A Scourge for a Railer, Treatise · Part 10
Imputat. 10. of the pretended falsification of his wordes.
The accusation.
1. He cutteth off those my words, (much lesse in heauen, where there is fulnes of ioy) which follow immediatley, and containe part of my reason, &c. 2. b. p. 37.2. b. p. 37. and 3. b. p. 36.3. b. p. 36.
2. You conceale my meaning,10. Imputation. and corrupt my words: for it is the obiecter, not I, that so taketh it (namely, the soule for the whole person.) 2. b. p. 143.2. b. p. 143.
3. You cut off all the first part of my sentence here enclosed, (it is a generall axiome of Theologie among all diuines,) &c. thereby to couer your legerdemaine, least the Reader should see (to your shame) your contemptuous reiection of one common receiued axiome in diuinitie, &c. 2. b. p. 120.2. b. p. 120.
4. You clippe my words in the latter: and thus auncient, godly, and learned fathers hauehave expounded it. 3. b. p. 6.3. b. p. 6.
5. What dishonest dealing is this in you, first to corrupt my words, and then to affirme, that I make no opposition betweene Christ and Dauid, saue onelyonly in incorruption, resurrection, and ascension. 3. b. p. 41.3. b. p. 41.
6. You clippe my words, in leauing out the Antecedent, whereof this reading is a consequent, &c. 3. b. p. 58.3. b. p. 58.
7. After your wonted manner, you misreport my words, &c. for these my last words, (turning the humane soule of Christ, first into his diuinitie, &c.) are not as I make them any part of that period, where I blame the obiector for confounding the persons of the Trinitie, but are referred to his contradicting of himselfe. 3. b. p. 96.3. b. p. 96.
8. Where doe I affirme, (that by the lowest parts of the earth, hell is alwaies signified) but that it is your custome alwaies to charge me falsely. 3. b. p. 140.3. b. p. 140.
9. It is denied (say you) that Christs descension in soule to hell, doth more set forth his louelove and fauour, then his crosse and passion: you are still forging one falshood or an other against me: for where doe I affirme any such thing? 3. b. p. 148.3. b. p. 148.
10. My words are not in that place, as you report them. 3. b. p. 150.3. b. p. 150.
11. You still detort and depraue my words, as if you had beene hatched in the nest of the Harpies, &c. the indifferent Reader may see, that I doe not attribute the victorie to Christs descension into hell, but to his blessed passion on the crosse. 3. b. p. 154. 155.3. b. p. 154.
12. Thirdly it is vntrue, when you say, that I make but one degree of Christs exaltation, for I speake onelyonly of his ascending into heauen. 3. b. p. 161.3. b. p. 161.
13. Lastly, touching the Greeke article (foreign) I doe not precisely affirme, as you vntruly make me, that it doth particularize, & distinquish the parts of the earth, &c. 3. b. p. 171.3. b. p. 171.
14. You still misreport my words, and peruert my meaning, I speake in that place of the diuers glosses, which those of your opinion make, of this descending of Christ, &c. 3. b. p. 175.3. b. p. 175.
The iustification.
1. VVHereas the Replyer vrgeth these words of the (Confuter) S. Peter mentioneth sorrowes which were loosed at Christs resurrection, &c. thereby inferring that the Confuter in these words implieth Limbus patrum; because those sorrowes (of hell) were not loosed for Christ, but for others: to what purpose should he alleadge that impertinent addition, much lesse in heauen, where there is fulnes of ioy? for the question is, for whome those sorrowes were loosed: I thinke, he will not say, for any that were in heauen: there is then no iniurie done vntounto the Confuter, in the omitting of those words: the Replyer should hauehave had more aduantage in setting them downe.
2. The Obiector indeede first saith, that the soule by a synecdoche is taken for (me:) but the Confuter also hath these very words, the state of the questiō is not, whether the soule ioyned with the bodie, may be taken foreign, for the whole man liuing (in which sense it can not be denied, but it is taken in diuers places of Scripture.) 1. b. p. 7. The Replyer then corrupteth not his wordes, but the (Refuter) denieth his owne wordes: and that word foreign, is onelyonly vsed in that place by himselfe, not by the Obiector.
3. The whole sentence is this, (it is a generall axiome in Theologie among diuines) that the words of holy writ are alwaies to be taken and vnderstood, according to their natiue and proper signification, but onelyonly when there followeth some manifest and apparant absurdity: what fraud now or legerdemain is there in omitting of the first clause, which is but a flourish to the sentence, no substantial part therof? The Replyer was not bound to rehearse all his idle words, but such as were materiall to the purpose. But the legerdemaine that here is, is found onelyonly in the Confuter, who falsely chargeth the Replyer for reiecting of this axiome, whereas he admitteth it: and vponupon that ground prooueth these two points; that the words (sheol and nephesh) doe sometime properly signifie, the (life, and graue) and if they did not, yet by reason of the absurdities and inconueniences ensuing, a figuratiue sense of those words should be acknowledged.
4. To what purpose should the Replyer hauehave added that clause, and thus auncient learned, &c. seeing the Refuter onelyonly nameth certaine fathers in the margin vponupon this point, as Augustine, Euthimius, Damascen, but produceth not their testimony; for the hunts-man looseth but his labour in tracing the hare, vnlesse he finde her sitting in her forme, or can finde her out by her sent: and as wearisome a thing it is to follow the fathers in the large field of their writings, the particular places beeing not noted.
5. True it is, that the Confuter maketh a double Antithesis betweene Christ and Dauid: a generall betweene their persons, in these words, thou wilt not leaue my soule in hell (as he readeth:) and a particular, in his incorruption, resurrection, and a scension: which last (the Refuter) calleth the true antithesis: The Replyer then had no reason to make mention of that generall antithesis, 1. because hee speaketh of the true antithesis: which the Refuter himselfe saith, doth consist in those three points before mentioned: and this he affirmeth, not onelyonly in his simple text, but in his friuolous marginall notes, that herein the true antithesis consisteth, betweene Christ and Dauid, in his incorruption, resurrection, ascension. 2. Neither will his generall antithesis helpe him, which hee saith is not betweene the soule of Christ, and the soule of Dauid, but betweene their persons. 1. b. p. 19. But the Replyer giueth an instance in the soule of Dauid, that it neither was at all in hell, nor yet left there, as likewise Christs was not; and therefore therein the antithesis was not.
6. The whole place is this: (if by flesh you vnderstand the humanitie, and by spirit the diuinity,) you must read the text thus: Christ was mortified in his humanity, &c. What needed here the needlesse repetition of this friuolous antecedent, seeing the very summe and substance of the obiection is expressed? the Replyer laboured for breuitie, to comprehend much in few words; not to speake much, and say little as the Refuter doth, who by loathsome prolixitie wearieth the Reader, that hee should not see his vanity.
7. The Refuter chargeth the obiector directly with two things together, ignorantly to contradict himselfe, and erroneously to confound the distinct persons of the Trinity: and both these he shufleth vp together: and doe not those words, you turne the soule of Christ first into his diuinity, &c. in his collection, as well shew a confounding of the persons, as contradiction? Therefore the Replyer summing the obiection together, missed not an haires breadth of the (Refuters) meaning, if hee vnderstood himselfe.
8. And where doth the Replyer charge him so to say directly? his words are these: It is euident that the answerer more boldly then truely saith, that by these words (the lowest parts of the earth) hell is alwaies signified: for vnlesse he be able to prooue that, he doth but trifle. Is it not euident by these words, that the Replyer chargeth the Refuter by a disiunctiue speech, that either he must say so, or he doth but trifle?
9. Neither doth the Replyer affirme that hee saith so, but whereas the Confuter setteth forth the greatnesse of the louelove of the Prince, in not disdaining in his owne person to go down into the prison, where the captiues were: the Replyer denieth (as a consequent of this assertion) that the descension to hell should more hauehave commended Christ louelove, then his death and passion: for if the comparison be not betweene Christ death, and descension, it is impertinent.
10. To what ende should the Replyer trouble himselfe and his Reader with setting downe all his friuolous words: if there were any siluer or gold in them, or matter of worth, they might be deliuered by number, & weight: but beeing as they are, full of droffe, I thought it best to refine them, and not to take refuse and all. I appeale vntounto the indifferent Reader, if the very sense of his long periods be not exactly kept, though all his words are not giuen by tale. And he himselfe is the man, that mis-reporteth his owne words: for whereas in the first booke hee said, here is a plaine opposition of the personall motions of ascending and descending: now he saith (to mende the matter) here is a plaine exposition, &c.
11. These are the Refuters owne words: The conquest was not obtained and effected by his comming downe from heauen, nor yet by his incarnation, &c. but by his passion on the crosse, and his descension to hell: wherein now are his words depraued? doth not likewise the Replyer, in propounding his obiection, ioyne both his crosse, and passion, and his descending to hell together? But seeing he ascribeth Christs victorie ioyntly to both these, is hee not ashamed to say, he doth not attribute this victory to Christs descension to hell, but to his blessed death and passion? And doth he not elsewhere say, that our whole and entire freedome was wrought and effected by our Sauiour Christs descension into hell, and not onelyonly by his death and passion vponupon the crosse. 3. b. p. 143.3. b. p. 143. There is then no other Harpy here but himselfe, that scratcheth his face with his owne nailes: hee neede to feare no other talents but his owne, to vse the Orators words; Philip p. 2.Num expectas, dum te stimulis fodiam, haec te, si vllam partem habes sensus, lacerat, haec cruentat oratio: Doe you looke while I should gore you with pricks: if you hauehave any part of sense, this (your owne) speach doth teare and wound you.
12. The very words of the Refuter are these: His ascending beeing but one exaltation, prooueth inuincibly, that this descending was but one humiliation. 1. b. p. 58.1. b. p. 58. whence the Replyer inferreth, that hee maketh but one degree of Christs exaltation: The first is his owne assertion, without any mis-reporting; the other is a collection vponupon his words, without any wresting: for in saying his ascending was but one exaltation, he saith in effect, that his exaltation was but one (namely his ascending) and so consequently there should be but one degree of his exaltation. And as by descending, he vnderstandeth generally the comming downe of Christ from heauen, vntounto the lowest point of his humiliation: and not for the locall descension onelyonly to hell: as appeareth by that opinion which he confuteth, of them which vnderstand Christs descending into the lower parts of the earth, of his descending from heauen to earth: so by ascending in this opposition hee must vnderstand the whole returne of Christ from the lowest point of his humiliation, vntounto heauen againe: for that there were not many debasements in Christs descension, is prooued (saith hee) by the contrary motion of ascending, which was but one exaltation, &c. who seeth not, by this inference, that as hee denieth many debasements (i. degrees) of Christs humiliation, so hee denieth many degrees in his exaltation.
13. The Refuters words at large are these: The article foreign, added here to the words (foreign) which is not alwaies expressed in the Greeke, but commonly when it is put (foreign) to particularize some singular or speciall thing, seemeth here plainely to distinguish the parts of the earth in generall, from those notorious infernall parts. 1. b. p. 58. Now the Replyer abridgeth the obiection thus: the article (foreign) added here doth particularize and distinguish, &c. Is here any vntruth? seeing these are his owne words, seemeth here plainely to distinguish: what great difference is there betweene distinguishing, and seeming plainly to distinguish: that tearme of affirming precisely, is his owne, and not the Replyers.
14. The Refuters words are these: his ascending being but one exaltation, prooueth inuincibly, that this descending in like manner was but one humiliation.1. b. p. 58. 1. b. p. 58. The Replyer reporteth them thus: his ascension being but one exaltation, prooueth that his descending likewise was but one humiliation: for ascending (hee hath) ascension, for (in like manner) likewise: and leaueth out inuincibly, the omitting whereof, if it make any thing at all, is against the Replyer. Is he not ashamed now to crie out, that his words are misreported?
Now this false accuser of falsification,Prou. 14. 5. foreign. what hath hee gained, but the reproach of a false witnesse? the Scripture saith, that a faithfull witnesse will not lie: if hee had dealt faithfully,Hieron. ad Pammach. aduers. Ioann. Hierosolym. he would not hauehave forged such an vntrue & vniust accusation. Hierom well saith, Testimonium pro se, nec Catoni creditum: that, no not Cato was credited in his owne testimonie. And this Refuters accusation hath no other ground but his owne surmise,AEsop. foreign. and bare word. He said well, that beeing asked what aduantage came by a lie to him that made it, that they shall not bee beleeued when they speake the truth. And I doubt not, but this fabler shall finde the lesse credit with eueryevery iudicious Reader, hauing so often failed in his accusations. There was an a uncient lawe among the Romanes, that hee which tolde a false testimonie,Qui falsum testimonium dixerit, vinciatur apud eum, in quem dixerit. Senec. declam. lib. 5. should bee cast in bonds with him against whome hee spake it. And this rewarde shall this false witnesse hauehave, that hee himselfe, as bounde and intangled with his owne false accufation and slaunder, shall bee deliuered vp to the partie innocent and accused, as shall now appeare in the returning vponupon his head his owne suggestion.
The Recrimination.
1. This falsifier himselfe thus mis-reporteth the Replyers words, and peruerteth his meaning, that wheras he thus writeth; Some would hauehave all purged, not the superfluous humors onelyonly, but some profitable parts, &c. And then a little after it followeth: But the better sort, desire neither with Herodicus nothing to be purged, nor with Heraclitus, all things to be euacuated and purged: but rather approoue Hippocrates methode, that what is euill may be purged, the rest to be comforted and strengthened. And afterward alleadging that place of S. Paul, 1. Cor. 5. 7. concerning the old leauen and new lumpe: he addeth, we would not, the leauen,Preface to the Antilogie. lump of dough, and all to be cast out; but the lumpe to be renewed, the old sower leauen to be reiected. Now see how this (peruerse mis-construer) plaieth his part: But the better sort (he meaneth himselfe, and such other) thinke that there (be superfluous humors) which hauehave neede to bee purged, that the (new sweete) lumpe (of their laicall prosbyterie) hath need to be renewed, and the olde sower leauen (of our Ecclesiasticall policie) to be reiected. 2. b. p. 20.2. b. p. 20. where beside the addition of all those words inclosed in the parenthesis, he chargeth the Replyer, against his owne conscience, and contrary to the words of the Replyer, as beeing an enemie to the Ecclesiasticall policie; who a little before, in the same place, maketh the calling of reuerend pastors and Bishops in it self, one of the profitable parts of the church.
2. Whereas the Replyer thus writeth, Wee reioyce to heare of your honours Christian consultation for the propagating of the gospel, in planting eueryevery where of good pastors, that the people may be brought from darkenesse of their ignorance, to the light of knowledge, that they bee no longer children in vnderstanding, and as babes and sucklings in religion. Epist. dedicat. to Limbom. He thus corrupteth his words: Our people of England (saith hee) for want of good Pastors (such as himselfe) liue in darkenes and ignorance, are children in vnderstanding, &c. 2. b. p. 21.2. b. p. 21. making the Replyer to speake of the people of England in generall, whereas he meaneth onelyonly such places, where good Pastors are wanting, and the word not preached, where the people cannot choose but bee ignorant, and as children in vnderstanding, as God he knoweth. But it seemeth, that this enemie to Gods glory, & the peoples saluation, could be contented, they should liue in ignorance still.
3. The Replyer readeth; But we doe all hope, that this your honourable Session shall rather deserue to be so called: the Falsifier addeth, But we (the wel-willers of Sion) doe all hope, &c. 2. b. p. 24.2. b. p. 24.
4. Thus also he maketh the Replyer to write: (that all Ministers that cannot preach, may bee remooued, and such Ministers prouided in their roomes, (as heretofore for their zeale and diligence hauehave been excluded) which hauehave store of milke in their breasts,2. b. p. 24. & which seeke in peace, and in a good conscience to nourish the people of God (being like babes ready to star…e for want of such Nurses.) All these words inclosed, as the Reader seeth, are added by the Falsifier.
5. The Falsifier thus forgeth: that hee (i. the King) acknowledgeth the Romane Church to be our mother Church, it is (saith Limbomastix) a foolish conceit, and imagination. 2. b. p. 28.2. b. p. 28. The Replyer thus writeth; a foolish conceit & imagination it is, that Rome should bee the mother Church, and Nurserie of all the world: where there is no reference at all to the Kings Maiestie, neither are the words as hee repeateth them: for it is one thing to say the Romane Church is our mother Church, in respect of the antiquitie of the place;See before Imput. 2. because the Romane faith and religion (before it yet declined) did spread into these westerne parts: & another, that it should be our mother Church, as it now standeth corrupted in religiō: it is one thing to say it is our mother Church, another, that is the mother Church, and nurserie of all the world.
6. The Confuter thus forgeth: doth it follow, because I say it ought to be translated, to the spirits which were, & not which are in prison, that therefore they were in hell, and are not, I deny your argument. 2. b. p. 39.2. b. p. 39. whereas hee leaueth out this other part of the Replyers argument, or else hee striueth about words.
7. He imagineth the Replyer to say, that Christ loosed the sorrowes of hell for others (detained in hell) and that to thinke otherwise is very absurd. 2. b. p. 42.2. b. p. 42. whereas the Replyer so affirmeth, not out of his owne iudgement, but vrgeth the Confuter with that inconuenience: and concerning the inference of absurditie, these are his words, and not as he repeateth them; I thinke he is not so absurd, as to thinke he loosed them for himselfe, who was neuer in the sorrowes of hell after his death. 2. b. p. 36.2. b. p. 36.
8. You affirme some Popish bookes to hauehave beene written by Protestants,2. b. p. 54. whereas these are the Replyers words, There are bookes abroad maintaining offensiue doctrine,Preface to the Antilog. p. 9. too much declining to Poperie.
9. The Replyer saith, Antilog. p. 15.Durand maintaineth contrary to the opinion of the rest: but he thus falsifieth the place; Durand maintaineth an opinion contrary to (all) the rest: where (all) is added, 2. b. p. 190.& the order of the words inuerted.
10. You graunt, that these two particles (not) and (neither) doe shew a difference of the clauses, and a diuersitie of matter,2. b. p. 163. whereas these are the words of the Replyer; here these two negatiues (lo, lo,) are vsed, & yet there is no great difference in these two clauses, &c. nor they shew no great diuersity of matter: he setteth it downe negatiuely, & the other repeateth his words affirmatiuely.
11. His glory,2. b. p. 189. victory, and triumph remained (vnaccō plished:) this word (vnaccomplished) is added of his owne.
12. That Christ hath 2. kingdoms belonging vntounto him, one as he is God,2. b. p. 201. and another as he is God & man: but these are the Replyers words, that kingdome whereof Christ promiseth to make the thiefe partaker,2. b. p. 194. is not that kingdome which belongeth to him as God.
13. The sorrowes of hell or death,3. b. p. 33. had fastned on Christ: but the Replyer hath, the sorrows, of death and the graue.
14. You most grossely ouerreach your selfe, so prophanly and vnchristianly to censure the…, (i. the fathers) to prepare the way to a most grosse heresie… 3. b. p. 76.whereas these are the Replyers words, rather this sense of the place, to interpret it of the descending of Christ to hell, where the disobedient persons and vnbeleeuers were, giueth way, and openeth a most wide gap to a most grosse heresie.3. b. p. 71. He doth not simply charge the fathers, or any other, but speaketh onelyonly by way of comparison.
15. Your bookes (saith the falsifier) should be in so base esteeme of all hands, that many would not vouchsafe the reading of them, &c. nay that the labours of your sacred wit were onelyonly vsed to beautifie walls:3. b. p. 103. whereas the Replyer onelyonly hath, bookes were growne into such small request, &c. and the labours of sacred witts …he speaketh not of his owne bookes: for he (thanked be God) had no cause to complaine of his owne, which he doubteth not but will liue in the memorie of the world more yeares, then his shall moneths or daies.
16. The Replyers words are these: this phrase is neither straunge nor vnusuall to say, that Christ went in spirit, or the spirit of Christ went, seeing Noah went in the spirit of Christ:3. b. p. 103. which the Confuter corrupteth thus: Christ went in spirit: that is, saith he, Noah went in the spirit of Christ: and yet he denieth, that he corrupteth the words: whereas he leaueth out this clause altogether: or the spirit of Christ went▪ which the Replyer insiste… vponupon: making these in a manner all one; that Christs spirit preached in Noe, and Noe preached in the spirit of Christ.3. b. p. 98.
17. It followeth not (say you) Christ died not the death of the soule by sinne or damnation, Ergo he can not be said to hauehave died in soule▪ 3. b. p. 84.But the Replyer hath, can not be said (any waies) to hauehave died in soule: which words (any waies) he clippeth off.
18. He chargeth the Replyer to say, that many of the auncient fathers affirme, that Christ was crucified in his soule: 3. b. p. 93.where he clippeth off the Replyers words which immediatly follow, that he gaue his soule a price of redemption for our soule. Synops. p. 1008.So he saith not that many of the fathers affirme the first, wherein Ambrose onelyonly is produced: but both must be put together.
19. The Replyer saith: this article of the present tense, beeing here to be supplied, and the sense not enforcing a change of time, 3. b. p. 113.doth rather giuegive to be translated are, then were. The falsifier clippeth off all that clause: (and the sense not enforcing a chaunge of time:) and repeateth the words thus: because you make a difference betweene the sense of a word (expressed,) and a word (supplied:) not making any mention, of the enforcing of the sense: and therefore all these 14. examples produced by him, wherein the necessitie of the sense enforceth a participle of the time past, as Matth. 1. 36. 2. 25. 5. 40. They that (were) with him: and so in the rest, are impertinent: for the sense doth necessarily giuegive, that it must be vnderstood of the time past.
20. The Replyers words stand thus: doth he thinke, that these disobedient spirits were in hell, and are not? if he doe not,3. b. p. 113. he trifleth: for the word (were) will helpe him nothing. Now commeth this deceitfull forger, and thus turneth the sentence: whosoeuer thinketh, that those disobedient spirits were in hell,3. b. p. 119. but are not, is a trifler: whereas the Replyer saith the contrarie: if he doe not (thinke so) he is a trifler.
21. He chargeth the Replyer thus to say: that the bodily death of Christ was not sufficient for mans saluation: yea, that his bodily sufferings made not properly to our redemption: 3. b. p. 156.and because his forgerie should not appeare, he confusedly shuffleth diuerse places together in the margen,Synops. p. 979. 980. 1000. 1003. 1046. quoted out of Synopsis: in the which, no such words can be found.3. b. p. 980. The Replyer saith: Christs blood we confesse, in Gods omnipotencie to hauehave beene sufficient to redeeme vsus, though but one droppe had been shed, but it so stood not with the decree and purpose of God. p. 1000. By one part the rest are signified, for if blood be taken strictly, then Christs flesh is excluded, and beside his blood, there issued forth also water: all these were necessarie parts of Christs passion, p. 1003. We ascribe the redemption of our bodie and soule, equally to the sacrifice of his bodie and soule. Againe, it is not affirmed, that the compassion of the soule with the bodie▪ did not properly belong to our redemption simply, but to that redemption, which was to be wrought by the soule. Who seeth not, how shamelesse this Cauiller is, to charge the Replyer to affirme that, the contrarie whereof he maintaineth?
12. Your selfe make three descents of Christ: to the crosse, to hell, to the graue: and yet beside these, you make three more in an other place:3. b. p. 162. whereas the Replyers words are these, Bernard maketh the same degrees of Christs descension, which we doe, his descending to the flesh, to the crosse, to the graue.3. b. p. 159. He calleth them not three descents, but three degrees of his descension. Now may not his owne words with better reason be returned vponupon his owne head: If you know no difference betweene descension, and the degrees thereof, you are ill worthie of those schoole degrees, which you hauehave taken. But concerning himselfe, howsoeuer he might goe out master of Art in the croud; for forgerie, railing, vntruths, falsifications, and such like, he may well be admitted to be a professor. Beside, the Replyer speaketh not in that place of descending to hell, but to the crosse. Neither in that other place quoted, sect. 17.doth the Replyer make three more descents: his words are these, We also confesse, that Christ by his death ouercame hell, and shaked the powers thereof, that he humbled himselfe to the ignominious death of the crosse, and descended from thence to the graue, and there continued in the state of the dead till the third day: and whatsoeuer els may be comprehended in the article of Christs descension. Here are not many descents affirmed, but diuers senses and explications of one and the same descension deliuered, all agreeable to the Scriptures.
23. You imagine that Christs soule was depriued of his fathers presence,3. b. p. 165. while it was in hell: but this is his owne imagination: for the Replyers words are these; to say that Christs soule did not enioy his fathers presence in heauen, all the while it was absent from the bodie, is contrarie to the Scripture: thou wilt shew me the waies of life, &c. he speaketh not of the depriuing of his fathers presence in … but of the enioying thereof in heauen.
24. You hold he descended into hell,Synops. p. 1018. yea into all the torments,3. b. p. 175. that hell could yeild: whereas the Replyer affirmeth the contrarie in that place: the whole punishment, is the whole kind of punishment, that is in bodie and soule, which Christ ought to hauehave suffered, though not in the same manner, and circumstance, neither for the place of hell locally, nor for the time, eternally, nor for the manner, sinnefully.
May not now this (Momus) iustly beshrew his vnblushing cheekes, and bold face, in accusing the Replyer, of falsifying and corrupting his words: seeing it is so ordinarie a thing with himselfe, to falsifie, peruert, and corrupt the Replyers both sense, and sentences. He little remembred in this leud course, the saying of our Sauiour: whatsoeuer you would that men should doe vntounto you, Matth. 7. 12.euen so doe you to them. He would be loath himselfe to hauehave his words thus clipped, and curtalled, chopped, and changed, which measure he hath meated with to the Replyer: who if he had somewhere failed in his sayings, the Confuter might well hauehave spared him, beeing so vnconscionable himselfe in his doings: and he might hauehave vsed toward him, that saying of the Greeke Poet:Sophocles in Aiace. foreign: as you dare not praise my sayings, so neither can I commend your doings. If herein he would hauehave beene without blame, he should in repeating of the Replyers words hauehave obserued the same rule, which Seneca prescribeth in citing of authors: tota inspicienda, tota tractanda sunt, 11. Imputation.per lineamenta sua i…genij opus nectitur, ex quo nihil subduci sine ruina potest: epistol. 23. lib. ….the whole must be looked into, the whole must be handled, the worke of wit is tied together by lineaments, from the which nothing can be withdrawne, without the ruine of the whole. It was therefore an easie matter for this vnderminer, to ruinate the Replyers whole building, in supplanting of it by parcels, and racking and dismembring one peece from an other. Wherein he may complaine that he hath bin dealt with,hom 25. in Luc. as Origene sometime was, who saith, Alij tractatus nostros calumniantes easentire nos criminantur, quae nunquam sensisse nos novimus: some doe cauill with our treatises, and doe blame vsus to thinke those things, which we know we neuer thought. And so plaieth this (Catchpole) ascribing vntounto the Replyer such things as he holdeth not: and sheweth himselfe to be of that number, whome Hierome complaineth of: non meritum stili, sed suum stomachum sequentes, not following the merite (and manner of the Replyers) stile, but his owne (humor) and stomake.