The defence of the article: Christ descended into Hell VVith arguments obiected against the truth of the same doctrine: of one Alexander Humes. All which reasons are confuted, and the same doctrine cleerely defended. By Adam Hyll, D. of Diuinity.

Humes. Sectio. 12.

Now let vs come to the great bulwarke of your de∣fence you choose to be your foundation and text. Peter sayth that Christ was put to death in the flesh and quickned in the spirit, by the which he went and preached to the spirits that are in prison which were in times past disobedient, &c. Here following the Geneua translatiō, I leaue some van∣tage that the Greeke doth offer me, but I hope to finde heere matter enough to defende the truth. Beza heere (whome we also follow because he groweth neerest to the meaning of the Apostle) by this word spirit doth giue vs to vnderstand the deity of Christ, following Iohn that calleth God a spirit, Iohn. 4. 24. and by this word flesh his manhood conteining both his body and soule as he findeth the word vsed both of Paule, 1. Tim. 3. 16. God was manifested in the flesh, and also of Peter himselfe, 1. Pet. 4. 1. Christ suffred for vs in the flesh. Which antithe∣sis of the deuine and humane nature Paule doth also ex∣presse in the same tearmes speaking of Christ, which was made of the seed of Dauid according to the flesh, and declared mightely to be the Sonne of God according to the spirit. Rom. 1. 3. 4. where you see he vseth the words no otherwise then he findeth them vsed in the scriptures. Now that this can not be the sence of them you reason thus. First you say that this participle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that is, going doth signifye motion from some place which can not stand with the deuine Essence, which can not possibly leaue any place, being at all times in all places. To this I aun∣swere, that it is spoken of the same spirit or deuine es∣sence in Gen. 18. 21. I will go downe and see whether the So∣domites

do altogether according to the cry that is come vnto me. And in Exod. 3. 8. I am come downe to deliuer them, that is the Israelites, out of the hand of the Aegiptians. You can not be ignorant (M. Hill) that the holie ghost speaketh oftentimes of the deuine Essence by a figure called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, whē God declareth his presence in one place more then in another by some notable effect, which in this place was most necessary to expresse the continuall presence of Christ in his Church in those dayes of Noah, and so in all ages either past or to come, departing as it were from all other places (which indeed he can not) and sitting as it were a perpetuall moderator and ruler thereof. Next you alleage the other participle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is quickned, that because it is passiue, it can not stand with the deuine essence which can not suffer. This we deny not, for we attribute not this par∣ticiple to the deuine essence, but to the whole Christ God & man: for we say not Christ the spirit was quick∣ned, but Christ was quickned in spirit. Thirdly you tell vs that mortified and quickned were both participles, and both attributed to Christ at one time. We confesse they were attributed to one Christ, but we see no mat∣ter to leade vs to refer them both to one time. But by the contrary (me thinks) that the order of the wordes haue sufficient matter in them to proue that he was first mortified and then quickned. As for the distinction of time, the distance was not to great as to require it. To this you adde how he was dead, and how he was aliue, by putting to killed flesh and to quickned spirit. The very text as I take it will deny you this, for it saith not that the flesh was killed and the spirit quickned, but that Christ was killed in the flesh and quickned in the spirit, which is all one, as if he had said that Christ dyed as he was man, and ouercame death as he was God. Which thing also Paule doth expresse in other words, 2. Cor. 13, 4. He was crucified concerning his infirmitie, yet

liueth he through the power of God. Fourthly, you say that the scriptures do ioyn together this going & preaching close to his passion, as if he had said, assone as he had suf∣fered he went & preached. This (as if) concludeth no necessary matter. We expect demonstrations, & cannot be caried with as, and if. Fiftly, you adde out of Gen. 6. that the preching of Noah is attributed to the 3. person, and not to the second, which putting on mans flesh re∣deemed vs. We confesse that ability to preach was gi∣uen Noah by the holy ghoste, but he was stirred vp and sent by the whole Trinity. The actions whereof seeing they are common to all three, he erreth not that attri∣buteth them to any of the three. Where you saye that Christ was raised from the dead by the first person, and not by the second: I see not how that can stand with the truth of the Scriptures, which telleth me that the second person did put on man, and did neuer forsake him in all his distresses. Afterwards you tel me that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that is disobedient, and sometime doo seperate the time of their disobedience and Christs going to thē. But I can not take it at your woord, for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is, not as you seeme to take it a Verbe but a Participle, gree∣ing with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that is spirits in the verse before: and the Aduerb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 sometimes belongeth to the prin∣cipall Verbe, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that is, preached, so that the sence must needs be, he preached sometimes to the spirites that are in prison, and were disobedient in the dayes of Noah. Whereas you argue this can not be spoken of the preaching of Noah, because he preached to men and to spirites: it is strange to me how he can preach to men and not to spirits, seeing that whosoeuer doth instruct men dooth also instruct their soules. Lastlye. you charge this construction to doo violence to the text, ta∣king the woord spirite for the diuinity in one place, and for the power thereof in another: where you doo vs great wrong, for Beza himselfe refuseth it, and proueth

it is not taken for the power of the deitye in this place at all. Hitherto haue I answered all that you can saye a∣gainst vs, now will I proue that your sence which you make of this place, can not stand with the truth of the text. You take this woord (flesh) only for the bodye of Christ, which dyed and was buried: and the woord (spi∣rite) for his soule, which you beare vs in hand descen∣ded into hell, preached to the soules which had beene rebellious in the dayes of Noah: if this your constructi∣on shall goe for currant, then the apostle speaketh no∣thing heere of Christ, which may not be verified of any man. For though our bodyes dye, yet our soules liue as∣well as his. The spirite here (as it appeereth by the text) doth signifie that which gaue life, to that which was dead: that I trust was not his soule, but his deity: third∣ly this participle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 killed, doth signifie not onelye the death of the bodye, but also whatsoeuer Christ did suffer either in body or soule for the redemption of our bodies and soules: and doth comprise his whole passion which the Spriptures doth many times terme death, which if it be so (as it is so indeed) then the woord flesh noteth vnto vs the whole subiect of his passion, that is, the whole man Christ, for it was expedient that he did as∣well* 1.1 suffer in soule for our soules, as in body for our bo∣dies: or else he had been but halfe a redemer. Fourthly seeing his body was quickned, that is, restored from the graue aswell as his soule from the sorrowes of hell, if you take spirite there for the humane soule, then you confound those thinges which the Apostle doth distin∣guish, attributing that to the soule alone, which is also common to the body. Fiftly, seeing 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is to giue life, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to receiue life, this cannot be vnder∣stood of the soule, which neuer lost life after that it had once liued with the body, and therefore could neuer receiue it againe. Here you tell vs that to be quickened is to be deliuered from miseries: how the English word

may be taken I leaue it to the wise, but in the Greeke woord 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or the Latin word vi••ificari, I am sure it were strange and seldome seene to finde that sence. Furthermore, I am sure that if this deuise may stand, that then you will ouerthrowe the antithesis betweene 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 dead and quickned, for if quickned doth not signifie a restitution to life, what an∣tithesis can it haue with death or dead. Lastlye, adde to those if it please you that infallible reason of Beza, ta∣ken from the scope and drifte of the Apostle, to whose greater notes I referre you, being not able to handle his reason so effectually as he dooth himselfe.

Notes

• * 1.1

  If this be true, then Christ was not dead as Peter saith.