Defense of a Treatise Touching the Suffering and Victory of Christ — Henry Jacob

Defense of a Treatise Touching the Suffering and Victory of Christ · Henry Jacob

Then d you come to your next reaſon about the Sacramentes, …g. 238.wherein you thinke to touch me. Firſt you reprove mee for ſaying,…at. 1. …. 14. e Sacraments are Earthly elementes, they cannot ſet out the ſpirituall and inviſible effects in Christ. This ſay you is against the definitiō of a Sacrament, which is, Aviſible ſigne of inviſible grace. I anſwer, firſt you rather overthrow your ſelf in vrging this againſt me: for your owne main aſſertion is that neither the Iewiſh Sacrifices nor Chriſtian Sacraments do ſignifie any more then the bodily and bloudy death of Chriſt. Then it is your ſelfe Sir indeed that denyeth the very definition of Sacraments, that they are viſible ſignes of inviſible graces. For I hope the Bodily and bloudy death of Chriſt, and the renting of his fleſh with whips, nayles, and ſpeares were viſible and not inviſible things. As for me I can eaſily defend my ſelf although you fayle in this. For I holde that Sacraments are indeede viſible ſignes of inviſible graces wrought in vsus by Chriſt: and yet vſually they repreſent not ſpirituall and inviſible Effects or Acts in Christ himſelfe, butaAlbei… conſeq… & imp… I deny… but al… Paſſion be vn… ſtood it only the externall and viſible partes of his Paſſion. Can you not reconcile theſe two? Any b…ginner in Chriſtianitie will eaſily do it. NextbPag. 2… you make me to croſſe the Justitution of the Lords Table, becauſecTreat. … pag. 14 I ſaid the Ceremony of breaking the bread cannot properly belong to Chriſtes body. But even heere doe not I ſay expreſly, that it ſheweth foorth how Christes body was broken for vsus? Which you ſay is the Institution and this I plainly acknowledge: where then is mine errour, and what is it? Indeed I meane that the breaking of the bread into many pieces doth not ſet out primarily the breaking of his body, but of his ſoule firſt and immediatly, and then of his Body iointly and conſequentlie. Againe, that it doth not ſet out properly the pearcing or boring through of Chriſts body with the ſpear or nayles nor his laſhing with the whip: becauſed1 Cor. 1… Klòmenon is broken to pieces properly, andeIſa. 53… Meducca in the Prophet is alſo Broken to pieces properlie, or cruſhed and broken to powder. As theſefNom. … Iſa 19. Deut. 2… Likewiſe ther wor… very ſame … ture. 2 C… 34.7 2 … 23.6, 15.16.12. Iſa 21, and 2 and 41.1 Mic 4.… Scripture do vſe this word likewiſe, and alſo all Lexicons do confirme. YourgPſal. 14 Ior. 44.… Except Io… 2. wher y^e portiō ma… kept of y^t per ſenſe … breake m… pieces w^t words A… Pſal. 34 51.17. allegatiōs therfore about the vſe of Dacha otherwiſe, ſhew not the proper, but the vſe thereof altered. Thus then ſtill I ſay our former places are not to be meant principallie of Chriſts Body, for it was not properly broken: which alſo my other place ſheweth ſuffficientlie where it is ſaid,hIoh 1… Not a bone of him was broken. Seeing it is manefeſt that none of his fleſh was ſeparated from his bones. But of neceſſitie it muſt have ben ſo, if his fleſh had ben properlie broken into pieces, and yet his bones not broken.iPag. 23 You ſay, From a part the whole may and doth properly take denomination. Firſt you muſt ſhew that ſome parte of him was properly broken into pieces: which hitherto is proved to the contrary. That fable whichkPag. 6… you bring of the Nayles being ſo great that Conſtantine of them made him a Bridle and a Helmet, will not helpe to prove that his Body was properly broken. Neither is cutting or tearing, or pearching through which onelyonly indeed the Scripture warranteth, that Breaking properly whichlDach…. that word in the Prophet b…fore noted doth properly ſignifie. And I pray is that true, that from a part the whole may and doth properly take denomination. Doth it properly? From a part to the whole is a Figure of ſpeach. Is a Figurative ſpeach a proper ſpeach w^th you? Vainly you charge me I know not how often againſt my expreſſe words, that I call Hell Heaven, and Deſcending Aſcending. But heere it is no wrong to charge you with ſuch an abſurdity indeed, who expreſly do make that whiche you ſay is Figurative to bee a proper denomination. I am ſure your Grammar was better, before you were as you are. But to proceede if you aske mee,Cor. 11.24 … 53 10. whether doe I thinke that a thoſe places, of the Apoſtle and the Prophet doe ſignifie at all the pearcing of his body. I aunſwere they may by a generall and vnproper ſpeach, as piercing may be an vnproper kind of breaking. For ſeeing the H. Ghoſt by thoſe wordes intendeth to ſhew the whole outward violence and deſtruction of his fleſh alſo, and not onelyonly the breaking & bruizing of his Soule, therefore I deny not but heerein ſo much may be ſignified, yet in no wiſe not that alone, nor by a proper ſignification, as I have ſaid. Nowe where you catch at an advantage in me as you thinke,Treat 1. …g. 14. in that I ſaid, b The Caeremony of breaking the bread (or that breaking to pieces in I ſay) cannot belong properly to Chriſtes body, but to his ſoule. I grant taking my wordes at the worſt, and thinking me to be a ſenſeles foole (as indeed you do in your whole writing) ſo you may conſtrue them as if I had ſaid, The Soule might be properly broken to pieces. But other men (not inferior to your L. in learning, none diſprayſed) who have read this Treatiſe, have cōceaved me thus. This breaking to pieces cannot be properly ſaid of Christs body, nor in any ſenſe proportionable to the property of the c words. But his Soule may rather & more truly be ſaid to have ben broken and bruized to pieces in ſuch wiſe as ſouls may be broken with ſorrows & extraordinary anguiſh, …omenon …educca.and ſo was his Body likewiſe by ſympathy with his Soule. Where I deny not but Broken applyed to the Soule is Figurative: yet keeping a iuſt and full proportion with the proper ſenſe of Breaking to pieces, which we cannot keepe referring it to his Body. So that thus it is neerer and better applyed to the Soule then to the Body of Chriſt, which was only pierced or bored through.

Then you rehearſe another of your reaſons tending to the very ſame effect as that laſt before.…g. 240. You will prove (d you ſay) that the bloud of our Saviour is the true price of our redemption, and that aſwel of our Soules as of our Bodyes. Still you deale fraudulently: for who denyeth this as your wordes runne. But wee know you meane,…s heere …g. 16. e that no more but the ſhedding of his bloud onelyonly and meerely is the iuſt and full ſatisfaction of all our ſinnes even in the righteous and ſincere iudgment of God. Then we abſolutly deny your Aſſertion, as before we hauehave don the like. As for youra1 Pet. 1 Rev. 5.… alleaged Scriptures we anſwer them as we did generallybTreat. pag. 8.9 before: that they meane not the meere bloud of Chriſt nor only the body ſingly and ſimply conſidered but, that togeather with the proper ſufferings of his Soule alſo they were the iust and full ſatisfaction, and redemption. Againſt which you have nothing any where. And likewiſe our adviſed and reſolut anſwere is tocpag. 58, 60, 61, 7…. &c. all the reſt of your ſcriptures which moſt tediouſly and vainly you heape vp & ſcatter every wherein your former treatiſe to this effect, as if they contayned ſomwhat for your purpoſe, when as indeed there is not one text any where that hath any meaning of your ſtrange conceit. So that wee ſhall have no need to trouble our ſelves any more heereafter about any of them. Yetdpag. 24… heere you vrge a reaſon againſt vsus: Jf our Soules be not redeemed by the bloud of Chriſt our bodyes have no benefit of redemption (you meane) from death. But we e1. Pet. 1 Rev. 5.9.are redeemed, not we ſhalbe. Ergo it is our Soules which are redeemed, our bodyes are not redeemed as yet in this life. Wherein we have to note 3. things. 1. Your Propoſition is vaine and illogicall having no conſequence in it at all. Which maketh mee to thinke that I hit your meaning right and miſtooke you not in my former booke. Howbeit to try this your ſentence heere, what if our Soules were not at all redeemed by Chriſtes bloud but ſome other way, or not by his bloud meerely and onelyonly (which indeede is our quaeſtion) will it follow that therefore our bodyes are ſtill mortall, and therefore not redeemed from death? Or what if our Soules be redeemed by his bloud, as indeed they are, though not wholly nor only thereby. What followeth then from this? Nay what if our Soules and Bodyes were redeemed wholly and only by Chriſts bloud? Is theſe any conſequence that therefore our bodyes ſhould now be redeemed from death, and never dy. Truly I cannot diſcerne, but that your propoſition meaneth ſome ſuch conſequence as this, which is to me a vey ſtrang reaſon. Yet that which you adfPag. 2… afterward is more ſtrang: Jf our Soules be not redeemed (wholly) by the (meere) bloud of Christ, (For thus ſtill I ſay you muſt make your wordes, or ells you aske the very Quaeſtion) then our bodyes have vtterly no good, even no good at all by the death of Christ. In which ſequele verily I can ſee neither head nor taile. Choſe you now, whether you will that you ſpeake this ſophiſtically, or abſurdly. For I cannot diſcerne it: I leave it therefore to your ſelf to determine. But perhaps you will yet againe go backe to that you excuſed your ſelfe withall before. You will meane that our bodies in this life have no benefit of redemption from death, even no more then the bodies of Infidels. And this plainly you avouch for truth. Is this true, Are not our bodies now already freed from the curſe & the ſting of death, from all the hurt & harme that properly and naturally is in death? Is it not made vntounto vsus a quiet ſleepe and a peaceable reſt, an entrance for our Soules into Heaven, a putting off of ſin to our bodies, in ſuch wiſe that Chriſt taketh from it the a name of Death and calleth it but b a paſſage? …oh. 8.51.Or have the Jnfidels alſo thus much benefit in death,…oh. 5.2…. as wee have in it by our redemption in Chriſte? I know not therefore how to terme this your aſſertion, I forbeare to name it as it deſerveth: it is more then ſtrange that Infidels bodies ſhould have as much benefit of nedemption from death, as our bodies have by Chriſt. Dy I grant, or ceaſe to breath we muſt and do ſtill even as they do. And this death by the naturall property of it is a part of Gods Curſe: but to the faithful there are great benefits ioyned even in death by the gracious dealing of God peculiarly towardes his children, which alſo their bodies are partakers of thorough the death of Chriſt. The naturall ſting is taken out of it for the godly, yet it remayneth to the Infidells and hurteth them by retayning even their bodies (though dead) in & vnderunder Gods dreadfull Curſe. Wherefore it makes many to thinke that indeed you vttered this matter ſomewhat otherwiſe in your Sermons, then heere you doe now publiſh it: and it perſwadeth mee ſtill that c I miſtooke you not,…eat. 1. …g. 11. ſeeing this your turning & ſetting of it is ſo vnhanſom. For every one may ſee by this your handling of it, that then you ſaid more then heere you expreſſe: and heere you would faine faſhion it to ſomwhat, but you cannot. Yea your own words bewray ſom alteration frō that which ſo confidently you preached, where you ſay, Whatſoever the wordes were that you might vſe, which you do not acknowledge to be theſe that I bring. …ag. 240.Laſtly, d you grant that you vſed this reaſon in handling the power of Christes death: that is, when you preached it. For now in this Treatiſe you have cleane left it out, for ought that e I can ſee. which bewrayeth that it was ſuch,…. 88.113 as your ſelfe ſaw was not to be maintayned, howſoever heere you ſtrive to ſet ſome colour vponupon it, though yet ſtill in vaine.

Before we depart from this point, That not the bloud of Chriſt nor his fleſh meerely and only without reſpect to the merit of his whole Soule was the full price of Redemption, heere is fit place to ſhew how ſundry of the Ancient Fathers do agree with vsus ſufficiently in this matter: although afterward in your booke you ſeeme to bring them againſt vsus. But indeed ſo they ſeeme onelyonly: for in truth they are with vsus as by theſe following we may ſee. FirſtaIre…. 5. Irenaeus, The Lord bought vsus with his owne bloud, and gave his ſoule for our ſoules, & his fleſh for our fleſh. bCyr. de … fid. ad T…Cyrill, He beſtowed his fleſh as a ranſome for our fleſh, and made his Soule likewiſe a price of redemption for our Soules, although he lived againe, being by nature life it ſelfe. cNaz. in tr… 49. ad Cl…Nazianzen maketh every part of man to be ſanctified by the like in Chriſt, our condemned fleſh by his fleſh, our ſoule by his ſoule, our vnderstanding by his vnderstanding. dAmbr. … Luc. 22. … triſt. dolo… &c.Ambroſe ſaith Maerorem animae nostrae ſuae animae maerore abolevit: He aboliſhed the ſorrow of our Soule by the ſorrow of his Soule. AndeDe inca… Sacr. cap. … Hoc in ſe obtulit Christus quod induit &c. Christ offered in ſacrifice all that which he aſſumed: that is all & every whit that was in him beſides his Godhead.fFulgent. … Thraſym … lib. 3. Fulgentius, He ſhewed in himſelfe the ſufferinges of a whole man in verity & truth, quicquid fuit infirmitatis animae ſine peccato ſuſcepit & pertulit: Hee tooke vponupon him and ſuffered whatſoever infirmity may be in the ſoule without ſinne. It is not poſſible that wee our ſelues ſhould ſpeake a more effectuall ſentence for our purpoſe then this is. Say as Fulgentius heere ſaith, and we aske no more. All thatgPag. 86. you except, that by theſe Fathers Chriſte dyed only the death of the fleſh, is leſſe then heere they affirme. And we ſhall anſwer to that in due place. Now marke well, how theſe Fathers do not ſay that Christ gave his life for a ranſom onelyonly, (ashPag. 70. … you would conſtrue it) but even his very Soule to for our Soules. They ſtrive to expreſſe an exact proportion ſo far as was poſſible betwene Chriſt and vsus. Firſt in the parts of Chriſt who ſuffered, & of vsus who were ſaved. So that as we are ſaved not in our bodies only, nor only in the externall ſenſitiue parte of our ſoules (wherein ſtandeth that ſuffering with and by our bodies) but wee are ſaved redeemed and ſanctified in our whole Spirite and Ʋnderſtanding alſo: even ſo (by their verdict) Chriſt ſuffered for vsus not the bodily and outward ſufferinges by Sympathy onelyonly, but hee ſuffered for vsus even in his Minde alſo. Now this is directly againſt your preſent a Aſſertion which we have in hand.… 132.240 …eere p. 14 Alſo heere they obſerve an exact proportion in the Obiects ſo far as was poſſible, viz: in that which he ſuffered for vsus, & that which we are ſaved frō thereby. Thus that ſorrow of the immortall parte of the Soule & not of body only, which we are ſaved from, the ſame he ſuffered. Yea I ſay all and every whit of thoſe paſſions & ſorrowes wherevnto mans nature is b ſubiect and capable of,… nature we …e ſubject to …fer in the …nde pro…erly for ſin: …nd not only …y Sympathy …rom y^e Body Cyrill. Theſ…ur. 10 3 Barnard. de …aſſ. Dom. …ap. 41. Pag. 7. Ter…ul. cout. Prax. Amb in Luc. 2. De triſt. …olor. &c. and from which we are ſaved, all the ſame he taſted and ſuffered for vsus. Thus it is alſo that Cyrill elſwhere ſaith, c Omnia perpeſſus est vt nos ab omnibus liberaret: He ſuffered all things throughly, that hee might acquit vsus from all, which els we ſhould have ſuffered. And thus I take Barnards meaning to be, d He ſpared not him ſelfe who knoweth how to ſpare his. Wherevpon you collect well, if you meane ſo e He ſuffered and indured All to the vttermost with exact obedience and patience. To which end Tertullian alſo, f Sic reliquit, dum non parcit. This was Gods forſaking of him in his paſſion, that in nothing he ſpared him. And thus Ambroſe g Minus contulerat mihi niſi meum ſuſcepiſſet affectum. He had don leſſe for me▪ if he had not ben (altogeather) affected as I ſhould hauehave ben. And thus Ierom,h…erom. in …ſa. 53. h Quod nos pro noſtris debebamus ſceleribus ſuſtinere, ille pro nobis paſſus est, pacificans &c, That wich we ſhould have borne for our ſinnes, the ſame hee ſuffered for vsus. Wherefore by the Fathers Chriſt ſuffered exactly i All & whatſoever ſorrowes & paines which we ſhould have ſuffered,All kindes: …: both in …irit & Body. …ot all parti…lars in thē. as well Spirituall as Corporall as well in all the powers of the Soule ſubiect to ſuffering, as in that which ſuffered allwayes with and from the body. Only they except 2. pointes which of ſimple neceſſity indeed muſt be excepted in the Sonne of God,Pag. 10. 12. …3. which before k I have alſo acknowledged: 1. Sinne, Pag. 87.and all ſinfull concomitantes and conſequentes as l you ſpeake. And that is it which Cyprian exactly noteth, That in him there was m Similitudo paenae non Culpae, Cypr. de paſs.the very like puniſhmēt as ſhould have ben in vsus: only there was no ſinne nor fault in him as is in vsus. The 2. point excepted is, that he ſuffered not eternally, but for a while: for he that was life it ſelfe could not but live againe, ſaith n Cyrill. In the place above cited.Where he ſeemeth to acknowledge a kind of death even of the ſoule, from which Chriſt revived againe. But of that in due place heereafter. Nowe heere it is manifeſt that even the Fathers, of whom you doe ſo exceedingly boaſt, are cleane againſt you and for vsus in the 1. and chiefeſt point of this queſtion: ſhewing that Chriſt ſuffered not only bodly, or in the ſoule by Symphaty only, but in the Minde alſo diſtinctly, even as we may ſuffer in minde diſtinctly frō our bodily ſuffering, that is when we ſuffer ſomwhataAs I … Treat. … pag. 4. imediatly from God. Yea he ſuffered (ſay theſe Fathers) all the paines which els we ſhould hauehave ſuffered: no materiall thing excepted but only ſinne, otherwiſe he was ſpared by diſpenſation in nothing. Againſt this cleere and plaine ſenſe of the FathersbPa. 35…. you take no exception, neither can you.

Thus having hitherto manefeſtly defended my ſelfe, that I have not abuſed any way the Fathers nor yet your ſelfe, as you vniuſtly charge me incPa. 22… your entrance: Now I am to doe the like againſtdPag. 2… your vnſufficient refuſing of my Reaſons. Where by, I hope, it ſhall appeare that you have not weakened any one of them. And Firſt you begin with rehearſing my wordes, wherein I briefly noted the very Queſtion betweene vsus,eTreat. … pag. 4. That Christ ſuffered for vsus the Wrath of God. Which youfPag. 24 exclame at without meaſure, as being not the point which you preached againſt. Howbeit I ſuppoſe theſe wordes do rightly and fitly ſet out the matter, both which then you preached, & which now you write. I havegPag. 8 heere before truly & fully declared the whole ſtate of this controverſy, I truſt. Yet becauſe we can never opē this point to much for many good vſes that it hath, I will not thinke it tedious nor labour loſt ne to rip vp this queſtion a litle againe in this place, that ſo we may proceede with more eaſe.

Your generall cariage in your booke declareth, that you abuſe the Reader exceedingly by the ambiguous and equivocall taking of this terme Gods Wrath, as before in the entrance I have ſhewed. It is not I that abuſe them, as youhNam… 243.24… every where very bitterly and vnreaſonably do charge me. For according to the moſt vſuall and common ſenſe of Gods wrath, ſo in my wholl Treatiſe I take it for Gods perfit Holynes, Iuſtice, & Power iIoh. 3… Pſal. 2… 2. Cor▪ 9.properly executing vengeance & puniſhment (whether little or great) due to them on whom ſinne lyeth. But you generally do ſo cary this phraſe, as ſignifying any puniſhment of ſinne whatſoever: and namely the Afflictions which the very Godly do ſuffer, which is altogeather an vnproper ſpeach. This I obſerve moſt ſpecially in one place of your booke above others. Where you ſay,lPag. 1… All kindes of troubles, paines, and griefes in our ſtates, bodyes, and mindes, which ſhorten or ſower this preſent life are degrees of Gods wrath, and chaſticements of out tranſgreſſion & corruption. Which preſently you prove by many needeles Scriptures. And from this ſenſe of his Fathers wrath you do not exempt the Lord Christ. You meane that this he ſuffered indeed, and that this is all in your opinion. It is true All troubles paines & griefes in their firſt Ordinance a were the effects of Gods proper wrath.…ou doe … right… 275. & But in their ſtate and condition now, they are b not: namely, as the Godly do ſuffer them. Which we muſt heere note and conſider well.…at. 1.14.….132. You ſay right alſo: This, † becauſe it ſeemeth grievous for the preſent and not ioyous is called (ſomtymes) in the Scriptures the rodde and wrath of God. True; it ſeemeth. But indeed it is not ſo, or it ought not ſo to be. For c it ſeemeth otherwiſe to the iudgment of faith and knowledg.… 1.2.….2.28, … & 2 Cor. …0. …efore pa. …. 19. Then Gods wrath in this ſenſe is very vnproperly taken: as I have often ſaid. Wherfore ſpeaking properly & exactly as in this Cōtroverſy we ought according to the revealed minde of the Holy Ghoſt, it is Chasticement & correction: it is not in any wiſe Wrath, or puniſhment properly meant. Neyther may it be ſaid properly that his Iuſtice leadeth him to inflict it on vsus (as e you affirme) but it is his Holynes and Love towards his children which chaſteneth them.…. 132. According to the Scripture which ſaith,… 12.10. f God chaſteneth vsus for our profit, that we might be partakers of his Holynes. And g whom the Lord loveth he chaſteneth: … 6.7. … 11.32he ſcourgeth every Soune that he receaveth. If we indure chaſtening, God offereth himſelfe vntounto vsus as vntounto ſonnes: for what ſonne is it whom the Father chaſteneth not. Therefore to ſpeake properly not Gods Iuſtice, but his Holynes and Fatherly Love doth move him to lay whatſoever Croſſes and troubles vponupon his children. He is not vntounto them a Iudge or Revenger, but a Father: Neyther is it Wrath that cometh from him or Vengeance for ſinne properly, …r. 11.but h amendment in Love towards the godly. Now the caſe with Chriſt was cleane otherwiſe. He needed no Amendement, but that which he ſuffered was right Puniſhment. He was neyther in caſe as the wicked, nor yet ſimply as the godly. He differed from them both, and yet in ſom pointes did partake of both their conditions. He was like the godly, in that he was highly beloved of God, and had no maner of ſinne of his own laid to his charge. He was like the wicked and differed from the caſe of the godly greatly, becauſe he was laden & charged with ſinnes, yea with all maner of ſinnes, & ſuſtayned their due puniſhment, there being alſo none other at all to indure the vengeance of God for them but himſelfe. As we hauehave largely ſhewed before in opening the ſtate of our Queſtion. Thus then whatſoever Chriſt ſuffered (and ſpecially at his death) was very wrath and vengeance from God properly taken, true puniſhment and iuſtice executed againſt ſinne & for ſinne, to the which he was in ſom ſort condemned and appointed, alſo this was the true Curſe of the Law which thus he ſuſtayned for vsus. Nevertheles in all this his Caſe was extraordinary, his condition in the like puniſhments vtterly vnlike to the wicked. For his owne nature was ſtill for all this moſt holy, faithfull, ſtedfaſt, loving the Lord, and beloved of him, albeit in his office of Redeeming vsus and ſuretyſhip for vsus he did ſuſtaine truly, and not vnproperly, (as the Godly do) the Lordes very wrath againſt ſinne which he tooke vponupon him. Heere is now the Power of God to be deepely conſidered, togeather with his vnſpeakeable Iustice, and Love and Holines. Even one of the greateſt myſteries of Chriſtian Religion: which to vnfolde what toung is able, yea what heart can conceave it? And yet moſt neceſſary & moſt comfortable to be vnderſtood of all men. Namely how the Lord hath aſſigned to his ſonne in the worke of Redemptiō 2. perſonnes as it were, or countenances, or cōditions. His owne naturally, which God ever deerely loved: & our countenance, or perſon, or cōdition which he ſuſtayned by his office, which condition the Lord trulyaAs yo… Gods C… pag. 26… in deeds in word… accurſed and puniſhed. Only the ſenſe of the paine of Gods Vengeance came indeede vntounto his moſt holy nature: the Curſe the Hatred, the wrath, and iudgment of God being quenched therewith. His owne nature felt the ſorrow and paine of the Curſe and Hatred. But the Hatred & Curſe was bent againſt the load of our ſinne wherein he ſtood forth as guilty before God, and appeared as it were clothed therewith. This was Love and mercy to vsus, this was Iuſtice vponupon Chriſt having vndertaken for vsus, this was infinit power and wiſdom both wayes in God to bring it to paſſe, which no creature can comprehend: his Holynes and Love ſtill chaſtening his Redeemed ones, but laying no part of true Puniſhment or proper Vengeance for ſinne vponupon them, which Chriſt only did for them wholly ſuſtayne. Thus alſo ſeeing Chriſt indeed had no ſinne in him (as the godly have) to be corrected: neyther could be correctted & chaſticed for nothing: therefore properly he was not chaſtiſed nor corrected at all, but his Afflictions every one both ſmall and great were true and proper puniſhments, and the effects of Gods very wrath for our ſinne lying vpō him.…. 245. Som where a you ſay, Christ might ſuffer the wrath of God in his body, yea in his ſoule he might ſuffer it, and yet not the paines of the Damned, or of Hell. We grant you ſay true, Chriſt ſuffered not the paines of the damned nor of Hell vnderſtanding this for the very ſame condition & ſtate alltogeather b as the Damned are in.… you de…e it pag. …0.49.50. We abhorre ſuch blaſphemy as much as you that Chriſt ſo ſuffered Hell paines. Yea albeit I know you are far from thinking ſo, yet I ſay your words do com neerer vntounto it then ours do,…g. 15.16. as is c before noted. But I aſke, do you graunt that Chriſt ſuffered Gods wrath in Spirit, as the Apoſtle d ſomwhere diſtinguiſheth the Spirit & Soul? If you meane not thus,…. The. 5.23 then you againe vſe ſophiſtry deceaving vsus with the worde Soule. For wee meane thereby in this Queſtion onelyonly the Spirit or Minde, as it is alſo called in exact and diſtinct ſpeach. Howbeit ſpeaking vulgarly and ordinarily we calle it the Soule: Which yet ſometime is vnderſtood onelyonly for the Senſitive parts quickning the body and depending thereon. But this indeede is not it which we hauehave heere in quaeſtion. If you meane in Soule, to be properly and immediatly in his immortall Spirit, as the ordinary phraſe intendeth: and that ſo he ſuffered directly puniſhment for ſin in his Soule, & not Devotion & Piety & zealous Care only (as I doubt e you meane) then you differ not frō vsus,… obſerve …. 18. but we al agree. And thus my wordes ſhalbe true, Chriſt ſuffered a ſenſe of Gods wrath f equall to Hell it ſelfe, and all the torments thereof. For as touching Gods wrath puniſhing his Spirite, Which you … s;o blame: …. 244.247.who can ſay but that this was as hoat and skorching as Hell fire it ſelfe? Who can limit or meaſure the fury of Gods ſevere Iuſtice when he cometh in iudgment againſt ſinne, as now he did vntounto Chriſt? This therefore being well pondered, we may preceave that Chriſts ſorrow & anguiſh which he indured for ſinne, might very well be and was no doubt infinit: yea even in thoſe bodily ſtripes, woundes, and bloudſhed, whoſe paines otherwiſe were finite. His ſoule not only diſcerning ſenſitively the bodily paine & ſmart, but chiefly in the vnderſtanding he conceaved, and in his faculty of immediat ſuffering he felt the fury of that hand which principally ſtrooke thoſe blowes vponupon his Humane nature: not Pilats, nor the Iewes, who were but inſtruments, but the originall and chiefe imploying them, which was Gods Justice armed with vengeance for his ſinne (His I may call it, for he paid for it.) Now this could not but make an vnſpeakeable impreſſion of paine & ſorrowes, w^ch ſtacke in the depth of his ſoule. Who then can ſay how litle or how ſmall this was? Nay, who can declare or comprehend the infinit greatnes of it? Finally your ſelf doth grant expreſly thataPag. 2. the Wrath of God is Hell: indeed only itbIſa. 30 cauſeth Hell to be cruell. Yea you grant it to be ſharper then Hell. So that we ſee heereby how vainly you ſay,cPag. 2…. Out of this propoſition, Christ ſuffered for vsus the wrath of God for ſinne, I ſhall never conclude: Ergo he ſuffered the true paines of Hell. I have heere ſhewed you I truſt that this followeth well, ſeeing the wrath of God which Chriſt felt in his Spirit was his right and proper wrath, albeit he ſuffered not all nor the wholl wrath of God, nor Hell locally, nor every part thereof iuſt as the Damned do. Which you without all colour of reaſon or likelyhood, would make men imagine to be the queſtion betweene vsus.

YoudPag. 24 would make a Contradition in my wordes for ſayingeTreat. 1. Christ ſuffered in his wholl manhood, and afterwardfTreat. 1. Chriſt ſuffered Gods wrath properly and immediatly in his Soule. Where I ſay not as you vntruly charge me, that, He ſuffered all that he ſuffered in his whole manhood. Wherefore this is a niew contrariety. Againe, granting him to ſuffer all that he ſuffered in his wholl manhood, yet he muſt ſuffer Gods wrath (as God wrath) properly and immediatly in his Soule, in his Body mediatly and by coniunction only with his Soule. And thus my reaſongTreat. 1. there framed is yet ſtill wholly good and ſound.

Then I am charged with abſurdityes, I know not how many, nor how great. 1.hPag. 34… Becauſe I ſay,iTreat. …. pag. 17. Christ aſſumed not our nature, nor any part of it but only to ſuffer in it properly and immediatly. As if I had meant heere, that he became man not to reveale to vsus by his owne mouth his Fathers will, not to worke righteouſnes for vsus, not to quicken and ſanctify vsus, but only to ſuffer for vsus, and nothing els. Wherein who would have ſhewed himſelfe ſo vniuſt an Adverſary, & ſo vnreaſonable? Were it not reaſon and iuſt dealing to conſider whereof we diſpute, and ſo weighing the whole matter of our talke not to ſtretch and racke my words further then that. All men may ſee it to be manefeſt, thatkTreat. … pag. 16. heere I ſpeake only of Chriſts ſuffering for our redemptiō, having not one word about his other benefits which he wrought for vsus.Pag. 17. a And after ſpeaking of Chriſts Soules ſuffering, I ſhew that although there were 2 ſortes thereof, one immediat and proper, an other by Sympathy from and with the fleſh, yet Chriſt tooke our Humane Soule only to ſuffer in it properly & immediatly: that is, his maine end was not that he ſhould ſuffer in it by Sympathy from and with the body, and onelyonly ſo, which you very ſtrangely affirme. So that my meaning is no more but to exclude that which you affirme, That Christ tooke his Humane Soule to ſuffer in it only from and by his Body. This heere I denyed, and nothing els. For I grant that Chriſt intended that his Humane Soule ſhould ſuffer by Sympathy: but yet alſo this he intended not directly nor primarily in taking the 2 diſtinct partes of our Humane nature our Soule and our Body. He intended it by conſequence, becauſe Natures right ſtate was ſuch in vsus: therefore determining to be in nature like vsus, he would alſo that his Soule ſhould feele the Bodyes outward harmes, as it doth with vsus. Howbeit in compariſon of the Soules moſt principall diſpoſition, & of that which is proper to Reaſonable Creatures, he did not reſpect the inferiour part, that which is common to vsus with Beaſtes, even this ſenſitive ſuffering by Sympathy with and from the Body. I ſay in compariſon of the other Chriſt reſpected not this, yet he did reſpect this alſo, as I ſaid, ſecondarily & conſequently: that is becauſe he intended to have our nature in whole and full perfection, as we have it, only except ſinne. Now I beſeech you would any vpright adverſary obiect againſt me, that in this ſpeach I exclude Christes doing righteouſnes in his Soule for vsus &c. I appeale to all indifferent Readers. Rather hence we are to gather & to conclude, that each part in Chriſt ought to have the proper and immediat vſe as is incident to the nature thereof, aſwell in ſuffering, as it is cleere that it hath in working righteouſnes. In Chriſtes working of righteouſnes and obedience to God, his Soule had a proper and immediat part to do which it executed without the Body: as to conceave & meditate on the will of God revealed to him, to love and wholly to imbrace it, and to purpoſe the full performing of it, &c. His Body alſo had a proper and externall vſe, not onelyonly to follow the holy thoughts and purpoſes of his minde, but alſo to minister many outward occaſions, & to derive them to the minde, whereby Chriſt wrought righteouſnes compleatly, and in his whole man. That which was by cooperation and mutuall cohaerence only of one part with the other, as it was a diſtinct kinde of working in the Soule and in the body alſo, ſo it was reſpected ſecondarily, and only becauſe the true conſtitution of our nature requireth ſo: w^ch Chriſt meant wholly and perfitly to take vponupon him. Whence now we may well argue, As it was with him touching his faculty of doing righteouſnes and Obedience, ſo it was and ought to bee touching his ſuffering Gods puniſhments for vsus. There is no reaſon in the world, nor likelyhood, that the natural faculty in Chriſts Soule of proper and immediat ſuffering for our ſinnes ſhould have no vſe, and a Suffering of paines onelyonly by and from the body ſhould be ſufficient, when in his doing of righteouſnes for vsus his Soules ioint Obedience and mutually knit togeather in & with his Body was not alone ſufficient. But there was further obedience found in the Soule of Christ, even that which was proper and immediat in it, as before I ſaid. Seeing then ſuch a kind of Obedience was neceſſary for vsus in Chriſts Soule, therefore ſuch a Suffering alſo even in the ſame kinde was neceſſary likewiſe. This muſt needs be a perfit reaſon for vsus againſt you, except you could by expreſſe Scripture diſprove this proportion of like neceſſity betweene the operation of the proper faculties of Chriſtes Humane Soule, that is betweene his Doing & Suffering for vsus: which you ſhall never be able to do. And thus it appeareth I hope, that you had no cauſe ſo cruelly to rage at me for this as you do.

Nor yet for the next: where your charge me thataPag. 250. I conclude Chriſts fleſh to be needles for our redemption. A horrible Haereſie. But how do I ſay ſo much? Becauſe I ſay, His Soules ſuffering by Sympathy did not make properly to our redemption. Ergo his Fleſh was needles. I deny this ſequele: how can that follow? Touching the ſenſe of my ſpeach, you may remember how I have largly declaredbPag. 8. before that the Soules proper ſuffering is greatly and iuſtly diſtinguiſhed from the Cōmon ſuffering that is by ſympathy: And that the Soules ſuffering by Sympathy in Chriſt was intended by God, by reaſon that our naturall conſtitution doth require it ſo to be in every true and perfit man, which Chriſt alſo was. And thus it did make to our redemption, even as likewiſe his Infirmities, and Affections: as his Wearines, Hunger, Sleepe, Feare, Love, Ioy, &c. Theſe doe make to our redemption, not as intended in Chriſts incarnation principally and primarily, but ſecondarily and by conſequent; becauſe that Humane nature which God ordayned vntounto him, and intended to be perfit in him, could not otherwiſe be throughly perfit as it is in vsus; but with theſe common Affections & infirmities w^ch other mortall Creatures have to, & not Man only. Alſo in Chriſt theſe Infirmities and Affections wrought not immediatly for ſinne: but vſually for other particular cauſes and occaſions immediatly. Nevertheles they were all even for ſin in him conſequently, that is becauſe the perfection of Humane nature, which he aſſumed for ſinne, and was in every point in him, as before I noted, required ſo. Even thus likewiſe in Chriſt: I ſay his Soules ſuffering by ſympathy wrought in him immediatly & properly for ſome other particular cauſe ſtirring that faculty, that is by reaſon of the Bodily paine & ſmart, which this ſenſitive power of the Soule apprehended & felt and cauſed the fleſh alſo to feele. This ſuffering then of his Soule only by ſympathy was immediatly and properly not for our redemption from ſin, but for the ſenſitive apprehending of the ſmart, woundes, and blowes, which the Iewes gave his body: & yet as before I ſaid conſequently even this was for our ſinne alſo, namely becauſe theſe woundes were given him for our ſinne. And thus, though it made for our redemption in ſuch maner as it wrought in Chriſt becauſe of our ſinne, and as it was intended by Chriſt in taking both partes of our Nature, the Soule & the Body, yet this was not in a direct or immediat reſpect, and ſo not properly but by conſequent as I have ſhewed.

After a you charge me ſorely,Pag. 252. that I falſifie your Argument about receaving pollution from Adam. For where b I frame your reaſon as grounded on that opinion that onelyonly our fleſh is derived from Adam and not our ſoule, Treat. 1. pag. 19.Pag. 252.c you renounce it vtterly and ſay, you grounded no reaſon vponupon that difficulty: & ſo you made no ſuch argument as heere I pretend. Which whether it be true or no, I report me to them that heard you. But then, what is your reaſon now? is it any otherwiſe grounded? No certainly, if you make any reaſon at all. Who trifleth then? and why doe you vpbraid me ſo much with trifling? Let vsus ſee what is your reaſon now: Christes fleſh is as able to redeeme vsus, as Adams to condemne vsus. But we inherit pollution from Adams fleſh. Ergo. Doe we inherit pollution from Adams fleſh, and is it not by Generation? How ells do we inherit pollution & cōdemnatiō from him. If there be no otherway, why doe you then ſeeme to refuſe the difficult queſtion of our Generation, and yet vrge the ſequele thoreof? For if our ſoules ariſe in Generation from Adam as well as our fleſh, how can your reaſon be good by any poſſiblity? It is beſt therefore vtterly to omit this reaſon, which you grant hath no ground but a great difficulty & doubtfull queſtion. IaTreatiſ… pag. 21. have ſhewed herefore at large that your argument (which heere is your Minor) is nothing true: For pollution, that is, ſin & reall iniquity is not in our fleſh without a Soule. But Ambroſe ſaith, We are defiled before we hauehave life, I pray, omit mens Authorities in this caſe, & prove by ſound reaſon that which you would. Neither is it cleere, as you ſay it is, that we …heri… pollution frō Adams fleſh only. (This word only you muſt add, or els you ſay nothing againſt vsus.) Our parents Soules are in cauſe as wel as their fleſh, that ſin is derived vntounto vsus. But you draw me to talke of theſe intricat things, which I would in no wiſe meddle with. I pray, kepebpag. 10. your promiſe better, not to medle with this difficultie, neither to make it any groūd of your reaſon: which yet you do here notwithſtanding. Again you with one breath overthrow your ſelf. For you ſay, we have pollution before the Soule commeth whence ſoever it cōmeth. Yea, whence ſoever? What if the Soule doe come in & by generation? You ſee how you croſſe your ſelf, who do ſo taunt me for this fault, I hope, altogither vniuſtly. ThencPag. 25 you will diſprovedTreat. … pag. 19. my Propoſition: which is, whereby Adam first ſinned by the ſame Christ ſatisfied for ſinne. You deny this, becauſe the Scripture acknowledgeth no ſatisfaction but by death: where ſtill we muſt note that you meane only by the Bodily death. Now how proove you that? Becauſe the iudge in prohibiting Adam to tranſgreſse, threatned death: eOcn. 2.Jn the day that thou catest thereof, thou ſhalt dye the death. Which it ſeemethfPa. 100. 64. you avouch againe and againe. And are you ſure that Death heere is but the bodily death only, & no more? Then ſurely the wicked ſhould ſatisfie eaſilie for their ſinnes. Far be it from me to vtter ſuch a ſentence. Nevertheleſſe, you muſt give me leave to ſhew you alſo your contradiction in this point. Firſt in that where you acknowledge,gPag. 42. the Iudges revenge for ſinne is Death both of body and ſoule. Againe where youhPag. 18. agree with Athanaſius ſhewing expreſly that this text intendeth even both theſe: Anima dixit, Morte morieris, He ſaide to the Soule, Thou ſhalt dy the death. But you would prove your matter againe by this;Hebr. 9.15. a Through death, which was for our redemption, we receaue the promiſe: Yet he ſaith not, Through his bodily death meerely and alone, and by nothing els togeather therewith, which is your intent. He excludeth not the Soules proper ſufferings, as b I have often ſaid:Treat. 1. the contrarie heereof you never come neere to proove. And it muſt not be forgotten,Pag. 8, 9. that c heere …ou renounce all ſatisfaction for ſinne in reſpect of merit as from Chriſtes ſoule vtterly.Pag. 253. Therefore that abſurd ſpeech and worſe which you d vniuſtly caſt on me,Pa. 250. &c. proveth in very deed to be your owne: that Christes ſuffering in Soule by Sympathy makes not to our redemption. Your own place in Barnard maketh Christes whole Soule that is the Minde, and the part depending on the Body alſo, to have place and part in the meritorious ſacrifice,Pag. 84. as well as the Body. e Ʋt totum hominem ſalvum fecit, ſic de Toto ſe hostiam fecit ſalutarem. Which ſuteth not with your wordes, The Soule of Christ which could not dye, could not pay the ſatisfaction: and nothing might ſatisfie for ſinne, but death. Pag. 85, 86, 8. &c.Yea all your f other places of Contradiction herevnto muſt be taken in good part. As for your reaſon, That nothing may ſatisfie for ſinne but death, it is not ſound. The Scriptures doe ſhew in deed that Chriſt ſhould not ſatisfie without Death: but they deny not that there are other partes of Chriſtes Satisfaction, which differ from Death: As his bloudſhed, and beſides that Chriſts Povertie, his hunger, his wearines, his ſhame, his reproches, his apprehenſion, his buffeting, &c. Theſe doubtles, yea all other ſuffringes of Chriſt whatſoever, ſmall or great, are ſatisfactorie & meritorious. You will ſay, you vnderſtand all theſe and ſuch like in the Death of Chriſt. You may vnderſtand what you liſt: but who will grant in proper ſpeech that theſe are his Death, or that his death is any or all theſe. And if you take Chriſtes death by the Figure Synecdoche, a part of Chriſtes ſufferings for the whole,Pag. 41. &c. then why doe g you ſo much abhorre that Figure heere, and why may not the Soules proper ſufferings be admitted alſo into the worke of Chriſtes Satisfaction, although it can not properly dye? Where you nippe me alſo for ſaying that the Soule of Chriſt in ſome kinde of ſenſe dyed: I hope in due place you ſhall have a reaſonable anſwer to that matter. Till then have patience, I pray. And thus h you come to ſkan my Aſſumption alſo,Pag. 253. that Adam committed ſinne most properly in his Soule. Which you graunt in one ſenſe is true, but directly repugnant to my Concluſion. How I pray?bPag. 25 If I meane that Adams Soule tranſgreſſed the Cōmandement with her body and by her body, that is, the Soule as agent, the Body as the Instrument, thē the concluſion will follow in ſpite of my heart, Ergo in ſatisfiing for ſinne Christs Soule must be puniſhed with her body and by her body: which is the thing I labour to overthrow with all the wits I have. Nay, then the Concluſion will follow that the immortall part the Minde was puniſhed peculiarly, and not by and from the Body onelyonly: ſeeing in all even outward ſinnes the Soule ſinneth, both principally, and alſo in a proper and peculiar maner by it ſelfe, yea before the body ſinneth. Albeit the Body ſinneth alſo ſecōdarily, and in a maner proper to it ſelfe: even as the Inſtrument, as you ſay. Yea further I meane that ſome ſinnes the Soule acteth in and by it ſelfe meerely: and therefore it ſuffereth likewiſe ſome puniſhments meerely in it ſelfe, which touch not the Body at all, vnleſſe by Sympathy only, and that only when they grow vehement. But all this you heere deny:Very ſtran… doctrine. teaching that the Soule properly committeth no ſinne but by and with the body: that is, the Soule in it ſelf & by it ſelfe alone ſinneth not. And ſo conſequently that God temporally and eternally punniſheth the Soule only by the Body. This is the true effect of your diſcourſe heere. For proofe of the firſt you ſay,cPag. 25 God did not ſay to Adam, thou ſhalt not like dThe ſo… den frui…it, or deſire it which the Soule of Adam did, but thou ſhalt not eat thereof, which could not be performed but by the hand and mouth of Adam. And therefore Adam tranſgreſſed the Commandment not by his Soule, but by his Body, even as in murder, theft, and adultery: theſe factes men commit by their Bodies and not by their Soules. And after, All provocations and pleaſures of ſinnes the Soule taketh from her 'Body: all actes of ſinne ſhe committeth by her body. Both which ſpeeches are exceeding vntrue and hurtfull. For even in theſe ſinnes the Soule as I ſaid ſinneth principally and peculiarly before that the Body ſinneth at all. Yea the Deſiring and Liking of evell is ſinne, before the outward Act is cōſummat and finiſhed. This PauleRom. … vnderſtood at length when he became a Chriſtian, though a long while being a Phariſee, he knew it not. And it ſeemeth, this was in Chriſts time the Haereſie of the Phariſees: againſt whom he ſheweth, that not only the outward fact of Bodily ſinne was ſinne, but alſoa…at. 5.22.28 even the very thoughts and liking towards ſinne. Wherefore Adam was as well forbidden to deſire or like that fruit, as to eat it, which you deny. The Commandement was naturally ingraven in Adams hearte in his Creation. Which ſince, Moſes maketh diſtinct and diverſe from all the reſt, which concerne the outward acte. Therefore diſtinctly he ſaith, Thou ſhalt not deſire or covet. So that to deſire the forbidden fruit was ſinne, even without and before the acte of eating. Moreover other foule ſinnes, Haereſies, Turciſme, and Atheiſme are committed and determined ſimply in the minde, without any neceſſary imployment of any partes of the Body. As touching Haereſies, to hold Two first cauſes of thinges a Good and a Bad, God and the Divell with Manichee: alſo that Christ the Redeemer was not God with Arrius: that the Holy Ghoſt is not God with Eunomius &c: that Christ had no Soul with Apollinaris: that Chriſtes Manhood was confounded and changed into his Godhead with Eutyches, or divided from his Godhead with Neſtorius: or the opinion of Vbiquity or of Tranſubstantiation. Finally that there never was nor ſhalbe any Christ a Redeemer as the Turkes hold, that there is no God as the Atheiſts. Nowe are there not many provocations to hatch and to conclude theſe opinions meerely in the minde & ſoule of man? Are there not many pleaſures even in theſe impieties meerely in the minde? Yea it is evident to all that the meere Thoughts, the Vnderſtanding & determination of the only Soule of man doth act them & reſolveth on them in it ſelf, without any concurrence or cooperation of the body therein. Happily you will ſay, The Soule takes occaſion ſo to thinke by ſome outward bodily thinges before ſeene or heard. I deny not but the Soule taketh occaſion to thinke many things by the bodily ſenſes. How be it not all thinges ſimply. And ſo are the Fathersb…prian and … 10. in your …g. 255. heere to be vnderſtood. If any will ſtumble on that of Ariſtotle, Nihil est in intellectû quod non fuit prius in ſenſu, it is not abſolutly nor vniverſally true. My reaſon is, becauſe Philoſophers thought the minde to be as it were Tabula abraſa when we come into the world firſt. They knew not the naturall Pride, the impietie, and perverſity of mans ſoule, which may yeeld many and ſundry Thoughts and Determinations to ſinne, yea provocations and pleaſures in ſin which the Body miniſtreth not, neither could the Heathen vnderſtand them. And to ſay that this pride, impiety, and perverſitie was taken by contagion from the meere fleſh originally in Generation, is not to be proved. Bud yet were that ſo, notwithſtanding the Soule afterward can acte many ſinnes meerely in it ſelfe and without the cooperation of the body. Further, as the Angells ſinned in the beginning by their meere ſpirituall conceit againſt God, ſo nothing letteth but that man in his Angell-like nature (the reaſonable Soule) may ſinne likewiſe without any Bodily meanes therevnto. Alſo, as we can thinke well without vſing our body, God ſo inſpiring vsus: ſo may we thinke ill (which is ſinne) our owne inborne corrupt vnderſtanding and reaſon and will moving vsus only. Moreover if I grant you this point of Heathē Philoſophy, that the Soule taketh occaſion to thinke all thinges which ſhe thinketh vniverſally from the body & bodily obiectes: yet it followeth not that ſhe taketh occaſion to misthinke from thence alwayes. The proper provocations and pleaſures of ſinne are oftentimes not outward at all: but the meere perverſitie and malignity of our evill minde is vſually the very cauſe of ill thoughts & ill determinations. I grant alſo that the occaſion is often taken frō the outward ſenſes. But it is meerely taken, not given: taken by the corrupt and perverſe minde, not given by the ſenſes. Which though they be alſo otherwiſe corrupt, yet ſimply in ſeeing naturall things they ſinne not, nor yet in hearing, nor in taſting, ſave as the minde which is properly, and principally, and firſt ſinfull, abuſeth their operation. And as touching thoſe wretchedaHaeret… Turkes theiſts. men & opinions before rehearſed, doubtles their preſumptuous and perverſe wit only ſo reaſoning and concluding falſly without any other proper inducementes frō without, was the very cauſe of thoſe ſpirituall impieties in many impes of Sathan. Wherefore for you to affirme that the Soule committeth all acts of ſinne by the body, & that God did not forbid Adam to like or deſire that fruit, is more then ſtrange doctrine. Somewhere moſt iniuriouſlybPag. 3… you reproch purity: I dare ſay heere you have no colour of purity in this point. NotwithſtandingcPag. 2… you reſolutly ſet your ſelf to prove your opinion, not by Scripture, but by Fathers: who are anſwered before, ſaving Tertullian, whodPag. 2… you ſay pointeth to a place of Scripture for it:eMat. … out of the heart come evill thoughts. But this place being conſidered will rather prove the contrary. For Chriſt heere meaneth not by Heart any parte of the Body, but meerely the Minde or Soule of man, and that with oppoſition to the body in this caſe of ſinning. For thus in effect hee ſaith, Not the Body ſinneth by taking in, but the Soule by ſending out. That is to ſay, The Soule only ſinneth properly, & not the body at all no not in groſſe facts, except as the body is the Inſtrument, the Soule being the Agent, as your ſelfe doe ſpeake. Otherwiſe the body ſinneth not at all, much leſſe in ſuch thoughts as are meere ſpirituall, vnles wee meane by ſociety, & for coniunctions ſake in one perſon with the Soule, w^ch indeed is it that ſinneth. And thus ſome have thought, thoſe places of Tertullian whicha…ag. 255. you cite may be vnderſtood. But indeed Tertullian you vſe not well, and bring theſe his wordes againſt his own meaning, as anon we ſhall further ſee. That which you ad of Bodily infirmities letting the operation of the Soule (for ſo I thinke you meane) as in Lethargies,… 256. Apoplexies, Sleepe, Phrenſy, &c. Peradventure, then it thinketh and cōſidereth more freely in it ſelfe and by it ſelfe, then when the body ſetteth it on worke otherwiſe at other times. Howſoever, it can never be proved that the Soule then vtterly ceaſeth operation, and can do nothing: for it ſeemeth that only our memory and ſenſitive faculties are ſtopped, whereby it commeth to paſſe that we know nothing afterwards what the minde contemplateth and thinketh in ſuch caſes. It is very rare when we remember ſomething, and by ſome extraordinary looſing of thoſe obſtructions it is, which commonly doe poſſeſſe our ſenſes wholy in ſuch occaſions. Yet even thoſe ſmall remnants of ſuch operations of our Soule beeing in ſuch ſtate, doe evidently convince that the Soules operations hang not neceſſarily on the body, neither is it idle when the body is hindred, though commonly and for the moſt part we remember litle thereof. Laſtly, if the Soules operations were ſo neceſſarily tyed to the faculties and inſtrumentes of the body as you doe avouch, I greatly doubt howe the Soules immortalitie will bee defended againſt the effect of your aſſertion.…oul hath …ion nor meere… …mply in … without …dy. 54.255 Surely it bringeth in with it the Haereſie of Pope Iohn the 22. and of certaine Anabaptiſtes, that the Soule hath no being till when it ſhall reſume hir body at the laſt day. And hence alſo it is that you ſay, Gods iustice puniſheth the ſoule (only) by the body, that is, not till the Reſurrection. This (only) the effect of you ſpeach contayneth plainly and fully. Yea in truth thus you muſt needs affirme and hold: you can not avoid it, if you will hold vour maine Queſtion. Only except you deny that Chriſte had a Humane Soule perfit in all the powers and facultyes thereof, like ours: or els that God did not properly puniſh Chriſt for our ſinnes. Of neceſſitie you muſt fall into one of theſe dangerous evills, for ought that I yet ſee. Wherefore this point is notaPag … ſo eaſie nor ſo evident to the ſimple as you pretend: and I thinke you had neede of better reaſons then hitherto I ſee any you have, before the Godly and Learned will beleeve you. The rather for that in deed heere you committ further 2. grievous faultes. 1. Tertullian your owne authour, & the principall ground which you have for your opinion heere, is wonderfully ill vſed. 2. You are ſtrangely contrary to your ſelfe in your very winding vp of the matter. As for Tertullian, he reſolveth directly contrary to the wordes whichbDe R… carn. c… Animas … torquers … rique pe… …ros &c you cite from him. Saith he, The example of Lazarus in the Gospell proveth that Mens Soules though alone and without their bodyes, are puniſhed, and comforted, in the world of the dead. The Soule ſhall lacke the revniting of the fleſh with it, not for that it can not feele any thing without the fleſh, but for that it muſt needes heereafter feele alſo with the fleſh. For as much as it ſufficeth by it ſelfe to doe ſomewhat, ſo much, or ſo farre alſo it ſufficeth to ſuffer. It ſufficeth indeed to doe leſſe by it ſelfe. For it is able of it ſelfe only, to Thinke, to Will, to Deſire, to Dispoſe: but to accompliſh, it looketh for the vſe of the body. So therefore it alſo looketh for the ſocietie of the body, that by it the Soule may aſwell ſuffer abſolutely, as without it ſhe could not doe things compleatly. And therefore for what actions it ſufficed by it ſelfe, the iudgement of the ſame it receaveth (now) that is, Of the Deſire, of the Thoughtes, of the Will, that it had. Thus Tertullian directly anſwereth to thatcPag. … Concluſion anddPag. 2… reaſons which you gather out of him, proving contrarie to the ſame that the Soule now without the fleſh receaveth iudgement for ſuch actions as of it ſelfe it was ſufficient to doe: and it is ſufficient to doe certaine actions of it ſelfe, as To thinke, to Will, to Deſire, to Order, and dispoſe things; but to accompliſh, it is not able (namely outward actions) the iudgment of which actions indeed the Soule ſhall tary for till the revniting againe of the fleſh therewith. It ſeemeth that Tertullian cited before the reaſons of theeSuch a fore not … Pope L… Heret…kes, holding that the Soules ſlept till the laſt iudgement, and receaved no reward at all in the meane time, for want of the ſocietie of their fleſh, which till then lieth rotten in the Grave: but heere Tertullian anſwereth and renounceth all this ſame.…s after…ard. & the …nhapilies, … now …. And ſo thoſe were the Heretikes wordes againſt Tertullian, which you alleage out of him in ſteed of Catholike. Which dealing what it is, I leave to be conſidered. Next your owne contradictorie dealing in this place, is alſo not to be forgotten. For your ſelfe ſhutteth vp with an excellent reaſon againſt your ſelf, almoſt the ſame that I obſerved preſently before in Tertullian againſt your collection. Thus you ſay,aPag. 257. Doe I denie then that the Soule hath any ſufferings in this life and the next, which come not by the body? By no meanes. The Soule hath ſome proper puniſhments in this life, as ſorrowe and feare when the body hath no hurt, from which Christ was not free, as appeareth by his Agonie: and ſo in the next the Soules of the wicked have griefe & remorſe, beſides the paine of fire, &c. Yes ſurely: I ſuppoſe you denied before the Soules puniſhment without the Body. But now you ſeeme to graunt it. And ſeeing you graunt alſo, thatbPag. 25…. nothing is more proportionable to Gods iuſtice, thē to retayne the ſame order in puniſhing which they kept in offending. Therefore it foloweth by your owne words, that the wicked ſomtimes ſinned meerely in and by their Soules, and not onelyonly togeather with and by their Bodies: ſeeing they are puniſhed ſimply in and by their ſoules, and not onelyonly with and by their bodyes. Alſo, how ſound this is, I wot notcPag. 257. where you yeeld ſome puniſhment now to the Damned: how beit none other reall and poſitive puniſhment but remorſe and remembrance of ſinne onelyonly, as it ſeemeth, Againe in ſaying that Christ was not free from ſome proper puniſhments to the ſoule, as Sorrow and Feare in his agonie: if you meane as you ſpeak, that theſe were proper puniſhmentes inflicted on him by Gods very Wrath, (and not to be onelyonly his holy affections Devotion to God, and compaſſion to men, which yetd…eſ…o…e …g. 18. I feare is your meaning) then it foloweth evidently from your own words, that Chriſt ſuffered proper puniſhment in his Soule from the verie wrath of God, more then the Bodily ſufferings only on by Sympathy in the Soule which in a word is the graūting of our whol queſtion. All the reſt that you adde out of the Fathers, touching Hell and Hell paines, is to no purpoſe. Ife…. 258.259 you cite them to proove that Chriſt had no naturall feare of Death and Hell, youf…g. 22… gainſay that your ſelfe further then we doe, or then the trueth is.

ThenaPag. you come to my other Reaſons which I called Speciall, not for more excellency in them then in the other, except onelyonly that I take theſe to bee not ſo Generall as the former, but more neerely to touch our Quaeſtion. Which you might perceave well enough to have ben my meaning, by the expreſſe Oppoſition thatbTreat pag. 3. I make of Generall and Speciall. But it appeareth you had rather take my wordes ſo as that you may make them to ſerve your vnſeemely ieſting and better inveying humour: which yet in the end will helpe your cauſe but little.

Againſt b my 1. Reaſon out of I ſay, that Chriſt ſuffered thoſe paines and ſorrowes for ſinne which els we ſhould have borne: you except that I expreſſe not whether I meane All or Some. I anſwer, All and every whit I meane ſo far as poſſibllity will admit: and namely as touching the very ſorrowes and paine. Nothing was abated in the nature and vehemency of the paine which hee ſuffered, any more then is abated in the paine and ſorrows of the Damned. This the very text heere expreſſeth with greatcWhich faint int… tations … 261. do… fully … vntounto. emphaſis,dIſa. 53 Hee ſuſteyned our very ſorrows, or our ſorrowes themſelves. And this we conclude the rather, becauſe the ſenſe of paines and ſorrowseHeb. 2… only was the Ranſom ordayned and conſecrated by God in Chriſt, that by them his ſufferings ſhould be accompliſhed, & our ſinnes ſatisfied. Whatſoever therefore in this life might be painfull & was due to mankind generally for ſin, & in it owne nature was no ſin, that Chriſt ſuffered wholly and alltogeather for vsus, even the ſame which els we ſhould. Which is your ownfpa. 28… plaine confeſſion alſo. I grant indeed it vtterly impoſſible that he who was vncapable of ſinne, yea God himſelfe, ſhould be really ſeparated from God, or Hated, or weakened in faith, or puniſhed externally. Yet it was poſſible that even he on whom our ſinne was laid ſhould feele both properly in Soule, and alſo in Body all the whole vehemency of our due paine, and the ſharpenes of our ſmart. Paine, affliction, & ſorrow is not ſinne be it ſmall or great: it is indeed properly and originally the Puniſhment of ſinne either in vsus or in others. Chriſte ſuffered Puniſhment for ſinne not in himſelfe, as others do, but by Gods ordinance he ſuffered puniſhment extraordinarily for ſinne in vsus. When God ſmot him, it was poſſible for him to feele it, yea vnpoſſible it was that he ſhould not feele it, and of neceſſitie his Soule peculiarly, properly, & infinitly did feele the ſtroke of Gods wrathful iuſtice. The vehemency whereof may wound and pierce no leſſe even in this life where God will, then in the locall Hell it ſelfe. All theſe our due ſorrowes therefore, and all this our ſharpeſt deſerved paine, even Gods owne immediat hand ſmiting the Soule for ſinne, (which far exceedeth and comprehendeth as it were all other paine) Chriſt without any diſpenſation or qualification whatſoever, indured for vsus. This is that which we ſay: and thus Ierom alſo expoundeth this very text:…trom. in … 53. Saith hee a Quod nos pro nostris debebamus ſceleribus ſustinere ille pro nobis' paſſus est. Turne nowe your vaine and frivolous inſultation againſt Ierom for his indefinit ſpeech, to whom it pertayneth in this caſe aſwell as to me,Pag. 26…. if you be not a reſpecter of perſons. Say to him, b You may do well (S^t Ierom) to go to the Ʋniverſitie againe, whence you came afore you were wiſe, and there learne to put quantity to your propoſitions, that we may know when you ſpeak of any thing whether you meane All or Some. But Jerom would be wiſe enough to anſwer you (if he were alive) that (wherſoever he ſtudied) he knew ſo much, that in learning and reaſon an indefinit propoſition is to be taken as Vniverſall in a neceſſary matter,… ſpecial… Satisfying Gods vn…all Iuſtice …. * as the vndertaking of a Surety is in his ſtead whom he is ſurety for: and yet namely but ſo far as knowen poſſibility admitteth, and indeed no further. Now this is apparant in this caſe of Chriſtes ſuretyſhip and ſuffering in our ſteed: Hee ſuffered all the whole puniſhent of ſinne due to mankinde, whatſoever was poſſible for him being a ſinles man, & alſo very God, to ſuffer. And further then this none will imagin or thinke that any (vnles mad men) do affirme. You charge me… c heereafter that I falſify this place of Ierom,…. 350. …reat. 1. …. 85. Curſe. … I put it …hus (Ma…ctum) … a pa…ntheſis. …nod enim. …al. 3.13. becauſe d I did put in e maledictum with his wordes. Which is a ſilly deviſe to turne of Jerom without anſwer. For by it I expreſſe Ieroms meaning: f his words have plaine reference to Maledictum in the g Apoſtle, whō he cited immediatly before. This is thē none other but an honeſt falſifying of mine Authour. Now that this place of Iſay, and the whole doctrine w^ch I avovch touching theſe ſufferinges of Chriſt for vsus, may the better be receaved, let vsus note that the publike doctrine appointed by h Authority to be taught through our England expreſſeth the very ſame.Which Au…tie I have …ged & ex…ſed Treat. … 88.89. …he anſwereth to i… a word. Namely Nowells Catechiſme, where it is thus taught. He paid and ſuffered the paine due to vsus, and by this meanes delivered vsus from the ſame. Neither is it vnvſed among mē, …ne to promiſe, and to be ſurety, yea ſometime to ſuffer for an other. But with Chriſte as our Surety ſo ſuffering for vsus, God dealt as it were with extremity of law: but to vsus whoſe ſinnes, deſerved puniſhments, & due paines he laid on Christ, he vſed ſingular lenity, gentlenes, clemency, and mercy. Chriſt therefore ſuffered, and in ſuffering overcame death, the paine appointed by the everliving God for mens offenſe. Againe, His will was to ſuffer All extremitie for vsus, who had deſerved all extremitie. All theſe things being taken vponupon himſelfe he destroyed them all. Where marke alſo what doctrine the Law of this Realme conſonantly publiſheth and commandeth in the Homilies of Chriſts Paſſion. See whether it miſliketh yours, or no. ThebHom. …. Hom: maketh Christs putting himſelfe betweene Gods deſerved Wrath and our ſinne the extreameſt part of his Paſſion. If this were the extreameſt part of his Paſſion, then it was a further feeling then the ſenſe of Bodily paine only, it cannot be any other then his feeling of Gods proper Wrath ſpiritually, which our ſinne deſerved. Therefore by the Homily hee felt Gods proper Wrath ſpiritually which our ſinne deſerved. Againe, he bare All our ſinnes, ſores and infirmities vponupon his owne backe. No paine did he refuſe to ſuffer in his owne body. But as he felt All this in his Body, ſo hee muſt feele the greateſt part primarily and much more deeply in his Soule. Ergo hee refuſed not to ſuffer All the paines of the Wrath of God both in Body and Soule.cHom. … Hee tooke vponupon him the reward of our ſinnes, the iuſt reward of ſinne. But this ſame Homily ſaith, The reward of our ſin was the iust wrath and indignation of God, the death both of Body and Soule. Therefore by the Homily, Chriſt tooke on him for vsus the iuſt wrath & indignation of God, the death both of body & ſoule. And thus alſo*1. Treat. pag. 34. my text of Scripture is iuſtified, Thatd2. Tim. … Christ gave himſelfe the price of redemption for vsus, which we els ſhould have paid. WhereePa. 261. you except againſt this text in Timoth: that I ſay, The Scripture ſpeaketh heere after the common vſe & cuſtom of redeeming captives taken in warre: whē a captive being not able, ſom other friend payeth Antilytron the ſame price for the captive which els he ſhould. You aske, who told me that the Scripture ſpeaketh after the common vſe of enemies? I anſwer, The nature of the word Antilytron a Ranſom importeth ſo much, which is properly vſed in ſuch caſes. Where alſo youfPa. 261.… ſeeme to inferre, that I forſooth doe hold with your opinion that a Chriſt paid the price of our Redemption (properly) to the Divell,Pag. 261, …62. and not to God. For this is it that heere you meane: & this, though now in print you deliver it nothing ſo largly and emphatically as you preached it, yet this ſtill in effect you maintaine in certain b words out of Ambroſe, which is paſſing ſtrange to heare: But how do I ioyne to your opinion heerein?Pag. 68. 69. becauſe I vrge that the enemy muſt hauehave a price for his Captive. I pray, who is that ennemy which muſt bee ſatisfied? The Divell? GOD forbid. Though I ſee that c you over earneſtly do thus profeſſe:Pag. 68. Treat. 1. …ag. 45. …at. 5.25. yet God knoweth it is far from d my heart ſo to thinke. Gods Iuſtice only is that e offended enemy, to whō our Ranſom was paid: it was not paid to the Divell who was but Gods ſlave & executioner. Againſt which what reaſon have you? Surely not the ſhaddow of any. As for the names of Ambroſe or Austin they are of no waight to warrant ſuch a doctrine as thoſe words pretend. And I am out of doubt that the Fathers in following an Allegory, do but play with the Figure, as there vſe is oftentimes: they ſpeak not exactly heere as meaning indeed to teach ſuch a doctrine. Or if they did, then we are to learne by their good leaves how to ſpeake and thinke more wholeſomly (then they do) out of the Scripture. If they or an Angell from Heaven ſhould teach ſo in earneſt as they pretend, we ought to forſake them. As for the point whether it draw any thing neere to Manichiſme or no, let other iudge. Then f you would ſhew that this ſimilitude of a Captives paying his Ranſom by his friend,…ag. 262. is not like to Chriſtes Redeeming vsus: becauſe Captives themſelves are appointed to perpetuall impriſonment or ſervitude vnles a ſufficient Ranſom be paid for them, and then the Ranſomer is not bound to be priſoner himſelfe for them, but ſatisfieth the enemy in money or otherwiſe. Wherein verily you fit this ſimilitude to my deſire further then my ſelfe at firſt did expreſſe. For thus wee may now plainly ſee how it is poſſible that Chriſt our Ranſomer might pay that whole price for vsus which we els ſhould have paid but could never diſcharge: and yet that hee neede not in ſuch Redeeming of vsus enter into our whole condition abſolutly & to become a perpetuall priſonner in our ſteed, ſeeing we ſee that this is not exacted by enemies for their Captives at the Ranſomers hand.Wherein on…y this ſimili…ude may, & …oth ſtand. Only that *price of money w^ch the Captive ſhould but cannot pay, the very ſame is paid by the Rāſomer: and it obtayneth.

Then you let drive at my a Reaſon out of the Apoſtle:aGal. 3. Christ redeemed vsus from the Curſe of the Lawe, being made a Curſe for vsus. Becauſe I ſay, What Curſe can this be meant but the Curſe of the Law, that is even Gods Curſe againſt ſinne, whereof the Apoſtle hath altogeather ſpoken heere before. Yea therefore indeed I demand againe, what reaſon or likelyhoood is there by the text to take this Curſe to be in nature an other from the former, both being ſo cloſely and ioyntly mentioned togeather?bPag. 26…. 263. You make a very maine difference betweene them, by comparing this Curſe laid on Chriſt w^th thoſe Curſes wherewith God ſomtimes is ſaid to Curſe his ſenſeles Creatures for wicked mens ſake. But this is verily far fetcht, it is altogeather another thing, very incomparable to the Curſe w^ch Chriſt ſuffered. This is a moſt improper curſe, not felt at all by the things accurſed: yet called a Curſe by ſimilitude only, as the image of a man is called a man. There is no colour to make the Curſe which Chriſte ſuffered for our ſinnes like to the Curſe which ſenſeles creatures doe ſometimes beare for mans cauſe. But you make a reaſoncPag. 27. to prove Moſes particular Curſe indDeut. 2. Deuteron: Curſed is he that is hanged, (which Paul alſo applyeth to his purpoſe ſaying, Christ was made a Curſe for vsus to redeeme vsus from the Curſe of the Law,) to be not all one with this Curſe of the Law in Paul. Neither yet did I, neither do I ſay, that it was all one. This I ſaid and ſay ſtill, that they are both of one & the ſame nature: that is true and proper Curſes of God, not any improper Curse, nor onelyonly eſteemed a Curſe by men. One was the whole, the other a part: but both of them the true & proper Curſes of God. To vnderſtand this more plainly, Paul ſaith not as you affirme, that Chriſt was made that Curſe, only, that Iudiciall Curſe whereof only Moſes ſpeaketh: Paul doth not vnderſtand it in the ſame meaſure that Moſes mentioneth and no further. But this hee doeth; handling before generally Gods Curſe and the puniſhment of the Law againſt ſinne, and ſhewing that we are redeemed from it by Chriſts being made the ſame for vsus, he confirmeth it by applying Moſes Iudiciall puniſhment againſt certaine tranſgreſſours (eAs o… who v… execu… other … ments … Law, … not. beeing it ſeemeth a Figure of Chriſt heerein,) That all they were accurſed, which were hanged: that is they which were hanged by the iuſt ſentence of the law, they were heerein Accurſed, that is they heerein ſuſtayned the Lawes true and deſerved puniſhment. Now by applying this text of Moſes in this ſenſe, & in this reſpect, to Chriſtes being made the Curſe of God for vsus, it is well confirmed to be in nature and veritie the true and proper Curſe of the Lawe which Chriſt was made for vsus: for ſuch alſo indeed was the nature of that Iudiciall Curſe of Moſes, though but a part of the whole. And ſo as before I ſaid the Apoſtle applying that which was but a parte, he may ſoundly and well ſhew what was the nature of that Curſe in Chriſt, though in him it were the whole. For a parte and the whole of any thing differ not in nature, but in quantitie. Now vnderſtand a Chryſostome thus,…a. 94. 274. …ag. 11. &c. as b before we have diſtinguiſhed the puniſhment of Chriſt and of the Damned, and then we differ not. Where he ſaieth they were divers Curſes in Chriſt & in the Damned, take him to ſignifie divers maners of one and the ſame Curſe in Nature, or Chriſtes Death and Moſes Iudiciall hanging on the tree, to be only divers degrees, or meaſures of one & the ſame Curſe in nature, & ſo he ſaith the ſame altogeather that we do. For theſe in their proper nature be all one, that is proper Puniſhments from God for ſin, yet either in the meaſure & degree, or in the maner & condition of their ſuffering, they are very divers & exceeding far a ſunder.…g. 268. Austin on whom d you triumph, is ſtretched beyond his meaning. He dealeth againſt a Manichee who denyed that Chriſt had true Humane fleſh:… likewiſe …l the reſt …ur Fathers …ken for …oſt part. … ſayings …ther a… the Ma…es, or the …s, &c. … ſtrove …bout our …ion. w^ch yet notwithſtanding is manefeſt, becauſe Chriſt truly dyed. Now he proveth that Chriſt truly dyed, becauſe the Apoſtle ſaith, He was made a Curſe for vsus in that he hanged on the tree. And where it is ſaid Curſed is every one that hangeth on the tree, this was ſaith he to ſhew that Christ was not exempted, but was like other men truly accurſed and truly dead. So that his meaning is not to ſhew that Chriſtes whole Curſe and his bodily death were iuſt all one without any differēce, which you vrge him for: nay he hath no ſuch meaning. Only he proveth by this that he being made truly a Curſe, did alſo truly Dy, which the Manichee denyed. For in ſaying, Chriſt was dead, & accurſed for vsus, is the ſame, he meaneth it is the ſame for his purpoſe, the one very well proveth the other: but not that they were ſimply all one. The reſt of e your Fathers are alltogeather idly cited:…. 95. no man denyeth that which they ſay.

Where f you miſlike me for ſaying,…. 26…. …at. 1. …. 38. g The Curſe laid vponupon Chriſt was not onelyonly the ignominie of his death, & the ſhame of the world: you have nothing againſt it, but much for it. Austin whom you boaſt of is againſt you in this, ſaying:aPag. … Christ heere tooke on him our puniſhment without ſinne. But our puniſhment, which is without ſinne, doubtles was a great deale more then only the diſhonour and ſhame of the world. Austin therefore is manifeſtly againſt you in this: yea alſobPag. 2 your owne ſelfe is in ſaying likewiſe. Austin and Chryſostome, andcPag. 9 other doe ſay that Chriſt ſuffered this ignominie: but that this was all or the whole Curſe which hee ſuffered, I ſee none that affirmeth. Your many Scriptures indPag. 2 this place, what doe they? Forſooth they prove that it is light at Midday. For who ever made quaeſtion, but that ſhame and reproch in their ſimple Nature, were a parte of the true Curſe of God? Yet all this ſheweth not that Shame was the whole Curſe which Chriſt indured.ePag. 2… You miſlike thatfTreat. pag. 45. I ſaid Chriſtes dying ſimply, gThat is Chriſt ha… ed ſimply which in … he did no…as the godly dy, may in no ſort be called a Curſe or Accurſed: Becauſe as I affirme alſo,hPag. 44. Death to the godly is no Curſe properly nor puniſhment of ſinne, but a benefit and advantage. Nay, therefore Chriſtes Death was properly a Curſe, becauſe his Death wasiAs befo… Pag. 11. 49, 59, 5 not like theirs. You ſay, I am too young a Doctor to controll St Auſtin herein. And I ſay, you are a Doctor not old enough to prove Austin kYour ſelf teth him … me herein 49. Corp mors b… bona, m… mala.contrary to me in this point. Death in it owne nature and in the originall propertie of it, is a part of the Curſe, and ſo Chriſt ſuffered it: but in the Godly it is not properly a Curſe, nor the proper puniſhment or revenge of ſinne, which Chriſt once & alone hath wholely ſuſtayned and cleane freed vsus of for ever. ThislPag. 90. your ſelfe (as well asmPag. 43 I) can tell, ſaying: The vengeance of the Lawe once executed on our Surety, can no more in Gods iustice be executed on vsus. And this ournNowell techiſ. H… ſuffered … der, &c. publike doctrine in England ſet forth by Maſſter Nowell confirmeth: By Christes death it is come to paſſe that to the faith full Death is now not a Destruction, but as it were a removing and changing of life, and a very ſhort and ſure paſſage to heaven. Who alſo inoHis ſhe Catechiſ… An. 157 another place expreſſeth it thus, Death of the body, which without Christ was the gate to Hell, is nowe by Christ made to all that beleeve in him the gate and paſſage to Heaven: So that death which before was a Puniſhment, is now by Christ become a vantage. Wherein you are notably contradicted, who doe callpPag. 15… 216. Death in the godly, the gate of Hell: a ſtrange and moſt vntrue tranſlation. Againe, you areqPag. 268 269. gainſaide in this place, where you reprove me for affirming, that Death to the godly and faithfull is a benefitt and advantage. Then you ſay, If I will reaſon what death is in it ſelfe, I must reſolve it to be a part of Gods Curſe. Which is no anſwer. For our quaeſtion is not, what death is in it ſelfe. Who ever denied it to be in it ſelfe, as you ſay, a part of Gods Curſe for ſinne: but my expreſſe wordes are, Death to the godly is no Curſe properly, but a vantage. Pag. 270.Where a you adde, If Death were a gaine to the godly, as I would have it, by what meanes, I pray you, came it ſo to be? If you know not, why did you not marke better the publike Catechiſme before rehearſed, where all England is taught that it came by meanes of the death and reſurrection of Chriſt. You ſay, Jf by the reſurrection of Christ conquering Death and changing the nature of it, then till Christ was riſon, Death was a puniſhment to the faithfull themſelves. I wonder what meaning there is in this argument. As well you may ſay, There were none ſaved til Chriſt was riſen. For ſalvation alſo and forgivenes of ſinnes to all men, came only by the death and reſurrection of Ieſus Chriſt. So that thus, till Chriſt came in the fleſh, none of the holy Patriarkes, Abraham, David, and the reſt, obtayned eternall life. And what became of them then? But I am perſwaded, that Abraham, David, and all the Prophetes dying before Chriſt was exhibited in the fleſh, yet by their faith in Gods ſure ordinance and promiſe, they had and enioyed Chriſt truely incarnat, ſlaine, and riſen againe: and this to them was as effectuall then, as it is now to vsus ſince the actual performance of theſe things. Whereby even as we by faith, ſo they by the ſame faith (differing onelyonly in the circumſtance of time) were truely and throughly ſaved. Likewiſe to the faithfull then, by the efficacie of their holy faith, Death was properly no puniſhment but a gaine, even as to vsus nowe it is. Further, b you except againſt me touching innocentes and Martyrs executions,Pag. 175. who c I ſay, are most bleſſed. Treat. 1. Pag. 38.You reply, Their Martyrdomes are ſhamefull deaths, and that is a kinde of Corporall Curſe. A kinde of Curſe? Who denyeth that? We know all ſhame & affliction to all men is a kinde of Curſe. But neither ſhame nor Death to the holy Martyrs are d accounted by God nor by his ſervauntes as proper and true Curſes, Before pag. 9. 50.but the holy men are in trueth moſt glorious and bleſſed in them. Againe, the Saints and Martyrs can not bee properly Curſed and properly Bleſſed too, in any meaſure. Neither their Soules bleſſed, vnles their bodyes be bleſſed alſo, & free from the true Curſe: although you ſeeme to denie this point. Which ſtrange and vncouth aſſertiō, both heere and in many places mo, you doe at leaſt inſinuat: that is, that the godly in their Soules are bleſſed, but in their bodyes they ſtill retaine Gods true & proper Curſe, till the reſurrection. Which I leave to the conſideration of the godly. You ſay, We must call things by thoſe Names which God first allotted them. That I deny, If God ſince evidently have altered them, and diſpoſed of them otherwiſe. But he hath ſo don in this caſe. The afflictions and death which originally and naturally were puniſhments for ſinne, and are ſo ſtill to the wicked, the ſame to the godly (as I have often ſaid) are ſince changed, & now are properly Chaſtiſements of ſinne, and not Puniſhmentes nor Curſes. Only Chriſt hath ſuffered the whole proper puniſhment, and true Curſe or Vengeance of our ſinnes: and therefore on vsus it is not, it can not be laid againe in any part thereof. YouaPag. 96. avouch ſome that denie Chriſt to have bene made a Curſe or ſinne. But you muſt rememberbPag. 92. your owne place of Austin Maledictum est omne peccatum, ſive ipſum quod fit, ſive ipſum ſupplicium: The Curſe is all ſinne, which is twofold, either that which we commit againſt Gods law, or els the very Puniſhment of that ſinne. NowecPag. 96. your teſtimonies do meane, Chriſt was not made a Curſe, or ſin the firſt way, that is, he was not in him ſelfe ſinfull nor hated: they deny not the ſecond, that he was made the proper puniſhment or Sacrifice for our ſinne.

And thus though you luſt not to ſee it, yet mydTre…. pag. 45. ſpeach was ſound and true, If Chriſt dyed ſimply but as the Godly dye, it might in no ſorteGal. 3. heere be called a Curſe. The reaſon is evident; becauſe the text heere doeth ſpeak & treat of the Curſe of the Law againſt ſinne: ſuch therefore was Chriſtes Curſe which he ſu…layned. To conclude then, his afflictions and death was neither Wages nor Chastiſement, nor Curſe nor Conſequent of any ſinne in him. Yet as God made him ſinne for vsus, ſo he truely, properly, and in very deed, laid the paine of his Curſe vponupon his body and Soule. Which Curſe of God vponupon Chriſt (as youfPag 26 ſay truly) was not in words but in deedes. Wherefore my wordesgPag. 2… you openly pervert, affirming that I ſay, Death heere (that is Chriſtes death, noted Galat. 3.13.) …ay in no ſorte be called a Curſe, when I expreſly even there, and every where doe ſay the contrary.Pag. 263. But a your greateſt exception is, that this Curſe laid on Chriſt cannot be vnderſtood of the whole Curſe of God or of the Law: Pag. 264.and therefore b you ſpare me not for c ſaying that Paul heere in his application out of Moſes nameth a part of the iust Curſe of the Law for ſinne,Treat. 1. pag. 40. thereby meaning (and inferring to his purpoſe) the whole. Where you muſt be ſo good as to vnderſtand me by mine own words in other places.Pag 290. For thus d you know e I limited my ſpeach els where, As touching the vehemency of paine Christ was as ſharply touched as the very reprobats. Treat. 1. pag 81.And, Christes ſufferings were equall to the very Helliſh torments in vehemency of paine and ſharpnes. Againe, f This price equally in Justice must be kept ſo far as it is poſſible. Pag. 26.And,gPag. 37. Becauſe there was no impoſſibility, no neceſſitie, no reaſon, but he might feele the full ſmart of our ſinnes, (as there was that he ſhould not feele the full continuance thereof) and ſeeing Gods ſtrict iuſtice requireth it to be ſo, therefore it was ſo, he ſuffered all the ſmart, but not all the continuance of our puniſhment. … Alſo Pa. 23. Hee…e Pa. 13Thus then plainly h I ſignified i thoſe 3 Limitations which now are expreſſed, that Chriſt ſuffered our whole Curſe only ſo far as the poſſibilitie of thinges could admit, wherein nothing was diſpenſed nor pardoned to him (for there was no cauſe) as I have often ſaid. Which doctrine how vnworthy it is of your ſtrang contempt and outcryes againſt me, I leave it to the godly Wiſe to conſider.Nowell. Catechiſ. Only marke if our k publike doctrine be not the ſame. Vltima omnia pati voluir pro nobis, qui vltima omnia commeriti ſumus. Diram execrationē ſuſcepit: cōtumelias etiā omnes, omnia probra, atque ſupplicia: &c. But you will ſay, thus we make it not the whole Curſe of the Law. Yes: we cal it rightly the whole Curſe, for as much as Chriſt ſuffered it in his whole manhood,See before pag 8. 1. The. 5.28. … pa. 48. 52 even in l All the powers of his m Spirit, & Soule, & Body. where that Curſe in Deutero. being a part, was ſuffered only in the Body quickned by the Soul. Alſo in other reſpectes this ſuffering of Chriſt may bee well called the whole Curſe or Puniſhmēt of ſin,Pag. 11, 12. …n… 16.17. Pa. 27…. 280 as n before is declared. After this o you thinke it ſtrange that I ſay, Christ ſuffered & dyed iustly, and was hanged on the tree by the iust ſentence of the Law: & that ſo hee was by imputation of our ſtate and condition vntounto him, ſinfull, … before …. 51.11.defiled, hatefull, and accurſed. All the which I avouch, becauſe he vndertooke by Gods ordinance as our Surety to receave our whole condemnation vponupon himſelfe ſo far as his owne nature and condicion could poſſibly admit,Chriſt ſuffe… iuſtly. to the ende that hee might wholly acquit vsus. In regard whereof I aske, Is it wrong for the Law to lay the penalty on the ſurety, when the debtour can not diſcharge it? Againſt this my aſſertion you ſay,aPag. 27… By no ſentence of the Law he hanged on a tree. And a reaſon you give,bPag. 273 becauſe to be hanged on a tree was no neceſſary part of the generall Curſe of God vponupon all ſinners. I anſwer, to Dy for ſinne was a neceſſary part of the generall Curſe vponupon all ſinners. What ſay you then to his Death? Did he dy iuſtly? Sure if Chriſt dyed by the rule of Gods iuſtice, then he dyed iustly. If he dyed not by Gods iuſtice, then Wo, and thrice Wo to vsus. For it cannot be but Gods Iuſtice*Luc. 16.1 Deut. 10.1 Rom. 8.32 See before pag. 66. muſt be executed: it cannot be made voyd. So that if Chriſt in Gods proper iuſtice dyed not for vsus, then in his Iuſtice without mercy we muſt, and ſhall dy. Which God forbid. But Chriſt therefore indeed ſuffered & dyed moſt iuſtly, according to the rule of Gods ſtrict Iuſtice in all points poſſible. Yet you ſay, His hanging on a tree was no neceſſary part of the generall Curſe of God vponupon all ſinners. What if that were no neceſſary part of the generall Curſe? It was nevertheles iust from God vponupon him, aſwell as his Death. No particular Puniſhments are neceſſary, but accidentall in their own nature. The generall CurſecGen. 2.1… Thou ſhalt dy the Death, comprehending them all not as neceſsary, but as accidentall parts. Yet whereſoever by Gods providence they happen, they are iust Puniſhmentes, no leſſe then the Generall Curſe. And thus Chriſt anſwering for ſinne not only Dyed generally, but alſo was hanged on the tree particularly by the iust ſentence of the Law. Still I meane iustly in reſpect of God alone: for men vſed meere violence, wrong, and no Law towards him. For they perſecuted him as a malefactour (as they ſaid) yet indeed hee being in himſelfe altogeather faultles and without blame. You ſeeme to miſlike that Chriſt ſhould ſuffer iustly, becauſe he ſuffered willingly for vsus. Which hindereth not at all: for the voluntary ſurety beareth his penaltie iustly, when he ſuſtayneth that which the debtour by Law ſhould ſuſtaine. You ſaydPag. 27…. No Lawe, you are ſure not Gods Law, alloweth that when a murderer or ſuch like offendour tranſgreſſeth he ſhould be ſpared, and an other that is willing hanged in his ſteed. And therefore you miſlike the ſimilitude of a Surety in the worke of Chriſtes Redemption. I anſwere in Gods Law that is not true, which you ſay. Vnderſtanding heere by Gods revealed Will and his moſt holy and gracious Ordinance for vsus. Though indeed this is not his Law properly, but his Goſpel, & the moſt bleſſed glad tydings of peace and health to our Soules. Now by this Law of God I am ſure, that Murderers, Adulterers, Theeves (and worſe then theſe) are ſpared in Gods preſenſe, and an other that is their moſt willing ſurety executed by the iuſtice of God in their ſteed.Pag. 280. But a no ſimilitude can prove Chriſt in taking ou… perſon on him to be ſinfull, defiled, hatefull, and accurſed. I deny this ſaying vtterly. b How could he be by God properly and truly puniſhed and Curſed for ſinne,F…ee 18.20 Gen. 18.25. but that he was ſinfull and hatefull. And it is written, c God ſent his Sonne in the likenes and forme of ſinfull fleſh for ſinne, Rom 8.3. Synac. beb…ſich.and condemned ſinne in d (his) fleſh. In which likenes he ſtood before God indeed: before the world he was reputed ſo,2. Cor. 5.21. but falſly. And e God made him ſinne for vsus that we might be made the righteouſnes of God in him. As alſo he was made f a Curſe for vsus. Gal 3.13. Though you …y nay: p 280 Calv in Gal. ….13. Heb. 9. vlt. Pag. 11, 12. …d 50.51.Wherevpon M^r Calvin g warily enough ſaith, h Vt perſonam noſtram ſuſcepit, peccator erat & maledictionis reus. And y^e i Apoſtle ſaith, Ek deutérou The ſecond time he ſhall appeare without ſinne: meaning that the firſt time he appeared with ſin. Yet this is k not inhaerently, but by imputation: the Lorde tranſlating by his ordinance the ſinne of men vponupon him, & reckoning them vntounto him. Even as by Gods true and reall imputation, not by any inhaeſion we now in this life are iuſt holy and blameles before God: ſo was he ſinnefull and defiled by imputation, not inhraenetly. Thus by this reckoning he ſuffered at Gods hands iuſtly: yet in his own nature, & in reſpect meerely thereof, he ſuffered both at the Iewes handes and before God the iust for the vniust. Pag. 280.l You ſay, where the Apoſtle ſaith m he was made ſin for vsus, 2. Cor. 5.21the Fathers have 2 good and approved ſenſes differing frō ours.

1 That God made him a ſacrifice for ſinne:

2 that he vſed him as he doth ſinners.

What is there in both theſe that wee acknowledge not? Yea what is this later but the very ſame point which we vrge? It is nothing els in all this quaeſtion that we hold, but that God vſed Chriſt our Redeemer and Surety as he doth ſinners, ſo far as poſſibilitie admitteth that he could and might be ſo vſed. And for this the Fathers are not ſilent, if I were ſo ambitious as you in producing multitudes of men.Cypr. de Paſ…. Only Cyprian, and Athanaſius, and Auſtin ſhall content me in this. The firſt, n He ſustayned & ſuffered himſelf to be called Sinne and a Curſe by Moſes and the Apostle, becauſe he had the like puniſhment as we ſhould have had, but not the like fault. aPag.Your ſlight anſwere that it was like in part, not in all, ſalveth not the matter. For Cyprian meaneth Chriſts puniſhment for vsus was ſo like ours, as was poſſible: and that ſufficeth vsus. Alſo by this your weake anſwer you are contrary to your ſelfe heere, in that you acknowledge that God in puniſhing Chriſt making him ſinne for vsus, hee vſed him as he doth ſinners. Athanaſius ſaith,*Pag. … De …nea Ipſe per ſe ſententiam ſolvit ſub ſpecie condemnati: Hee himſelfe ſatis fied and abrogated the ſentence of the Law vnderunder the appearance of a Damned man. Did not God then vſe him as he doth ſinners in all extremity of puniſhment ſo far as was poſſible? And that it was altogeather poſſible to inflict the ſenſe of his wrath immediatly and properly in his Soul, aſwel as in his Body, no reaſonable man cādeny. Auſt. we ſaw a littlebBefore 71.73. before. Thus alſo your former good ſenſe of this that Christ was made ſinne, that is a ſacrifice or puniſhment for ſinne: how differeth it from your ſecond, as you ſeeme to make them to differ? Or how differ they both from our maine Aſſertion, that Chriſt in himſelfe ſinleſſe, was by God reputed ſinfull in our ſteed. Nay this directly and neceſſarily proveth theſame. For as I ſaid, how could he be truly puniſhed for ſinne by God, but that he muſt be indeede ſinfull by imputation? The Iewes Sacrifices the expreſſe figures of Chriſte doe alſo moſt lively ſet out this thing. When they werecLev. … brought vntounto God, the people muſt lay on their hands vponupon the heads of the Beaſtes: ſhewing thereby that theirdLev. … ſinnes were put vponupon the ſacrifice, & that God ſo accounted them indeed to be. Wherefore what cauſe have you ſo to exclame as you do, againſt this compariſon of Chriſt our Redeemer with a Surety:Chriſte truely Surety who among men by the ordinance of Lawe and iuſtice muſt and doth pay the debt when the debtour cannot. It is neither a ſimple ſimilitude asePag. 2… you ſimply call it: neither is itfPag. 2… vncleane, nor irreverent, nor irreligious, but a holy & moſt fit repreſentation of Chriſts paying our debt for vsus, and of our acquitting from the iuſtice of God by him. The very word is vſed in Scripture it ſelfe,gHeb. … Hee was made a Surety of a better covenant. Which alſo expreſly you grant:hPag. … That Christe is made a Surety wee finde it once mentioned in the Scripture. Is not that ſufficient then to warrant the goodneſſe and aptnes of the ſimilitude againſt your vndutyfull reproofes of it? But you ſay he was not as a Surety bound to the Law, but of a better Covenant, even of grace. Verily a Surety to vsus, of both. Yea this latter implyeth neceſſarily the former, vnles you imagine Gods Iuſtice needed not exact ſatisfaction ſo far as was poſſible: or that there might be 2 Sureties to bring vsus into grace and favour with God. For he could not aſſure vsus of remiſſion of ſinnes, but by aſſuring vsus that he had exactly paid all our debts. Yea none could pay them for vsus throughly & acquit himſelf alſo, but only he. Therefore by being a Surety to vsus of grace, it muſt needes bee alſo that he, and none other, was our Surety to the Law and to the iuſtice of God.…. 4.4. Thus alſo it is written that a He was made hyponomon ſubiect to the Law,…. 277. or vnderunder the Law. Which b you mightily deny againſt expreſſe Scripture. But by what reaſon? Becauſe he was a Mediatour to God for vsus.…ns hone…vtia …ſt. con… …. 14.6. Now Sureties that ſtand bound & muſt pay the debt, may not looke to be Mediatours. Yes forſooth, ſuch a Surety as he was might worthily be a gracious Mediatour alſo. Though he were a Surety, and ſtood bound, yet he was no ordinary Surety. Though the debt were infinit, yet hee was more infinit in grace and power both to pay it, and to overcome it: and by his obedience and righteouſnes to merit for vsus, yea even in his ſuffering. What letteth then that ſuch a perſon as he, might be a Mediatour to purchaſe alſo grace and favour, even in and beſides his ſatisfaction for vsus. c You ſay, he could not be bound to the Law, becauſe he was above the Law. … 276.He was above the Lawe in his Godhead, but in his Manhood hee became for vsus d vnderunder the Law. Againe,… 4 4. he was not of him ſelf in his Manhood bound to the Law for us, but freely and voluntarily vndertaking, and by Gods gracious eternall Decree appointing him, ſo he became bound to the Law. Wherefore, though e he, who ordinarily redeemeth a priſoner from the enemie,… …77. be not bound, but content ſo to doe: yet a Suretie being content,… became y^e Law, …unde to …w for vsus …ds De…d Ordi… and by …ne free will. becommeth bound. And ſo Chriſt our Redeemer became bound as a Surety to pay our debt for vsus by the moſt ſtedfaſt and immutable Decree of God, and yet alſo by his owne moſt free good will. Yea Gods Decree, and his owne good will was, that he ſhould ſatisfie and pay none otherwiſe for vsus, then ſo as hee did: Therefore thoſe Sentences of f your Authours Gregorie, Augustin and Ambroſe, if they bee ſpoken ſimply,… 277. ſeeme very harſh, where they ſaye, That Christ could have ſaved vsus otherwayes, then by ſuffering and dying for vsus. For heerein they oppoſe Gods abſolut Omnipotencie againſt his expreſſe and revealed will. Which how it may be liked in Divinitie, I know not. Wherefore ſtill all theſe ſimilitudes of Mediator, Redeemer, and Suretie, may ſtand very well togeather in the Office of Chriſt, thoughaPag. you would perſwade vsus the contrary, yea rather they confirme each other. Certainly, theſe Similitudes of a Suertie and a Mediatour, are very approved & excellent to ſet out moſt heavenly his great Grace and Iuſtice, by earthly things. Our publike Churches doctrine alſo avoncheth that hee wasbNow… techiſ. fore pa… our Suretie. With Christ, as our Suretie, ſo ſuffering, God dealt as it were in extremitie of Law, &c. Alſo Cyprian,cCypri… paſſio… In ſaying, why haſt thou for ſaken me, he ſheweth the ſorrowes of that his complayning to be the wordes, Delictorum ſuorum, or Dilectorum ſuorum, of his ſinnes: or if you ſo thinke rather, of his beloved ones, whoſe perſon & caſe he tooke vponupon him. And this he would have vsus to know that it was for them, or in their ſteed, who by reaſon of their ſinnes deſerved to be for ſaken of God. YoudPag. 3… anſwer that theſe wordes of Cyprian I neyther vnderstand nor like. I pray why ſo? Becauſe Augustin ſaieth, Illa vox membrorumerat non capitis, That Cry was of his Members, not of the Head. Whatſoever Austins meaning is herein, yet Cyprians wordes are plaine and can not beare any other ſenſe then as I make of them, that Chriſt was a very Surety for his people, and ſuffered ſuch a forſaking of God touching ſenſe of paine and want of preſent feeling of comfort in the paines, as the damned doe. And touching Austin alſo, I ſuppoſe you miſ-vnderſtand him: but of his minde touching this ſpeach of Chriſt on the Croſſe, we ſhall ſee further heereafter. I adde vntounto all this laſt of all your owne grant, where you fully yeeld and acknowledge that Chriſt was our very Suertie to the Law, and that he did ſuffer iuſtly, or in Gods iuſtice. The vengeance of the Law (ſayePag. 9… you) once executed on our Suretie, can no more in Gods iuſtice be exacted on vsus. *Pag. 13…Elſwhere alſo you allow of this Similitude: which yetfPag. 27… 276. 279. manie times you reiect moſt diſdainfully. Yea in that your ſentence you overthrowgPag. 27… your owne chiefe exception which you make againſt it, that he was not our Surety to the Law to pay our debtes. If the vengeance of the Lawe lighted on him as on a Suretie, then he was our Suretie to the Law: and if this vengeance of the Law cā not now in Gods iustice be exacted on vsus, then he as our Suretie to the Law by ſuffering it hath cleered vsus from it. And to conclude, that which he ſuffered as being our Suertie, the ſame before God he ſuffered in iustice, as is before proved. And in vaine you exclaime, that this is a against the Scriptures, Pag. 272.againſt the faith, againſt the Fathers, against the Conſciences of Gods people: ſeeing it appeareth not to be againſt,Pag. 182. but with all theſe. b Your Similitude of a Kings ſonne intreating for his Fathers Rebells, is very weake, and overthroweth (if it were good) a confeſſed point of Chriſtes Redemption. For by this ſimilitude Chriſt ſhould not have ſuffered bodily death for vsus: ſeeing no King hath lawfull power by anie meanes to lay bodily death on any ſuch Surety, much l…ſſe to make his Sonne, or his Sonne to make him ſelfe any ſuch Suretie or Redeemer of Rebells: as Chriſt was made and might be made of God for vsus. So that alſo where you would have it to ſerve, that we might perceave by this how Chriſt was not defiled, nor hatefull, nor guilty by imputation of our treaſon, it is evidently to weak. For you have not ſhewed, neither can ſhew, that this Kings Sonne was or ought to have bene ſuch a Suretie & Redeemer as Chriſt was, that is vntounto bodily death. Therefore this Similitude cannot bee good. We have other maner of warrant that Chriſt was by imputation made Sinne for vsus, and the Curſe for vsus: and that this ordinance was holy and right, and above all reproofe. Which you can not bring for your Kings Sōnes Suretiſhip, nor for the Kings fact: who kept not the order of iuſtice when he ſpared abominable Rebells without their bloudſhed; or when he ſlew his guiltles Sonne for them, that they might be ſpared.

Defense of a Treatise Touching the Suffering and Victory of Christ, Part 1 (2 of 4)