Confession of the Christian Religion, Appendix
An appendix to the eleuenth chap. Of Chriſt the redeemer or of the perſon of Chriſt.
THey which write that the eſſentiall proprieties of the diuine nature, are reallie communicated to the humaine nature, not that they be in the ſame, either eſſentiallie and formally, or ſubiectiuelie and habitually, but onelyonly by the reaſon, and reſpect of the perſonall or Hypoſtaticall vnion (for ſo they ſpeake, darkelie indeede and ambiguouſlie, when both they might and ought to ſpeake plainer:) if they meane this in no other ſenſe, then as Vigilius writ and thought: namely, that the proprieties of the natures, are made proper to Chriſt himſelfe, but are common to the natures betwixt themſelues, not in thēſelues, but in Chriſt, that is, in his perſon: I will not ſurelie, gaineſay them, neither do I thinke that any good or learned man will gaineſay them. For Vigilius according to the catholick churches doctrine, ſpeaking out of the councell at Calcedon, ſaid and declared, that the proprieties of the humaine nature were made commō to the diuine, in the verie ſame ſenſe, that the diuine are alſo ſaide to bee communicated to the humaine. But now theſe proprieties of the humanitie, as to ſuffer, or to die, are ſo communicated to the deitie, that for all that, yet the verie deitie is not made in verie deede, paſſible, or mortall: the cauſe whereof, Vigilius ſetteth downe to be this: namelie, becauſe to die and to ſuffer, are not made common to the deitie but onelyonly in the perſon: ſo that they can not truely be ſaid, but of the humaine nature by it ſelfe, and of the perſon, in reſpect of the humaine nature.
Wherefore we muſt euen ſo thinke and ſaye altogether of the communication of the diuine proprieties. Vigilius owne wordes bee theſe booke 5. chap. 2.
And now ſith out intention is chiefly bent againſt thoſe which following the error of one nature, doe with a willfull obſtinacie reſiſt the decree of the Calcedon councell. I thinke it not amiſſe, for the remoouing of their vaine contradictions, and beating to peeces their glaſſie opinions with the mallett of truth, to rehearſe ſome fewe things, concerning the humaine nature of the ſonne of God, which they euerie waye denie to be in him: and to ſhew what want of chriſtianity is in them, and how farre of they bee from the hope of euerlaſting life. It is a rule of the catholick faith, to confeſſe, one and the ſame Lord Ieſus Chriſt, as true God, ſo alſo true man: one of them both, & not two into one: the ſame without all time borne of the father, the ſame in time borne of the virgine: ſo that each of theſe births do ſo hold on Chriſt, that he ſuffred not any loſſe in either: retaining in himſelf that was proper to him both waies, that is, that the nature of the word ſhould not be chaūged in the fleſh, & the nature of the fleſh was not ſwallowed vpp in the word. Hereuppon the ſame Lord Ieſus Chriſt, is true God, and the ſame, true man, exiſting vnſpeakably of two natures, vnited together in one perſon in the virgines wombe: which natures, ſeing that in this wonderfull covnion they are not aboliſhed in him: to ſhew a plaine extance and appearance of the proprietie of them both in himſelfe being one, he did and ſpake thinges, belonging to both: not deuiding the wordes, nor parting the aſpects, nor ſeperating his deeds: but he himſelf being one, ſpeaking and doing in himſelf and by both, that which was agreeable, and was proper to both natures. And to make it more plaine which we hauehave ſaid, let vsus vſe an example as thus, I my ſelfe am hee, which with my bodilie eyes doe behold a white colour or a blacke: and againe I am hee, which by ſight of my minde doe iudge of the euill of iniquitie, and the good of righteouſneſſe: yet notwithſtāding I am not now diuers perſons, becauſe I doe both theſe in a diuerſe reſpect. For I doe not ſee the difference of coulours, with the ſame eyes, with which I ſee the diuerſitie of ſpeaches: and yet I am the verie ſame, which doe this both the wayes: both are in me not to ſee righteouſneſſe but onelyonly with the eyes of my minde, and it is in me not to ſee colours, but onelyonly with the eyes of my fleſh: and it is in me not to heare wordes with my eyes, and in me not to ſee light with my eares: in me not to iudge of taſtes with my noſe, and in me not to perceiue ſmelling at my mouth. And whereas it is wholly mine owne proprietie in my ſelfe, to ſee, to heare, to ſmel, to taſte: and yet it is one thing in me whereby I ſee, another whereby I heare, another wherby I taſte or ſmell: and all this being in me wholly, and yet in a certaine priuate reſpect deuided and diuers: I my ſelfe notwithſtāding cannot be deuided or ſeperated: So therefore Chriſt himſelfe alſo, being one and the ſame, created, and not created; hauing beginning, & being without beginning: growing in age & vnderſtanding, and receiuing no increaſe of age and vnderſtanding: ſuffering death, & not yeelding to the lawes of death: receiuing honor for his deſert, yet hauing need of no mās honor: and al theſe things being diuers in him, yet are meerely proper vntounto himſelfe: And therfore he diuideth not in himſelf, the words, affects, and deedes, agreeable both wayes in himſelfe: becauſe both are properly his owne: yet hauing one proprietie by the nature of the word, which remaining God, he loſt not: and another by the nature of the fleſh, which, being made man, hee receiued. Wee will yet ſpeake more, to confirme more plainely this one nature: for their ſakes which through their vnſaide skilfullneſſe, not vnderſtanding the proprietie and communion of the natures, howe it is ſaid to be in Chriſt, do abuſe and vtterly refuſe the ſame words.
It is diuerſe and another thing, not to hauehave beginning, and to ſubſiſt by a beginning: to die, and not to bee able to ſuffer: yet, as they are both proper vntounto Chriſt, ſo are they both common, not vntounto him, but in him. For if wee ſay, common vntounto him: we muſt needs bee vrged and driuen, to giuegive and ſhew ſome other, with whom the ſame ſhould be common vntounto him: which neceſſity of inſtance, cannot but incline to the impious opinion of Neſtorius. We therfore better and more catholically: ſaye, it is common in him and not to him: and ſo wee ſay better, it is proper to him, and not in him. Therefore it is proper to him to dye, by the nature of his fleſh, which is mortall: and it is proper to him, not to dye, by the nature of the vvord, which cannot dye. Likewiſe by that vnſpeakable miſterie of the vnion of both the natures, the mortallitie of the fleſh was common in him, to the nature of the vvord, which could not dye: and the immortalitie of the vvorde was common in him, to the nature of the fleſh, which yeelded to death. Therefore as it is proper vntounto him in reſpect of both natures, to dye and not to dye: ſo it is common in him, in both natures, to doe that which is their proprietie: and as I maye (for example ſake) ſay, it is proper to me, to carry the marke of the blackneſſe of a ſtroakein my bodie, by the nature of my fleſh: ſo it is proper to me to carrie the ſtripe of a word, that is, of ſome hard ſpeach, in my minde, by the nature of my ſoule: and it is alſo proper to me, not to carrie the ſame ſtripe of wordes in my bodie by the nature of my fleſh. And ſith both theſe are proper to me: and both of them different from my bodie and from my ſoule: becauſe neither my bodie vnderſtandeth anie hard or any pleaſing ſpeaches, neither can my ſoule be made blacke by the ſtroake of a whipp: yet both theſe are common in my ſelfe, both to my ſoule and to my body: becauſe, neither my ſoule placed out of my bodie, doth feele that, which is proper to it to feele: nor my bodie without the companie of my ſoule, can carrie the marks of the blowes. That therefore, which is proper vntounto me in either of them and yer different from neither of them; that is common in my whole ſelfe to either of them, which is proper to either of them.
And yet I am the verie ſame in them both, being both of them common in me: and I am the very ſame in either of them, being both proper to me. This ſaith Vigilius.
What can more fittly be ſaid for the deciding of this preſent controuerſie, of the reall communication of the proprieties? For this whole treatiſe of Vigilius is reſolued into theſe ſpeciall propoſitions, pertaining to our cauſe. For ſetting firſt downe a rule of the catholicke faith, which in the text is marked with the letter A: then from the ſame hee draweth certaine poſitions, by which he manifeſtly confuteth the hereſie of Eutyches. The ſumme of that rule of faith, is this: that one and the ſame Chriſt, is God and man: & both natures are kept whole in him. Out of this rule Vigilius gathered theſe poſitions.
1 The Lord Ieſus Chriſt, is the ſame true God: and the ſame true man. The reaſon: for he exiſteth of two natures, (the diuine and the humaine) vnſpeakablie ioyned and vnited together in one perſon, and that in the virgins wombe. This is againſt Neſtorius; againſt Eutyches, is added another poſition.
2 Theſe natures in that wonderfull covnion, are not aboliſhed in Chriſt. The confirmation followeth by the life of Chriſt: becauſe the Lord Ieſus both by his ſayings and deeds did ſhew that the proprieties of both the natures, remained ſafe and whole in him: therefore he addeth.
3 To ſhe we an extancie (that is, an exiſtence) of the proprieties of them both in himſelfe being one: namely: that the proprieties of both the natures did exiſt diſtinct in him: he ſpake and did things of both natures himſelfe being one. This is alſo againſt Eutyches.
But how? namely ſo, that he ſhewed, howe theſe ſayings and deeds, were not the actions of two perſons, but of one. Therefore againſt Neſtorius he alſo addeth: Not in making a diuerſitie in vvords, or ſhewing ſundrie aſpects, or ſeperating the deedes: but hee himſelfe being one, ſpeaking and doing in himſelfe and by both (that is by both natures) that vvhichwhich was agreeable and vvas proper to both the natures.
By theſe words we may perceiue theſe two thinges as cleare as the noone day: one that there were not in Chriſt, two which did worke and will, & vnderſtand, but onelyonly one: namely the very worde incarnate, which is called Chriſt: therefore he ſaith in himſelfe being one &c. Alſo, hee himſelfe being one ſpeaking and doing in himſelfe: this is the firſt, and that againſt Neſtorius.
The other is. That yet there were and are in Chriſt working, two beginnings of actions, diſtinct in themſelues: by which thoſe actions (as the ſchoolemen ſaye) were formallie performed by the agent: namely the faculties or powers of the two natures: and this is againſt Eutyches.
And therefore hee ioyneth: by both (that is, by both natures) ſpeaking and doing, that which is proper, to both natures.
Nowe who ſeeth not, that the the thinges which Chriſt did according to one nature: the ſame he did not according to the other? For he did by both, ſuch thinges as were proper to each: he did not therefore according to his humanitie, ſuch things as belonged to his deitie: nor contrary wiſe.
Moreouer to cōfirme and ſet forth the ſame he bringeth in an example of one & the ſame man, who according to the diuers faculties of the ſoule, doth worke diuers actions, and bringeth foorth deedes agreeable to each facultie.
The example appeareth of it ſelfe, there: And to make it more plaine, &c.
But we muſt warily marke his particles, not onelyonly the affirmatiues, but alſo the negatiues. For he denies that a man ſees thoſe thinges with the eyes of his fleſh, which he ſeeth with the eyes of his minde: and contrariwiſe. Therfore hee alſo denies that Chriſt doeth thoſe things according to his fleſh: which he worketh according to his deitie. This he plainely declareth, whenas applying the example, beſides other thinges he ſaieth of Chriſt, But hauing one propertie by the nature of the word, vvhichwhich remaining God, he loſt not: and another by the nature of the fleſh, vvhichwhich being made man, hee receiued, &c.
It is alſo to bee marked, that Vigilius, aſwell denieth that Chriſt doeth by the fleſh, that is, according to the fleſh, thoſe thinges, which are proper to the deitie: as hee denieth that hee ſuffred & did thoſe things according to his deitie, which were proper to the fleſh.
Vigilius alſo adioyneth a ſpeciall declaration of the proprietie and communion of the natures, and the ſame verie perſpicuous & certaine: where he ſaieth, We vill yet ſpeake more to confirme this nature for their ſakes, &c. The ſumme is this:
4 The proprieties of both the natures are proper to the verie perſon of Chriſt: but are common to the natures betwixt themſelues, not in the verie natures but in the perſon. The declaration is this.
For to die (which is the proprietie of the fleſh) is proper to Chriſt. For in that hee is ſaide to hauehave died: it is properlie ſpoken, in reſpect of the humaine nature which is in him. Alſo, not to die is proper to him in reſpect of his diuine nature, which cānot die.
Likewiſe to die, is common to the vvorde or deitie of Chriſt: not in the diuine nature it ſelfe, which cannot be partaker of death: but this was common to him with his fleſh in the perſon, becauſe the perſon which carried the fleſh could dye in the fleſh, and Ieſus Chriſt did dye. The ſame is to be thought & ſaid of the other part: as Vigilius alſo declareth: adding the example of himſelfe, that is, of a mā: where he ſaith, And for example ſake, to ſay, &c. In this example there is nothing but that which is plaine.
But the concluſion is diligentlie to be marked, where he ſaith: That therefore which is proper to me in either of them, and yet different from either of them: the ſame is common in me to either of them, vvhichwhich is proper to either of them. And yet I am the verie ſame one in them both, being both of them common in mee: and I am the verie ſame in either of them, being both proper to me.
Nothing can be ſaid more cleare for the declaration of the queſtion concerning the reall communication of the proprieties. For firſt he teacheth, that the proprieties of the one nature are ſo proper vntounto it ſelfe, that they are quite different from the other nature, and ſo different, that in their proper eſſence they can by no meanes be made common: that is, they cā not be ſo really communicated, that the ſame ſhould be made that verie ſame, or the like vntounto the other nature: as, for example, that the humanitie ſhould bee made the deitie, or bee made omnipotent, or, on the contrarie, that the deitie could be made the humanitie, or be made partaker of paſſion or ſuffring.
2 He deliuereth in plaine tearms, that the proprieties of each nature, are proper vntounto Chriſt: becauſe indeed, it is proper vntounto him in himſelfe (for example) in one nature to ſuffer, and in his other not to bee able to ſuffer: ſo as this he hath common with no other thing, either in heauen, or on earth, or in himſelfe. For there is nothing beſides himſelfe, that is both God and man: and neither of the natures in him, hath alſo the proprieties of the other nature beſids their owne, in their proper eſſence. Therefore it belongeth onelyonly to Chriſt God and man, to hauehave in himſelfe really, & therefore proper to himſelfe, the eſſential proprieties of each nature, both diuine and humaine.
Wherefore hereby is it manifeſt alſo, which before was ſaid of the communication. For if this bee proper to the perſon of Chriſt, that theſe contraries, namely, to ſuffer, and not to be able to ſuffer, may truely and indeede bee ſaid of him, and yet not ſimplie, but in reſpect of ſome other thing, that is in reſpect of his other nature: Then can it not agree to anie of both his natures ſeuerally, that the ſame nature ſhould truely and really be ſaid, to be able to ſuffer and not to ſuffer, in it owne proper eſſence.
3 The proprieties of the natures which he ſaid were proper to Chriſt: theſe hee taught to be made common in themſelues, not indeed in the very natures themſelues, but in his perſon. For example: To ſuſſer which is proper to the humaine nature ſimplie and by it ſelfe in it owne eſſence, but proper to the perſon in reſpect of ſome other thing that is, onelyonly in reſpect of the fleſh: I ſay this eſſentiall proprietie of the fleſh, by reaſon of the vnion, which the fleſh hath with the deity it ſelfe in the ſame perſon, is made alſo cōmon to the verie diuine nature it ſelfe with the humaine: how cōmon? namely that to ſuſſer is truely attributed alſo to the diuine nature.
But how can that be, ſith paſſion cannot fal into it? It is therefore common to it to ſuffer, not in the owne eſſence (for that nether could nor can ſuffer) but in Chriſt, that is, in the perſon of Chriſt, which conſiſteth of the two natures: and therefore, which onelyonly according to the fleſh ſuffred: ſo that in the proper eſſence of the deitie thereis no paſſion, but it is onelyonly in the common perſon by reaſon of the fleſh: and conſequently God is alſo ſaid to hauehave ſuffered, when notwithſtanding the deitie ſuffred nothing, but onelyonly the perſon of god & man, that is he which is God and man, ſuffred according to the fleſh. I will rehearſe this againe. The proprieties (for example) of the humaine nature, as to ſuffer, & to die, they are therefore ſaid to be common to the deitie, becauſe the deitie alſo hath them. For if in no ſort it had thē: the ſame could be ſaid no wayes to be made cō mon to it with the fleſh.
Now then, they are truely ſaid to be commō to the deitie with the humanitie, not ſimplie, but in Chriſt: becauſe it hath them not in it ſelfe, that is, in the owne eſſence, as the fleſh hath: but onelyonly in the perſon of Chriſt, which is one and the ſame perſon of both the natures, ſeing it ſubſiſteth in both of them.
The ſoule alſo hath the proprieties of the body, common vntounto it ſelfe, not in it owne eſſence, as the bodie: but in the perſon of man, who as he conſiſteth of them both, as being his eſſentiall partes, ſo alſo he hath in himſelfe really the proprieties of them both: ſo as he may truely be ſaid to be viſible, and inuiſible: mortall and immortall.
This which is ſaid of the proprieties of the humaine nature, common with the diuine, not in the proper eſſence of it, but in the common perſon of both the natures; that the ſame alſo is to be thought and ſaide of the diuine proprieties with the humaine, we are taught by Vigilius biſhop and martyr.
Theſe things being in very deed thus, it hereupon is to bee gathered, what manner of ſpeaches may be thought agreeable to theſe matters. If a propriety of the fleſh, as to ſuffer, be in ſome ſort common to the deitie, thē it may in ſome ſort be ſaid of the deitie. If it bee not in ſuch wiſe common to the ſame, as to hauehave it in it ſelfe, as in it owne eſſence, nor as an eſſentiall parte of it ſelfe, nor as an accident in the ſubiect: then the deitie cannot bee ſaid, in it owne eſſence, to bee ſubiect to paſſion.
But if it bee common vntounto it onelyonly in perſon: then to ſuffer cannot be ſaid of the deitie in the abſtract, but onelyonly in the Concrete: this is, by ſuch a worde, wherein the deitie maye bee ſo ſignified, as the perſon may bee ſignified with it: ſuch as bee the Concrete names as God.
For by this name, ſo farre forth as therein is ſignified, the perſon of Chriſt, which is alſo God, and not bare man, it is truely and really ſaid that God did ſuffer, and died: yet not fimplie, and according to his deitie alſo, but onelyonly according to the fleſh: whoſe propertie it is to ſuffer and to dye. Wherefore as this is moſt true, God ſuffered: ſo this is moſt falſe, the deitie ſuffred: or that Chriſt alſo according to his diuine nature ſuffred. This is the doctrine of Vigilius, and the whole church.
But ſeing, that which Vigilius hath deliuered, of the proprieties and communion of the natures, is indifferently ſaid of all the proprieties and their communion in Chriſt: ſo that by this hypoſtaticall or perſonall vnion, the diuine proprieties are ſaid to be made commō to the humanitie in the ſame ſenſe, that the humaine are to the diuinitie: namely not in the eſſences of the natures themſelues, but onelyonly in Chriſt and in the perſon of Chriſt: it followeth, like as the propoſition is impious, the deny, by reaſon of the vnion with the fleſh in the perſon of the ſonce of god, is made partaker of paſſion in it owne eſſence: ſo alſo this is blaſphemous: the humaine nature, by reaſon of the vnion with the diuine, receiueth of it, that it is omnipotent really, in it ovvne eſſence, &c.
Now if we add that, which the ſame Vigilius left in writing out of the common conſent of the whole church booke 4. chap. 4. this doctrine, which we ſhewed euē now out of him, will more plainely appeare. For diſputing againſt the Monophyſites (defenders of one nature) he plainely prooueth, by the diuers proprieties, which were ſeene in one & the ſame Chriſt, and which the holy Scriptures do ſpeak of, that the word and the fleſh cannot bee in him all one nature: he bringeth a reaſon, becauſe one nature cannot receiue in it ſelfe any thing that is contrary & diuers: beſides other things he alſo writeth thus: Moreouer if there be but one nature of the word and of the fleſh, how can it be but that the worde being in all places, the fleſh muſt be foūd in al places too? For doubtleſſe when it was on earth, then was it not in heauē, & now being in heauē, it is not likewiſe on earth: yea it is ſo farre from being on earth, as that according to it, we looke for Chriſt to come downe from heauen, whome according to the word we beleeue to bee with vsus on earth. Therefore according to your opinions: either the word with his fleſh is contained within one place: or the fleſh with the word is in all places: whereas one nature cannot receiue in it ſelfe any contrarie or diuers things. But it is verie contrarie and farre different, to be circumſcribed or contained in one place, and, to be euerie where: and ſeing the word is euerie where, and the fleſh is not euerie where: it appeareth that one & the ſame Chriſt is of both natures: and that he is euerie where, according to the nature of his diuinitie, and is contained in a place, according to the nature of his humanitie: that he hath beene created, and hath no beginning: that he hath died, and hath not bin able to dye: the one he hath by the nature of the word, whereby he is God: the other by the nature of the fleſh, whereby the ſame God is man. Wherefore, this one the ſonne of God, & the ſame made the ſonne of man, hath a beginning, by the nature of his fleſh, and hath no beginning by the nature of his diuinitie: he was created, by the nature of his fleſh, and was not created, by the nature of his diuinitie: hee is circumſcribed, by the nature of his fleſh, and is not contained within place, by the nature of his diuinity: he is leſſe alſo then the angels, by the nature of his fleſh, and is equall to the father, according to the nature of his diuinitie: he died, by nature of his fleſh, & died not, by nature of his diuinitie. This is the catholick faith and confeſſion, which the Apoſtles deliuered, the Martyrs confirmed, and the faithfull do yet aſſuredly hold. Thus ſaith Vigilius.
By this the very ſame is vndoubtedly prooued, which was alſo by the other before, namely, not onelyonly that the worde and fleſh, cannot poſſiblie be both of one nature, as the Monophyſites affirmed: but alſo that the proprieties of the one nature, cannot really be communicated to the other: ſo as indeed, it ſhould hauehave the ſame in it ſelfe, and that the one nature ſhould be made the very like, that the other is: as thus, that the fleſh, by reaſon of the vnion with the word, ſhould alſo with the ſame word, bee made preſent in all places, in it owne eſſeuce. For from this propoſition, which is held for graunted, of all ſound beleeuers, namely, The fleſh through the vnion with the word, hath not gotten this proprietie of the word, that it ſelfe, ſhould with the word be preſent in all places, in it owne ſubſtance: from this propoſition (I ſay) he concludeth, therefore neither is it made of the ſame nature with the word. This certenly is the argument of Vigilius, yea of the whole catholicke church. What remaineth? onelyonly this, that if it may be ſaid to bee preſent in all places: it can be ſaid to bee ſo, by no other meanes, then by the Hypoſtaſie of it, which is the very word.
For in Chriſts humaine nature, there be only two things: the proper eſſence of his nature, with his proprieties and gifts created: and the common Hypoſtaſis with the diuine, which is the word it ſelfe. His proper eſſence is finite or determinate, and ſo is onelyonly within one place: The Hypoſtaſis is infinite, immeaſurable, and moſt ſimple or vnmixt. And therefore in this onelyonly, and not in the proper eſſence, the fleſh of Chriſt can be, and in verie deed is, preſent in all places.
That which hath bin ſaid of this propriety: the ſame is alſo to be thought of all the reſt, aſwell thoſe of the word, as of the fleſh. For alſo in the argumēt before going, againſt the Monophyſites, book 4. chap. 4. he concludeth the ſame, from certaine proprieties of the word, as is, to be vncreated, inuiſible, vntouchable: & ſaid, that it is impoſſible, the fleſh ſhould partake in thoſe qualities. Hereuppon he concluded, therefore, the fleſh cannot bee of one nature with the word: ſith it can by no meanes be made, inuiſible, vncreated, vntouchable: vnderſtand this in it owne eſſence: whereas notwithſtanding in the Hypoſtaſis of it, which is common to it with the vvorde, it is in verie deed, as in all places preſent, ſo alſo, vncreated, inuiſible, vntouchable, and what not? ſeing in the ſame Hypoſtaſis it is alſo god. Theſe things are all moſt aſſured and plaine, and do depend vponupon that infallible rule, which he deliuered in the fift booke and ſecond chapter: namely, We ſaye better and more catholically: it is common in him, and not vntounto him: And we ſay better, it is proper to him, and not in him.
I beſeech all chriſtians, by our Lord Ieſus, that ſetting aſide all the vaine dreames of priuate men: and reiecting all the affections, hatreds, enmities of their fleſh: and imbracing, the aſſured and wholeſome doctrine of the aū cient church, and chriſtian louelove: wee maye all ioyne together into one holy league of friendſhip: euen as we hauehave all one God, one mediatour, one baptiſme, one hope of our vocation: to the glorie of Gods name, the building vp of the church, & the ſaluation of our ſoules. For ſooner then we ſuppoſe; ſhall wee be ſummoned before Chriſts tribunall ſeate, that euerie one may giuegive account for that, which he hath done in the bodie, and in this life: ſeing that after this life, there is no hope of pardon, no place for amendment.