A Scourge for a Railer, Treatise · Part 9
The 9. imputation of Contradictions.
The accusation.
1. In that the Replyer maketh this the question, that Christ descended not into hell to deliuer the Patriarchs: hee saith, you wound your selfe incurably. 2. b. p. 4.2. b. p. 4. for the former, which eueryevery Aristotelean knoweth, must of necessitie be graunted, before you can dispute of the l…tter. 2. b. p. 3.2. b. p. 3. and so in effect, he chargeth the Replyer to affirme that which he denieth, the descension to Limbus.
2. That the Replyer doth in other places as earnestly maintaine it (that is,Synops. p. 1017. 1018. that Christ loosed the sorrowes of hel for himselfe) as here you impugne it. 2. b. p. 37.2. b. p. 37.
3. These words nephesh and sheol say you, doe properly signifie sometime (soule) and (hell) and doe also properly sometime betoken (life) and (graue:) they cannot properly signifie both, beeing two distinct things. 2. b. p. 121.2. b. p. 121. in other places you contend,Synops. p. 999. 1005, 1006. &c. that these words may in no wise be taken for (life) and (graue) but for (soule) and (hell) onelyonly: this is the certainty you keepe.
4. You affirme, that no figure is to be admitted in these words soule and hell, and yet you fall presently to figuring vponupon figuring.2. b. p. 141. 2. b. p. 141. Hitherto you hauehave borne vsus in hand, that soule doth properly signifie (life) and that no figure at all is to be admitted; and yet you here affirme, that it is so taken by the figure Metonymia; what grosse contradiction is this?2. b. p. 144.
5. Againe, in another place you will needs hauehave this word soule, not to be taken foreign for the life, but foreign for the whole person.Synops. p. 1050. 2. b. p. 144. againe you say, that soule is here taken for the whole person, whereas a little before you contend by examples of scripture, that in this place it signifieth life.2. b. p. 161.
6. In these two examples alleadged by you, you graunt that the particles (not and neither) doe shewe a difference of the clauses & diuersitie of matter, &c. because the greatnesse or littlenesse of a difference is but an accident, &c. and thus in wielding the weapon against me, you wound your selfe with the blowe: And yet after you hauehave yeilded thus much, you presently reuoke it, compelled thereunto by the euidence of holy Scripture, and so conuince your selfe of falsehood, in condescending to a truth. 2. b. p. 163.2. b. p. 163.
7. You contradict your selfe palpably, in calling that Limbus patrum here, which you called before in se…ting downe the question (hel:) whereas you your selfe affirme in expresse words, that Limbus patrum is no part of hell. 2. b. p. 165.2. b. p. 165.
8. Your selfe in the next page affirme directly,Limbom. p. 43. that after that (consummatum est) vttered by Christ vponupon the crosse, his glory, victory, & triumph remayned (vnaccomplished:) wherein you doe not onelyonly grosly contradict your selfe in saying here, that Christ triumphed ouer death, hell, and the diuell vponupon the crosse, but also derogate from his blessed death and passion, &c. 2. b. p. 189.2. b. p. 189. the same contradiction is againe obiected, 3. b. p. 156.2. b. p. 156.
9. You affirme in an other place,Synops. p. 1052. that the theefe made request to Christ as man, and not as he was God, &c. now your self dare not defend your former opinion, but say, that Christ spake this, as he was the Messias: wherein, as you delight in contrarietie, &c. 2. b. p. 195.2. b. p. 195.
10. Herein you contradict your selfe: for in the former …ection you say, that Christ is with vsus in respect of his Godhead, but we with him, as he is our Messias. 3. b. p. 9.3. b. p. 9.
11. You contradict your selfe herein many waies, for before p. 9. you acknowledge this reading (of the sorrowes of hell) to be the true reading, &c. how then can you say here, that Christ onelyonly suffered the sorrowes of the first death? 3. b. p. 25.3. b. p. 25.
12. The Reader may see how vnlearnedly you condemne that for an error in Bellarmine (for saying, that Christ loosed the sorrowes of hell for others, not for himselfe) which your selfe defend for a truth.3. b. p. 36.
13. We say not (saith the Replyer) that Christs bodie felt sorrowes (in the graue) but was vnderunder the sorrowes or bandes of death: and yet your selfe (meaning the Replyer) in the former section, make it all one, to be vnderunder the sorrows of hell, and to suffer them.3. b. p. 36.
14. Your (minor) or assumption containeth grosse error, and contradiction, in that it implieth Dauids soule to hauehave beene sometime in hell, because it was not left in hell:3. b. p. 40. it is your owne reason,Synops. p. 1017. and indeede most true.
15. Your contradiction is, in that you say in your proposition,Synops. p. 1050. that this prophesie (of Dauid, Psal. 16.) was wholly performed in Christ. Againe, in an other place you say, that this prophesie is so applied to Christ, as it must first be true in Dauid▪ vponupon which supposition you inferre thus: well then, first Dauids soule is in hell, and then it must be in the lowest hell, &c.3. b. p. 42.
16. You say the whole is a peculiar prophesie of Christ, not partly of him, partly of Dauid: and presently after, that this prophesie typically agreeth to Dauid.3. b. p. 42.
17. There is no more necessitie here by flesh to vnderstand the whole humanitie of Christ his soule and bodie, then in that place of S. Paul, Rom. 1. 3. Christ was made of the seede of Dauid according to the flesh, &c. if the soule should necessarily be comprehended vnderunder the name of flesh, it would follow, that Christ receiued his soule of the seede of Dauid, and so anima should be ex traduce. 3. b. p. 61.3. b. p. 61. And yet in an other place the Replyer speaking of the very same place, saith: Synops. p. 979. 980.Here whole Christ is described vntounto vsus as God and man: the soule then of Christ is comprehended vnderunder the name of flesh, or els it is excluded, and so the Apostle should set before vsus an vnperfect Christ. 3. b. p. 62.3. b. p. 62.
18. You contradict your selfe herein in iustifying that for a veritie (because the Replyer saith, to what purpose rather should Christ be thought to preach to the spirits in hell, then for their comfort?) which you condemne a little before for a most grosse heresie: namely that by Christs descending into hell,3. b. p. 77. the incredulous persons beleeued.
19. You grossely contradict your selfe in an other place, where you affirme, that the doores opened, and gaue way vntounto Christ,Synops. papism. p. 526. when he entred: and yet you say here, that they were shut in the very instance of his entrance.3. b. p. 118.
20. In eueryevery place you defend, that by prison in this place (of Peter) hell and the infernall place of darkenes is to be vnderstood, and doe you now recant it, and bring vsus an other signification of sinnes and errors?3. b. p. 122.
21. The Replyer saith, hauing cited that place of the Prophet Dauid, Psal. 139. 15. (thou hast fushioned me in the lower parts of the earth) I trust they will not say, he was borne in hell. 3. b. p. 134.3. b. p. 134. And yet in the first testimonie, you (that is, the Replyer) bring S. Ambrose to prooue, that by these very words of the Prophet Dauid, we ought to vnderstand Christs descending to hell. 3. b. p. 140.3. b. p. 140. see the same contradiction vrged, 3. b. p. 183.3. b. p. 183.
22. Bearing vsus in hand, that Bernard acknowledgeth no further descension of Christ, then to death, &c. and yet in an other place you are driuen in the ende vtterly to forsake and reiect him, (as one carried away with the error of his time) in thinking that Christ in his soule after death went locally downe into hell.3. b. p. 149.
22. In the former place you say, that Bernard goeth not beyond Christs death, nor findeth any further degree of descension after that: and yet that he maketh here one degree, to be his descending to the graue: for I am sure, that you wil not say he was buried, before he was dead.3. b. p. 160. 3. b. p. 160.
23. Before in this place you will needes hauehave the lower parts of the earth, to be meant of the crosse, death, and graue: 3. b. p. 170.3. b. p. 170. and yet here you say, that the parts of the earth are not compared with it selfe, but considered as parts of the world,3. b. p. 163. in respect whereof, they may be called lower or lowest parts. 3. b. p. 163. And againe: to descend to the lower parts of the earth, is to descend from hea…en to earth: and yet other where you defend, that (by descending into the lower parts of the earth) is meant Christs descension to death and the graue: so that you doe here notably contradict your selfe, vnlesse you make this world to be all one with death and the graue.3. b. p. 173.
24. You told vsus before, that there is none of the auncient fathers, which speaketh of the descension of Christs soule to hell, but addeth withall, that it was to this ende, to deliuer the soules of the fathers from thence:3. b. p. 193. 3. b. p. 193. and yet you say; neither did all the fathers agree in iudgement, that Christ descended into hell, to redeeme the soules of the fathers. p. 190.3. b. p. 190. what truth can there be in your words, when you thus blow hoate and cold with one breath.3. b. p. 193.
25. You change me before to hauehave misalledged (Calvin) for Christs descension into hell in that place of Peter, whereas you alledge him here your selfe to the same purpose.3. b. p. 195.
The iustification.
1. THis (Contradicter) hath found out a new kinde of reasoning, neuer heard of before: that in a proposition, where two questions are included together, the second can not be denied, before the former be graunted. As, the question beeing, whether Christ descended to (Limbus) to deliuer the fathers:The Contradicters new Logike. one (in his logike) can not denie, that he descended to that ende, vnlesse first he graunt, that he descended to Limbus: by the same reason, he that saith, that an Idol must not be bowed vntounto to worship it, doth graunt, that it may be bowed vntounto, but, not to that ende: and he which holdeth, that the Scriptures must not be abused to enchantment, confesseth, they may be abused, but no to that ende: or it is not lawfull to sweare falsly by the creatures, as the heauen, the earth, therefore it is lawfull to sweare by them, but not falsly: which indeede was the doctrine of the Pharisies, Math. 5. 33. but our Sauiour reacheth the contrarie, that it is not lawful to sweare at all by any creature. And what thinketh he of this proposition, It is not lawfull to sweare to the Pope, to assist him inuading the land, before the King: doth it follow therefore, that it is lawfull to sweare to the Pope, so that it be not to that ende?
And may not this argument be returned vponupon himselfe: Christ descended not to (Limbus) to deliuer the Patriarks: I thinke he will denie this proposition, then he must grant by his owne consequent, that Christ descended to (Limbus.)
Indeed in an affirmatiue proposition it holdeth: as it can not be confessed, that Christ descended to Limbus to deliuer the Patriarkes, but first it must be graunted, that he descended to (Limbus) but in the negatiue it is not so.
2. The Replyer in that place groundeth his argument vponupon the Latine text, that Christ loosed the sorrows of hell, shewing that seeing he loosed the sorrowes of hell for himselfe, they could not be the sorrowes of the locall hell: for he felt not the sorrowes of hell after death: Synops. p. 1017.and here he saith, he was neuer in the sorrowes of hell after death: here is no contradiction at all. If he can finde any place, where the Replyer affirmeth, that Christ loosed the sorrowes of hell for himselfe after death, he will graunt a contradiction: but to say, that Christ loosed not the sorrowes of hell for himselfe after death, and yet that he loosed the sorrowes of hell for himselfe, are not contradictorie, but doe implie, that he speaketh of other sorrowes of hell, which Christ loosed, then those after death: seeing then he speaketh not of the same sorrowes of hell, there is no contradiction, and that this Cauiller knew right well.
3. As though the same Hebrew word may not properly signifie two distinct things, contained in one generall sense: as gez, signifieth any thing that is cut, and therefore some translate a fleece, Psal. 72. 5. as the Latine, and Montanus: some, the mowne grasse, as Vatab. Iun. because they both vse to be cut.Bellar. lib. 4. de Christ anim. c. 12. And concerning this word nephesh, his great Master confesseth, significat sine vllo tropo, tam animam, quam animal, immo etiam corpus: it fignifieth without any trope, as well the soule, as the liuing creature, yea the bodie: these I hope are all distinct things: yea this (palterer) confesseth, that it is one of the words foreign, and that it signifieth all those three things giuen in instance by Bellarmine, lib. 2. p. 159. 160.lib. 2. p. 160. But that the Replyer saith, these words, are taken for the soule and hell onelyonly, is a manifest vntruth:Synops. 1005. for in the place quoted, he confesseth in direct words,A great vntruth. that in some places, the soule is taken for life, but contendeth, that Isa. 53. 10. it is properly taken for the soule.
4. The Replyer, when he saith these words doe properly signifie life, and the graue, speaketh of the Hebrew words, nephesh and sheol: when he saith, that the soule is here taken foreign, for the life, he meaneth this word, Englished soule: like as anima in Latine indifferently signifieth, the soule, or life: therefore this is no contradiction to say, that the Hebrew nephesh, sometime signifieth life, without a figure: as, Levit. 17. 14. the nephesh, the life of all flesh is his blood: it were improper, to say, the soule of all flesh: and that the Englished and translated word soule, is not taken for life, without a figure: for this trifler confesseth, that the Hebrew word nephesh, is more generall in signification,Bellarm. ibid. then either the Latine word anima, or the Greeke word foreign, as his Ringleader confesseth, of whom he borrowed it: and yet either of these are more large, and generall, then the English word, soule.
5. The Replyer in that place, doth not so much as vse that tearme foreign:Synops. 1050. he both there, and in other places alleadgeth that, as a reasonable and fit exposition, to take soule for the person: but he rather preferreth the other sense, to take soule, for life: Limbom. p. 9. to bring two probable interpretations of a place, as indifferent to be receiued, and of the two to preferre the more likely, is no contradiction.
6. To denie, that not, and neither, doe not alwaies shew two distinct clauses, and that sometime, they argue no great difference or diuersitie, he that saith they are speeches contrarie, sheweth himselfe to be contrarie to reason: vnlesse he thinketh there is no difference, betweene a plaine distinction, and a small diuersitie: hath he so much forgotten his Logike, that he knoweth not diversa to be defined, which dissent onelyonly in some reason, and respect: and opposita to be such as differ, re & ratione, both in respect, and in deede and effect. And whereas the Replyer saith, be it admitted that these particles doe inferre a distinction in the sentence, &c. doth he reuoke any thing? is he so blind, that he can not discerne betweene a simple assertion, and that which proceedeth vponupon a supposall and conditionall graunt. But what new wine had intoxicated his braine, when he let these wordes fall from his penne, You presently reuoke it, and conuince your selfe of falshood, in condescending to a truth: The blind confuter counteth it falshood to condescend to a truth.I thought it had bin simplicitie rather, and integritie, to condescend to a truth, and not falshood: if this be falshood to condescend to a truth, then it is simplicitie and plainenes to contradict the truth. This may be the reason, that he is so aduerse to the truth, it is one of his vertues: but such falshood to yeild to the truth, God send me, and let him take his plaine dealing to himhimselfe: whosoeuer hath the blow, I am sure he hath the wound, and feeleth the smart too: as the Orator saith, Luculentam ipse plagam accepit, vt declarat cicatrix: Cic. Philipp. 7.he hath receiued a sufficient venie, as the scarre declareth.
7. The Replyer in that place,Limbom. 43. saith out of Augustines iudgement, that Abrahams bosome is no part of hell, he nameth not Limbus: it seemeth he himselfe hath a conceit that waies, in making Abrahams bosome, and Limbus all one. But for his owne opinion, the Replyer thinketh that Limbus patrum, is neither part of hell, nor of any place els, no more then Purgatorie is: yet he is not ignorant, but that his great Master, maketh it a member of hell. So then the question beeing propounded in the Romanists sense: to say sometime Christ descended not to hell, and otherwhile that he descended not to Limbus to deliuer the fathers, is no contradiction.
8. The Replyers words are these:Limbom. p. 17. his glorie, victorie, and triumph onelyonly remained: so that, he fraudulently putteth in (vnaccomplished) of his owne. The Replyer saith, that Christ triumphed ouer death, hell, and the deuill vponupon the Crosse: that is, the victorie and triumph was then obtained: and yet his glorie, victorie, and triumph remained; that is, it was not yet manifested, and published: for this word triumph, though it properly signifie, the publike solemnitie that followeth after the victorie: as the Romane Captaines had their honourable triumphs publikely solemnized in the Citie after their victorious returne: in which sense he that so triumphed, was called foreign, a triumphant man: Plutark.yet in Scripture they are saide to triumph,2. Cor. 2. 14. that doe ouercome, as Paul saith; Thankes be to God, which alwaies makes vsus to triumph in Christ: where the same word is vsed:foreign, triumpho. and yet the glorious and proper triumph of the Saints, is in the kingdome of heauen. As Christ now triumpheth in his members, in preuailing, and ouercomming: so he triumphed vponupon the Crosse, in obtaining the victorie. And if any derogate and detract from the blessed death and passion of Christ, it is this Contradicter and detracter: who a little before said, that Christs conquest vponupon the Crosse, was openly an ouerthrow, and therefore no triumph. And againe, If he triumphed on the Crosse, See before, Blasp. recrim. 3.it was a triumph before the victorie. 2. b. p. 188.
9. And are these speeches, to make request to Christ, as man, and as the Messiah, contrarie? is there in them any contrarietie at all? are the manhoode of Christ, and the person of the Messiah contrarie? or when it is said as man, is he so absurd to thinke, that Christ is considered as man without his Godhead, and not as vnited with it in the person of the Messiah? or when, himselfe saith: that the theefe made request to him as God, doth he meane, his Godhead without his humanitie. And is S. Paul contrarie to himselfe, when not in diuers, but in one and the same place he ioyneth both together, there is one God and Mediatour, betweene God and man, the man Iesus Christ, that is, the Messiah? Doth not the Replyer in direct wordes expound himselfe: that these wordes must not be vnderstood of the presence of Christ in heauen, in respect of his Godhead onelyonly, but of his whole person, as the Mediatour? But it may be he tooke this exception, because he enclineth to his cousin germanes opinion, that Christ exercised his mediatourship as man onelyonly, not as both God and man:Bellarm. lib. 5. de Christ. anim. c. 1. and therfore noteth this as a contradiction and contrarietie.
10. It is not the former sect. which is the 16. but the 15. sect. where the Replyer saith, wee are said to be with him as the Messiah: and doth hee not say the selfe same thing here? for hauing rehearsed those words of our Sauiour, Ioh. 17. I will that they which thou hast giuen mee, be with me where I am: and then follow the other words, that they may behold my glory which thou hast giuen me: he addeth in very direct words, Doth hee not here speake also of that glorie, which was giuen him as the Messiah? How could then this humorous Contradicter so much as dream of any contradiction here: but it seemeth his wits went a woole-gathering, when he noted this; for in the next sentence before, in stead of confuting the Replyers reasons, he repeateth and confirmeth them: for whereas the Replyer brought this as one: if Christ, saying (where I am) speake of his Godhead, his request was euen then fulfilled, for his Apostles were with him then present as God. 3. b. p. 5.3. b. p. 5. This cō fused Confuter steppeth forth,The wise Confuter reasoneth against himselfe. and saith; secondly, if they were with him as God, then was Christs prayer vntounto his father in vaine, to graunt them that which they presently enioyed. 3. b. p. 9.3. b. p. 9. Is not this the very same reason vrged before by the Replyer, to proue that Christ speaketh not of his Apostles being with him as God; for could he not see, how vponupon his words it may be assumed: but Christs prayer vntounto his father was not in vaine, therefore hee prayeth not, they should be with him as God. And thus hee hampereth himselfe, and woundeth his owne cause.
11. It is vntrue, that either in that place, Limbom. p. 9. or in any other, the Replyer acknowledgeth sorrowes of hell, Act. 2. 24. to be the true reading: he only thus saith, the hell that Christ went vntounto, he loosed the sorrowes of, Act. 2. 24. which place hee citeth, not for the name of hell, but for loosing of the sorrowes: because euen in the Confuters opinion, that which is called hell, v. 27. is named death, v. 24. And the Replyer is so farre in that place from iustifying that reading of hell in the 24. verse, that he would convince by this reason, that hell is not meant, no not in the 27. verse, because it would then follow, that Christ loosed the sorrowes of hell there, which had seized vponupon him. As vntrue it is, that the Replyer in that place goeth about to prooue, that Christ suffered the sorrowes of hell (in his sense) but rather declineth it as an absurdity.Synops. p. 1017. But in another place he inferreth that conclusion, grounding his argument vponupon the latine text, which the Romanists make their onelyonly authentike translation; and therefore it is a good text against them.
12. To say that Christ loosed the sorrowes of hell (the place of the damned) for himselfe, the Replyer counteth it absurd; and yet to say that the sorrowes of death, which Saint Peter speaketh of, and Bellarmine readeth (hell) were not loosed for Christ, is contrary to the text, as there he sheweth by diuers reasons: hereupon no contradiction can be inferred, but this followeth, that the death which Saint Peter speaketh of, the sorrowes whereof were loosed for Christ, cannot be vnderstood of hell.
13. That it is all one to say that the soule is vnderunder the sorrowes of hell, and doth suffer them, beeing full of sense and feeling; and yet that it is not all one, for the body in the graue, to be vnderunder the sorrowes and bands of death, and to feele or suffer them, because it is senslesse, implyeth no contradiction.
14. Not to be left in a place (the word beeing taken properly for to be forsaken) implyeth a being first in the place;Synops. p. 1017. and in that sense the Replyer thus reasoned: Christ was not left or forsaken in hell: ergo, he was in hell: but in this other place, by not leauing, he vnderstandeth not beeing: but the not beeing, or leauing of the soule in hell, &c. And so is the word sometime vsed, as Ioh. 14. 17. I will not leaue you comfortlesse: that is, you shall not bee comfortlesse: for otherwise, in the other sense of this word it might be inferred: Ergo, they were comfortlesse, but were not so left or remained. And so in a certaine place Origen taketh the not leauing in hell, Tract. 35. in Math.for the not beeing in hell: sine dubio neque nostras animas derelinquet in inferno, &c. without doubt (as he left not Christs soule in hell) so shall hee not leaue our soules in hell, &c. and he which called him from hell after the third day, shall also call vsus in due time.
15. 16. To say that this whole prophecy of Dauid was onelyonly historically true of Christ; and yet typically agreed to Dauid, foreign.is no contradiction: hath he so forgotten his Logike principles,The Confuter hath forgotten his Logike. as that he remembreth not that eueryevery contraritie and opposition must be secundum idem, & ad idem, in regard of the same part or place, and in one & the same respect? But where the Replyer inferreth, first Dauids soule is in hell, hee reasoneth ex concessis, because the Romanists doe hold that Dauids soule, with the rest of the fathers was in hell.
17. It is euident by the reason here set downe concerning the originall of Christs soule, which cannot bee said to be ex traduce, to bee deriued by propagation, as the body is, without great inconuenience, and in a manner impossibilitie, that the Replyer reuersed his former iudgement, concerning the exposition of the word flesh, Rom. 1. 3. that howsoeuer in some other places it is taken for the whole nature of man, consisting of soule and body, yet it cannot bee so taken there, for the former reason: And herein the Replyer followeth Augustines iudgement,Aug. lib. quest. 83. quest. 80. who against the Apollinarists, that held Christ onelyonly to hauehave taken humane flesh, without a soule, grounding their error vponupon those words, Ioh. 1. The word was made flesh, abiecteth that place of Scripture, all flesh shall see the saluation of God, and the like, where flesh comprehendeth the whole nature of man: yet against Felicianus the Arrian, which asked the question, why the habite of the sonne of God might not animate Christs flesh in stead of a soule, reasoneth after this manner; that if Christ tooke not also an humane soule, one of those fower must followe, it was either for that he thought the soule of man to bee innocent, but that could not be, because sinne is voluntary, and so incident properly to the soule: or that it belonged not vntounto him, which also is otherwise, seeing God is the creator of soules: or for that he could not heale the soule, thē should he not be omnipotent: or because the soule was abiect and vile;Cont. Felician. Arrian. lib. 1. c. 13. but that is not so, as he addeth in the same place to this effect: that the flesh was not formed by the breathing in of God, Carnem non inflatu Dei, sicut animam, sed de limo terrae constat esse plasmatam.as the soule was, but of the slime of the earth. Here then is no contradiction, but a reuocation, or qualification rather of his former opinion, concerning the interpretation of one word in one place, which the Replyer taketh to be no disgrace vntounto him, hauing altered his minde therein, before this cauiller found it out; seeing hee himselfe affirmeth the like (but vntruely) of a Reuerend Prelate of this land,3. b. p. 101. that he retracted his iudgement in a waightier matter, in the expounding of that difficult and obscure place of Saint Peter. This is the onelyonly place which he had any colour of reason to obiect.
18. The Replyer affirmeth not out of his owne opinion, that Christ preached in hell to the disobedient spirits, for their comfort; but hee vrgeth it as an inconuenience which followeth vponupon their interpretation, that say, that Christ went and preached in hell: and the same absurdity is pressed by Augustine epist. 99. what grosse blindnesse then is this in him, not to discerne when the Replyer deliuereth his owne iudgement by way of position, and when he presseth the aduersarie, by way of obiection?
19. The doores were shut vp in the very instant of Christs entrance: that is, not onelyonly before, but at that very instant, when Christ began to enter: and yet the doores opened and gaue way to Christ, when he entred: here is no contradiction; for first it is said, in the instant of his entrāce, that is, he found them shut when he began to enter: then it is said, when he entred: that is, while he was going in: is it not euident that a difference of the instant time is here noted; one, wherein hee found the doores shut, beeing to enter: the other succeeding, when the doores opened, as he entred: it is lost time that is spent with such a trifler.
20. The Replyer still without altering of his iudgement, vnderstandeth by prison in that place of Peter (hell:) yet he produceth expositions of some of the fathers, which by prison vnderstand, the bands of sinnes and errors, out of the which the prisoners were deliuered; to shew that herein, though not in eueryevery point they make for the Replyer, vnderstanding the deliuering of prisoners, of preaching to the liuing for their cōuersion, not to the dead, as the Confuter doth: Is there not here now great contradiction?
21. The Replyer alleadgeth the testimony of Ambrose, that so expoundeth the lower parts of the earth, of hell, not to that end, but onelyonly to shew, that he vnderstandeth Christs descension to hell, of the presence of his diuine power there. 2. b. p. 12. Is it necessarie when a testimony is produced to one ende, that whatsoeuer is contained there beside, should be acknowledged: Then he himselfe cannot auoide it, but hee must needs goe for a maintainer of Limbus, for he bringeth in Ambrose, 3. b. p. 169. and Augustine, and Origen, p. 193. affirming the same; as appeareth by their testimonies, as he alleadgeth them: such measure as he meateth, shal be measured to him againe.
22. To affirme that Bernard in one place findeth no further descension of Christ, then vntounto death; and yet that in another, beeing carried away with the error of those times, he holdeth the descension of Christs soule to hell, is no contradiction: neither would this (iangling sophister) hauehave thought so, if he had remembred the lawes of opposition and contradiction, whereof I touched two before; secundum idem, & ad idem: where, as he failed in the latter, (I affirming Dau. prophecy to be true of Christ one way, i. historically, & of Dauid another, i. typically: and therefore it was without any contradiction:) so he faileth here in the other, because Bernard is said to affirme diuers things, but not foreign, in the same part and place.
23. As though, when Bernard maketh the third degree of descending to bee admortem, vntounto death, his descending to the graue be not there implyed: for otherwise, he descended not from the crosse to die, for he yeilded vp his spirit vponupon the crosse. And this Bernard sheweth, by the words following; nunquid amplius potuit? Behold how farre he descended, could he doe any more? but if hee meant nothing else but his death vponupon the crosse, excluding the graue, our Sauiour Christ both might hauehave done more, and did more for vsus, not onelyonly in dying, but in being buried for vsus.
24. And doth not the descending of Christ to the crosse and graue, include also, and imply his descending to the earth? vnlesse you thinke that his crosse and graue was not in the earth: thus much also the Replyer noted, foreseeing and preuenting this obiection; the other two expositions (that is, of Christs descending to the earth, & then to the crosse and graue) may well agree and stand together, and he that affirmeth the one, denieth not the other. Limbo. p. 52. These two then were two degrees of Christs humiliation and descension, his taking vponupon him the forme of a seruant, and beeing obedient to the death of the crosse, as S. Paul obserueth, Philip. 2. 7, 8.
25. The Replyer saith againe, that there are none of the fathers which speake of Christs descension to hell, but held it was to that ende to deliuer the fathers: and yet some of the fathers differ in iudgement, for they hold that place where the fathers were, not to hauehave beene any part of hell, but Paradise; as Origen, Chrysostome, Augustine: is here now any contradiction? for they which hold the Patriarchs to hauehave beene in Paradise, and not in hell, speake not of Christs descension to hell, but to Paradise, to illuminate the fathers.
26. What a strange fellow is this, to say that I alleadge Calvin my selfe, for the same purpose for which he alleadged him; namely, to prooue the local descension into hell: whereas I alleadge Caluin, Beza, and Iunius to the contrary. 3. b. p. 191.3. b. p. 191. Limbom. p. 59. Thus hath this busie body troubled himselfe to spie faults, where he could find none. Such Seneca compareth to the restles Ants,Lib. 1. de tranquil. vitae. quae in summū cacumen, deinde in imum aguntur: which creep vp & downe vponupon trees from the top to the bottome, and finde no resting place. foreign.And Aristo in Plutarke, to the windes, which do vncouer our garments, which of all other are most troublesome.Plutar. lib. de curios. Such are they which hunt vp and downe to seeke others disgrace, and to vncouer their nakednesse, not being able to hide their owne vncomelinesse: Augustine doeth fitly resemble the enuious man,O inuide vermis mortifere, qui in hedera, Ionae quotid ie nasceris: ad frat. in erem. ser. 18. to the worme which did breed in Ionas gourd; so still hee gnaweth vponupon others credit, and fretteth at their well-doing▪ and where he cannot ouercome with wrestling, seeketh to supplant by fraud: and as Augustine saith, Aliorum gloriam facit suam poenam, Maketh anothers fame his owne …ane: as shall nowe appeare in the returning of this accusation.
The Recrimination.
1. This Contradicter findeth fault with the Replyer, as though he should say, that eternall continnance in them, is not of the essence and nature of hell torments. Synops. p. 1014. 3. b. p. 77.3. b. p. 77. whereas he onelyonly saith, the inseperable adiuncts, and necessary members of hell are these: 1. the place, which is infernall. 2. the time, which is perpetuall. 3. the darkenesse, vnspeakable: And hee himselfe confesseth as much, whose (that is, of hell) inseperable adiuncts, are vtter darkenesse,1. b. p. 3. and endlesse paines.
2. Hee saith it is Iudaisme to apply the prophecy of Dauid, Psalme 16. to any, but to our Sauiour Christ. 3. b. p. 41.3. b. p. 41. And yet hee himselfe graunteth, that the prophecy of the ascending of Christ, and leading captiuity captiue (which is as peculiar to the ascension of Christ, as the other concerneth his resurrection) is literally spoken of King Dauid himselfe, &c. but prophetically meant of Christ our Sauiour. 1. b. p. 57.1. b. p. 57.
3. Hee saith that the Creede was made and composed by the Apostles themselues. 2. b. p. 182.2. b. p. 182. but else where he saith, it was made either by the Apostles themselues, as the auncient fathers doe thinke, or by Apostolike men, as all diuines confesse. 1. b. p. 5.1. b. p. 5. If it were made by Apostolike men, then not by the Apostles, which he certainely affirmed before.
4. Hauing recited that place, Psal. 6. 4, 5. O Lord deliuer my soule, for … death there is no remembrance of thee: who shall giuegive thee thankes in the pit: which word, hee whome he confuteth translateth hell: he thus inferreth; by the which last word all our late interpreters; both latine and English, doe with one accord vnderstand the graue, as beeing the ordinary sequell of temporall death. 1. b. p. 12.1. b. p. 12. Here he vnderstandeth in this place temporall death, whereof the graue is an ordinarie sequell: and yet in the next page following, he affirmeth the contrary; wherefore (death) in that place cannot signifie the seperation and dissolution of the soule from the body, which is onelyonly temporall: but the diuorcement and sequestration both of body & soule from God. 1. b. p. 13.1. b. p. 13.
5. Neither can this word (graue) signifie any other place, then the place of corruption, and mortality. 1. b. p. 12.1. b. p. 12. And yet the word avad, Psal. 88. 10. which the Septuag translate foreign, the Latine, in sepulchro, in the graue, hee saith is meant of hell. 3. b. p. 28.3. b. p. 28.
6. Who shall giuegive thee thankes in the pit? Psal. 6. 5. by which last word, all our late interpreters doe with one consent vnderstand the graue, &c. which can signifie no other place, then the place of corruption and mortalitie. 1. b. p. 12.1. b. p. 12. And againe, no English translators turne (sheol) graue, in this place, but pit, which most fitly and truely agreeth to hell. 3. b. p. 26.3. b. p. 26. thus in the same place, the same word shall signifie both the graue, and hell.
7. He fondly reprooueth the Replyer, for running from the new Testament to the Old, and from the Greeke to the Hebrew. 2. b. p. 120.2. b. p. 120. you well perceiued the Greeke was vtterly against you, and therefore cunningly, but cowardly you forsake it, and flie to the Hebrew. ibid. p. 121.2. b. p. 121 yet he himselfe doth the same: which to be so in this place, if you will graunt the Hebrewes to hauehave had any skill in their owne naturall language, you must needes confesse. 1. b. p. 16.1. b. p. 16. Is it lawfull for him to hauehave recourse vntounto the Hebrew writers, and a fault in the other to runne vntounto the Hebrew Scriptures?
8. Now if you take exception (saith this Contradicter) against this reading, as mistranslated in all our Bibles, which I see not by what right you can doe, beeing publikely authorised.) 1. b. p. 26.1. b. p. 26. and 2. b. p. 130.2. b. p. 130. he calleth it an authorised translation: yet he himselfe most scornefully reiecteth the great English Bible authorised publikely to be read, as hath beene shewed before, Imputat. 8. recriminat. 6.
9. He findeth fault with the Replyer, for translating foreign, tell him his fault, as the Geneva translation, and great Bible readeth: 2. b. p. 67.2. b. p. 67. & yet he himselfe translateth the same word,Ecclesiast. 19. 10. 13. foreign, tell thy neighbour roundly of his fault. ibid. p. 71.2. b. p. 71.
10. He saith, that faithfull perseuerance in pietie, is the finall possession of the land of promise▪ 2. b. p. 113.2. b. p. 113. and yet els where he denieth, that the true ioyes of heauen may be in this world. 2. b. p. 207.2. b. p. 207. for if a man by faithfull perseuerance, hath in this life a sure hope, and by hope possession of heauen, how hath he not some true sense of the ioyes thereof?
11. That sheol was alwaies taken to signifie hell onelyonly: 2. b. p. 119.2. b. p. 119. and yet els where he confesseth, that the same word, Psal. 6. 5. translated the pit, is taken for the graue the sequele of temporall death. 1. b. p. 12.1. b. p. 12.
12. He readeth thus, Exod. 21. 23. He shall pay life for life, not soule for soule. 2. b. p. 14. the Hebrew word is (nephesh) which in an other place he saith, was alwaies taken onelyonly to signifie soule. 2. b. p. 119.2. b. p. 119.
13. In that the Replyer saith, that the glorie, victorie, and triumph remained, (that is, the manifestation and accomplishment of it) after Christ had said, Consummatum est, it is finished: this Contradicter saith, you doe greatly derogate from his blessed death and passion: for if he obtained not victorie ouer those enemies vponupon the crosse, then are they yet vnconquered, and consequently mans redemption vnperformed. 2. b. p. 189.2. b. p. 189. And yet a little before he denieth, that Christ triumphed vponupon the crosse: for that conquest (saith he) vponupon the crosse, was openly an ouerthrow: and againe, so that if Christ triumphed vponupon the crosse (as you say he did) it was according to the prouerb, a triumph before victorie. ibid. p. 188.2. b. p. 188. who could imagine, that he should hauehave such a sihttle and crazie braine: as in the compasse of tenne lines to affirme and denie the same thing.
14. It is the Obiecter, not I that so taketh it, that is, the soule foreign for the whole person: and yet a little after, forgetting himselfe, he saith: I graunt that the word soule, beeing ioyned with the bodie, may be taken for the whole person.2. b. p. 143.
15. Whereas the Replyer vnderstandeth those words of S. Peter, that Christ shall be the Iudge of the quicke and the dead, 1. Pet. 4. 5. of those which are now dead, but shall be aliue at the comming of Christ: he thus friuolously obiecteth, that then we must correct an article of the Creede: and say, that Christ shall come to iudge the quicke, and not the dead. 3. b. p. 71.3. b. p. 71. And yet afterward, within two lines he saith, as the dead shall be liuing then, so the liuing now, shall be then dead: where beside his absurditie and contradiction to Scripture, that the liuing now shall be dead at Christs comming, whereas the Apostle saith, that the liuing shall not preuent them that sleepe, 1. Thess 4. 15, 16.&c. and the dead in Christ shall rise first: he crosseth himselfe, in altering and chaunging the article after his owne fancie: that Christ shall be Iudge of the dead and quicke.
16. He saith that these words of Origene, doe they not read, what is written of their hope, that perished in the flood, 1. Pet. 3. can not conuince him of that most grosse heresie recorded by Augustine: that some thought, by Christs descending to hell, the incredulous persons beleeued, and all were deliuered thence. 2. b. p. 76.2. b. p. 76. And yet he himselfe chargeth Origene in the next page following, with a more grosse heresie; that he thought the very damned in the ende should be saued themselues. ibid. p. 77.2. b. p. 77.
17. He would confute the Replyer for defending, that the true ioyes of heauen may be perceiued in this life. 2. b. p. 207.2. b. p. 207. and yet he saith, that Paul beeing rapt into the third heauen, beheld the very essence of God. 2. b. p. 205.2. b. p. 205. I hope then he saw the true ioyes of heauen: and S. Paul at that time, had not resigned this life.
18. The Saints shall not see God so perfectly, as he is visible in himselfe. 2. b. p. 204.2. b. p. 204. And yet afterward he saith: they shall see him in plaine manner, and in perfect measure. ibid. p. 205.2. b. p. 205. thus they shall see him perfectly, and yet not perfectly.
19. None of his elect are with him, during their aboad in this life; otherwise what meant S. Paul to say, I desire to be dissolued, and to be with Christ, if he were with him without dissolution, &c. 3. b. p. 4.3. b. p. 4. yet in an other place, he misliketh that saying of the Replyer: that Christ is saide to be with vsus in respect of his Godhead, &c. but we are said to be with him, as our Messiah: as S. Paul saith, I desire to be dissolued and be with Christ: he calleth this assertion, foreign: 2. b. p. 198.2. b. p. 198. and yet in the other place approoueth the same himselfe.
20. What shall the simple and vnlearned doe, when they heare those Bibles, which hauehave beene allowed by publike authoritie of this Realme, and openly read in our Churches these 46. yeares, to be condemned by some Ministers and Preachers among vsus, for false, erroneous, and iniurious to the word of God, &c. 3. b. p. 46.3. b. p. 46. And yet he himselfe chargeth the same Bibles with errors in the text, and with blasphemie in some of the annotations. 3. b. p. 49.3. b. p. 49.
21. He saith, that Noe was no preacher at all in any other sense, then all other godly men are, namely in doing the works of righteousnes: 3. b. p. 109.3. b. p. 109. and yet a little after it followeth: with this construction the Latine word praeco, vsed by all translatours in that place, doth most fitly agree: which doth properly signifie him, that maketh open proclamation of a thing, as an Herauld or trumpetter: as Alexander called Homer the trumpetter or sounder out of Achilles prowes. ibid. p. 110.3. b. p. 110. If Noe were in this sense a proclaymer of righteousnes, as Homer was of Achilles valure, it was not a mute and dumbe, but a vocall proclayming and preaching thereof: which he denied before.
22. You will neuer prooue, that there was any other descension but this: he meaneth the descension into hell, whereof he spake immediatly before. 3. b. p. 155.3. b. p. 115. And yet afterward he confesseth two descensions: descensions of Christ in the new Testament are none mentioned, sauing these two onelyonly. ibid. p. 157.3. b. p. 157. he meaneth the descension from heauen to earth, and from thence to hell.
23. Those wordes of the Prophet, (in thy presence is fulnes of ioy,) Psal. 16. 11. are not meant of the Godhead of Christ, but of the glorie, which his manhood was to receiue at his resurrection. 3. b. p. 165.3. b. p. 165. here he confesseth, there was glorie due vntounto Christ as God; and glorie, which he receiued as man: but els where he denieth, that there was one kingdome (that is, glorie) due vntounto Christ as God, an other, as he was the Messiah. 2. b. p. 201.2. b. p. 201.
24. He saith, that there is a plaine distinction between the holy Ghost, &c. and Christ, not in person onelyonly, &c. but in nature also, I meane his diuine nature: 3. b. p. 95. but afterward, he better remembring himselfe, saith: I distinguish onelyonly the person of Christ from the holy Ghost ibid. p. 96.2. b. p. 96.
25. He saith, mans perfect redemption was purchased by his precious death vponupon the crosse. 3. b. p. 155.3. b. p. 155. And yet in an other place, he thus writeth: our whole and entire freedome was wrought and effected by our Sauiour Christs descention into hell, and not onelyonly by his death and passion. 3. b. p. 143.3. b. p. 143. how could therebe a perfect redemption vponupon the crosse, without a perfect freedome?
26. You dissemble the Apostles words immediately following in the same place, let vsus proceede by one rule, &c. And yet within a fewe lines after, he confesseth thus: you speake I graunt of this proceeding by one rule, &c. 2. b. p. 12.2. b. p. 12. If the Replyer speaketh of it, how then doth he dissemble it?
27. He denieth that Christ had a kingdome (that is, power, authoritie, glorie) belonging to him as God, and an other, as he is God and man. 2. b. p. 201. And yet these words he hath in an other place: those words of the Prophet repeated by the Apostle (thou wilt shew me the waies of life, &c.) are not meant, as you mistake them, of the Godhead of Christ, &c. but of that glorie, which his manhoode was to receiue at his resurrection and ascesia…,3. b. p. 165. He here manifestly affirmeth, that there was glorie due to Christ as God, and an other glorie due to his manhoode. But by the way he himselfe grossely mistaketh the Replyer: for those words he referreth not to the Godhead, but to the soule of Christ: for these are his words: 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 Scriptures, (thou wilt shew me the waies of life, &c.) 3. b. p. 162.
Thus this impure imputation of contradictions is returned also vponupon the Contradicters owne head. The Scribes and Pharisies shewed themselues more wise, who were ashamed to cast one stone at the adulterous woman,Iob. 8. beeing guiltie themselues. And this contentious brabler should hauehave beene better aduised, then to obiect difference and contradiction vntounto others, seeing he agreeth no better with himselfe. That was a wise saying of Theophr…stus to a young man that blushed: foreign, Be of good cheare (saith he) for vertue hath such a colour. If this bold outfacer of others, had first blushed at his own faults and ouersights, it had beene more commendation to him.Lib. 2. Offic. c. 8. Ambrose saith well: An eum putabo idoneum, qui mihi det consilium, qui non dat sibi, & mihi eum vacare credam, qui non vacat sibi: shall I thinke him meete to giuegive me counsell, that can not giuegive himselfe, or that he can finde leisure for me, that hath no leisure for himselfe: that is, to finde his owne faults. It had beene good, if first he had viewed the ruines and droppings thorough of his owne house, before he had surueied an others. The contradictions which he hath dispersedly in his contentious plea obtruded, doe rather shew the humour of contention in the wrester, then the spirit of contradiction in the writer. Greater aduantage a man can not lightly hauehave against his aduersarie, then the Replyer in this vaine accusation against his (Contradicter:) to whome in that behalfe that saying of the Orator against Antonie most fitly agreeth, as if it had beene first spoken of him:Philippic. 2. Tam eras excors, vt tota in oratione tecum ipse pugnares, vt non modo non cohaerentia inter se diceres, sed maxime disiuncta & contrariae, vt non tanta mecum, quanta tibi tecum esset cont…ti…: were you so witlesse, that thorough your whole discourse, you were at oddes with your selfe: so that you did not onelyonly vtter things not hanging together, but most different and contrarie, that you were at greater strife with your selfe, then with me?