon hell. This man (one of his
owne authors) vnderſtandeth by ſpirit the holy Ghoſt, and by the
priſon the errours wherein the ſoules of the Iewes and Gentiles
were capt<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap>ued.</p>
            </div>
            <div type="subpart">
               <head>Thus thou maiſt ſee (gentle Reader) that theſe three places, on vvhich
M. Doctor buildeth his opinion, his ovvne authors do interpret them
ſome as vve do, and ſome othervvaies than he himſelfe can allovve.
vvherefore thou maieſt vvell think, that this is a vveake foundation
to build thy faith vpon. Novve I vvill note to thee hovve his ovvne
authors (that he calles his ovvne I meane) do diſſent from him, and
one from another on the very article it ſelfe. Firſt all his old vvriters
ſend Chriſt to hel to deliuer the fathers, and he to the hell of the dam<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ned
vvhere the fathers never vvere, and there fore no more of them.</head>
               <p>Eraſmus in Catecheſi ſaith, Ipſa inconcinnitas ſermonis a<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap>guit
ab alſo quop<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap>am intertextum Emblema<g ref="char:punc">▪</g> &amp; paulo poſt. An Thomas
Aquinas addiderit ſubdubito. Heere hee doubteth of the Arti<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap>le it
ſelfe, and ſuppoſeth Thomas Aquinas to haue inſerted it.</p>
               <p>Et poſtea vetuſtiſſimi patres magna religione cavebant, ne quid
<pb facs="tcp:178019:95"/>
aſſeverarent duntaxatin ſymbolo, quod non eſſet evidenter ſacris
literis vtriuſque teſtamenti expreſſum. Tales ſunt omnes articuli
hoc vno excepto. Heere he denies it (meaning the common ſenſe
of it) to haue any ſufficient warrant in the word.</p>
               <p>Afterward gathering all the places of ſcripture that are allead<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ged
by writers to confirme it he concludes. Nihil iſtorum eſt, quod
tergiverſatorem cogat credere Chriſti animam per ſe deſcendiſſe
ad tartarum. And againe, in his multa ſunt, quae nihil habent pon<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>deris:
ſed nullum eſt quod non vel allegoriae nebulo ſit obſcuru<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap>,
vel variam accipiat interpretationem. Heere he denies the ſuffici<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>encie
of all th<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap> ſcriptures, that this man and all that went before
him alledgeth, and yet this is one of his owne auth<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap>urs.</p>
               <p>Petrus Martyr in ſymbolo, ſaith, Quantum ad animam ipſam at<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tinet,
ſtatim atque ex corpore exceſſit, non manſit oti<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap>ſa, ſed de<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ſcendit
ad inſeros, quod nihil aliud indicat, niſi quod eundem ſu<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>bijt
ſtatum, quem reliquae animae à corpore ſejunctae experiuntur.
Heere this man ſaith that to deſcend into hell is nothing elſe, but
to enter into that ſame ſtate, that other ſouls do, when they are de<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>parted
from the body, which our Doctor denies, and yet this is one
of his Authors.</p>
               <p>Felmus on the 16. Pſalme ſaith, Non eſt in Davide adimpletum
quod hic canitur. Anima enim ejus tandem ad inferos deſcendit, &amp;
vidit caro ejus foveam. Heere this man taketh the name of hell for
the common condition of al the dead, which our Doctor denies: &amp;
yet this is one of his Authours.</p>
               <p>Pomeranus on the 16. Pſalme, having expounded the name ſhe<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ol
of the ſtate of the dead as I haue quoted before concludes. At<expan>
                     <am>
                        <g ref="char:abque"/>
                     </am>
                     <ex>que</ex>
                  </expan>
hic habes articulum illum fidei, with many more wordes prooving
that Chriſt hath wrought our deliverance by his death and not by
deſcending into the hell of the damned. And yet this is one of Ma<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ſter
Doctors beſt Authours.</p>
               <p>Weſtmerus in tropis in voce, <hi>infernus,</hi> pag. 832. ſaith, Ad infer<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>num
deſcendere, nihil aliud eſt quam peſſum ire, &amp;c. And after in
the ſame page. and page 833. ad infernum deſcendere eſt corpus
ſub terra recondi<g ref="char:punc">▪</g> vnde cum Chriſtus deſcendiſſe ad inferos adſe<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ritur
in ſymbolo vere mortuus, &amp; ſepultus eſſe intelligitur Heere
this man ſaith, that Chriſts deſcending into hell is m<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap>ant but of hic
death, and burial. And yet this is one of M Doctors authours.</p>
               <p>Luther and Latimer hold<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap>, that Chriſt ſuffered in hell the tor<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ments
of hel, as I haue quoted alreadie. This our Doctor denies,
and yet theſe be two of his Authours.</p>
               <p>Hipperius in his Catechiſme, gathering the ſumme of this part
of our faith thus ſaith. Primo dignatus eſt Chriſtus ſe noſtri cauſa
<pb facs="tcp:178019:95"/>
humiliare noſtram aſſumens naturam per omnia (ſi excipiamus pec<g ref="char:EOLunhyphen"/>catum) par nobis factus, ſecundo pro noſtris peccatis expiandis
maximos cruciatus pertulit, &amp; mortem ignominioſiſſimam Tertio
quo donaremur iuſtitia à morte reſurrexit quibus peractis priſti<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>nam
accepit gloriam, &amp; aſcendit ad coelos. Here this man ſhoulde<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>reth
it quite out of his creed, and yet this is one of Maiſter Doctor<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap>
Authours.</p>
               <p>Loſſius on the 16. Pſalme ſaith, Deſcendit ad inferos totus Chri<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ſtus
ſive filius Dei, ſicut idem conceptus eſt de ſpiritu ſancto, natus
ex Maria Virgine, crucifixus, m<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap>rtuus, &amp; ſepultus.</p>
               <p>Hemingius in his Catechiſme hath the like. Chriſtus deſcendit
ad inferos vtrum anima an corpore ſcriptura non dicit: ſed Sym<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>bolum
videtur innuere totum Chriſtum deſcendiſſe. Heere theſe
two men ſay that Chriſt deſcended into hell body and ſoull: our
Doctor denies it: and yet theſe be two of his Authours.</p>
               <p>Vrbanus Rhegius in Catechiſmo, ſaith, Secundum animam de<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ſcendit
ad inferna ad pias animas Adami, Noahi, Lothi, &amp;c. Heere
this man ſaith, that hee went into hell to the holy ſoules of Adam
Noah, and Loth. our Doctor ſaith they were not there, and yet this
is one of his Authours.</p>
               <p>Aepinus on the 16. Pſalme ſaith. Quod autem Chriſtus latron<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap>
dixit hodie eris mecum in Paradiſo non abrogat fidem huic dog<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>mati
de deſcenſu Chriſti ad inferos: quia paradiſus illa de qua lo<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>quitur
Chriſtus eo tempore apud inferos fuit, nunc autem apud ſu<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>pero<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="3 letters">
                     <desc>•••</desc>
                  </gap>
coel<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap> eſt. Heere this man ſaith that Paradiſe was in hell be<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>fore
the comming of Chriſt: our doctor ſaith no, and yet this is one
of his beſt Authours.</p>
               <p>Lavaterus on Ezech 31. 18. ſaith, <hi>hades</hi> apud Graecos generale
vocabulum eſt tormentorum &amp; quietis. This man ſaith, and ſaith it
trulie, that the greeke name of hell, is a common name both to the
place of the torments of the wicked, and the joyes of the faithfull.
our Doctor denies that, and yet this is one of his cheefe Authours.</p>
               <p>Aleſius on the 19. of Iohn vpon theſe wordes, <hi>Exiuit in locum qui
Caluaria dicitur,</hi> orationem repetit luciani presbiteri Antiocheni
vbi haec habet. Adhibebo vobis loci ipſius teſtimonium adſtipula<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tur
his ipſe in Hyeroſolimis locus, &amp; Golgothana rupes ſub patibuli
onere diſ<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="2 letters">
                     <desc>••</desc>
                  </gap>pta. Antrum quoque illud quod avulſis inferni Ianuis
corpus demum reddidit animatum, quo purius inde ferretur ad
coelum. Here this man maketh the place where Chriſt was buried
the mouth of hell, meaning thereby the place of death, our Doctor
denies that, and yet this is one of his Authors.</p>
               <p>Aretius in the ninth of his common places, fol. 31. Sed de ill<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap>
non ſatis conſtat, quamdiu apud inferos ſit commoratus: non diu vt
<pb facs="tcp:178019:96"/>
apparet, vt eadem die ſecundum animam ab inferis reverſus glorio<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ſe
Paradiſum ingreſſus ſit cum latrone. Heere this man ſaith that
Chriſt was not one day in hell, M. Doctor ſaith that hee was there
al the three daies, that he lay in the graue, and yet this is his chefeſt
Authour.</p>
               <p>Maiſter Nowell in his greater Catechiſme ſaith, Chriſtum, vt
co<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap>pore in terrae viſcera, Ita anima à corpore ſep<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap>rata ad inferos
deſcendiſſe, ſimulque etiam virtutis ſuae virtutem atque efficacita<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tem
ad mo<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap>tuos, atque inferos adeo ipſos ita penetraſſe, vt &amp; incre<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>dulorum
animae acerbiſſim<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap>m juſtiſſimamque infidelitatis ſuae da<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>
                  <g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>nationem,
<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap>pſeque Satanas i<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap>ferorum princeps tyrannidis ſuae, &amp;
tenebrarum poteſtatem omnem deb<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="2 letters">
                     <desc>••</desc>
                  </gap>itatam, fractam, a<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap>que ruina
collapſ<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap>m <gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap>ſſ<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap> perſentiret: Contra vero mortui Chriſto dum vixe<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>runt
fidentes, redemptionis ſuae <gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap>pus jam peractum eſſe, ejuſq vim,
atque virtutem cum ſuaviſſima, cer<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="2 letters">
                     <desc>••</desc>
                  </gap>ſſimaque conſolatione intelli<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ge<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap>ent
atque perciperent. Heere (gentle Reader) becauſe Maiſter
Doctor wrongeth this good man, then whome the earth beareth
not many, and (as I am perſwaded) <gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 word">
                     <desc>〈◊〉</desc>
                  </gap> any better, I pray thee mark
this place well, for theſe are the onely wordes that M. Doctor chal<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>lengeth
in all his workes. Firſt th<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap>u ma<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap>eſt obſerue, that he vſeth the
name (inferi) not for the damned onely but for al the dead: becauſe
he ſaith that by Chriſts deſcending <hi>ad inferos,</hi> both the wicked felt
the juſtnes of their damnation, and the godly the ſweetnes of their
ſalvation, and ſo <hi>Chriſtus deſcendit ad inferos</hi> is but Chriſt deſcen<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ded
to the dead. Secondly that he ſaith not that Chriſts ſoule de<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ſcended
into the hell of the damned, as our Doctor doth: but that
his ſoul being ſevered from his body, that is, beeing departed this
life, he diſcended <hi>ad inferos,</hi> that is, was laid vp amongſt them whoſe
life was blotted out of the memory of the living. Thirdly, hee ſaith
not that thoſe, to whome he deſcended ſaw him there perſonally<g ref="char:punc">▪</g>
but they felt and vnderſtood the one their j<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap>ſt damnation, the o<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ther
their ſweet ſalvation together with his deſcending to the dead
that is preſently vpon the diſſolution of his ſoule and body. Where<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>fore
great wrong hath our D. done this man, to w<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap>ing hi<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap> words be<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ing
ſomewhat obſcure to a ſenſe that he never meant, and to brag
of him as being the father of an opinion that I dare hope (for he is
yet aliue) he doth diſallow. His opinion is amongſt all the godly al<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>lowed
to be true th<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap>ugh not ſo wel fitting the article of the Creed:
but our D. opinion no man accepteth yet for trueth, except it be
himſelf and his favorities. Thus I haue ſet down, what jarring there
is betweene this man, and his authors. Now I will ſhewe thee, how
he hath pulled ſome into this braul, that never dealt in the matter
to make his muſter booke long ynough, &amp; to feare m<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap>n with naked
names.</p>
               <p>
                  <pb facs="tcp:178019:96"/>
Robert Samuell in the bo<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap>ke of Martyrs, making a confeſſion of
his faith when he comes to this point, ſaith no more tha<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g> the words
of the beleefe, which be meant as wel with vs, as with him, and him
he quotes for one.</p>
               <p>Lambe<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap>t in the ſame book handling the queſtion of the real pre<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ſence,
quotes a place out of Aug. <hi>ad Dardanum</hi> to proue that Chriſt
being corporally in heaven, is not corporally in the Sacrament: in
which place being long, Aug. amongſt thoſe things, that Lambert
quotes him for, ſaith that Chriſt according to his ſoule was in the
bottome of hel (which if it be wel taken may be) was devoured and
ſwallowed vp of death<g ref="char:punc">▪</g> but Lambert himſelfe neither alloweth nor
diſſalloweth it, as being a thing beſide his queſtion: and yet hee is
alleadged for one.</p>
               <p>M. Fox writeth a litle Pamphlet intituled Chriſt triumphing, be
cauſe in it is diſplaied the greatnes of the battell, the worthines of
the victory, &amp; the joye of the conqueſt. The Printer (for I think M.
Fox neuer cared greatly, what ſigne they hanged at his ſhop dore)
or if it was M. Fox himſelfe, all is one, deviſed a picture to expreſſe
the matter within the book. A man with foure wound, in his hands
&amp; fect, inveſted in a bright cloud, with a gliſtering flame, as it were
of fame, &amp; glory glimmering about his face, ſtanding with the one
foot on the head of a Dragon: and the other on the heart of death.
This picture M. Doctor tooke to be ſo ſure an argument of Chriſts
deſcending into hell, that he not onely cauſeth to ſet it before his
owne b<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="2 letters">
                     <desc>••</desc>
                  </gap>k likewiſe: but alſo repeateth the name of M. Fox 4. times
if not oftner, as favouring his opinion, hauing to my knowledge not
one word in al his works, and I am ſure not one ſyllable in the book,
which he quotes of Chriſt triumphing, ſaving that picture. Thus
gentle Reader, I haue giu<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap>n thee a vewe of 23. of M. Doctors Au<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>thors,
of whome ſome ſpeake againſt him, ſome differ from him, &amp;
ſome ſay nothing for him<g ref="char:punc">▪</g> wherefore thou maieſt conclude, that it
is but a painted cauſe that alleadgeth pictures for arguments<g ref="char:punc">▪</g> there
is not one of al the Authours, that he maſters ſo often: that agre<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>eth
with him in all things concerning this opinion. Cajetane a Car<g ref="char:EOLunhyphen"/>dinall
of Rome writing vpon the place of Peter (I<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap> he had not ſcar<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>red
at his popiſh name) commeth nee<gap reason="illegible" resp="#TECH" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap>er him than any of theſe, <hi>Vt
ipſe Chriſtus mortificatus carne (nam vere mortuus eſt ſecundum car<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>nem)
viuificatus autem ſpiritu (nam tunc cum mortuus erat viuificatus
erat ſpiritu) vt pote beatus ſecundum ſpiritum, &amp; triumphans de daemo<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>nibus.</hi>
Here he hath his deſcending into hell, his triumphing over
the Deuils, his being aliue when he was dead, and his fleſh for the
body, &amp; ſpirit for the humane ſoule. Therefore good Reader, let
him follow Cajetan and follow thou the trueth.</p>
            </div>
            <trailer>FINIS.</trailer>
            <pb facs="tcp:178019:97"/>
         </div>
      </body>
   </text>
</TEI>