A DIRECT ANSWER UNTO THE SCANDALOUS EXCEPtions, which Theophilus higgon's hath lately objected against D. Morton. In the which there is principally discussed, Two of the most notorious Objections used by the Romanists, viz. 1. M. Luther's conference with the devil, and 2. The sense of the Article of Christ his descension into hell. JOB. 31. v. 35. 36. Though mine adversaries would write a book against me, Would I not take it upon my shoulder, and bind it as a crown unto me? LONDON, Printed for EDMUND WEAVER. 1609. TO THE RIGHT HONOURABLE RALPH LORD EURE; LORD PRECEDENT OF the Principality, Dominion and marches of Wales, and Lord Lieutenant of the same. THe many tokens of that interest, which by your favour (right Honourable) I have in your favour, hath thus emboldened me in this little Treatise to manifest my due acknowledgement of your Lordship's love towards me, but much more unto the truth of Christ, which doth ennoble you both in the sight of Angels and of men. * 1. Cor. 1. 2. Not many nobles, saith the Apostle, (but he addeth) according unto the flesh; that we should not wonder at this defect, but deplore it: for we know that the Spirit of Christ which called the faithful of Thessalonica * Act. 17. 11. noble, because of their diligent study in the sacred Scriptures, and zealous inquisition of the truth of the Gospel, doth teach us to esteem of all such as the offspring of right Nobility, which issueth not from generation but from regeneration; the praise and glory whereof is not of men, but of God. My special intendment in this dedication (right Honourable) was to give your Lordship notice what kind of conflicts I am daily to expect, seeing that after the assault of a Moderator, and a Mitigator, now one T. H. a Motioner is sent to insult upon me, under a pretence of charging me with falsifications. But how far my disposition hath been from this wickedness, I have presumed to appeal unto your Honour's experience. What my desert is, the examination of his particulars will best discover, which I refer unto the equanimity of your Lordship's censure; submitting myself either unto the abalienation of your Honourable favour, or else your further approbation of me, according as I shallbe found in these points innocent or obnoxious. Our Lord jesus preserve your Honour unto the glory of his saving grace. Your Lordships in all due thankfulness, TH. MORTON. To the Reader. THe special occasion of this Answer (Christian Reader) was in thy behalf, lest thou shouldest stumble upon me, as upon a Falsificator, who profess myself a publisher of truth. I have read my Adversary his pretended Motives, and have since also understood of his true motions, which occasioded him to revolt; and comparing them together, I could not but reckon him among the number of that people, who (as histories relate) did first execute men, whom they called Malefactors, and then afterward examined their cause. For if T. H. had not first run out in a passion, and afterwards devised pretext of Reasons, which he calleth his Motives, the law of charity and of humanity would have challenged him to have consulted with those Authors whom he doth impugn, with whom the Motioner did then stand in the terms of brotherhood. As for myself, I perceive he hath read my Apology, in which there are many hundreds of testimonies alleged out of the Romish writers, wherein they are found to contradict one another almost in every question, and to convince their own men of manifest slanders against Protestants, and almost in every Article to justify the grounds of our Religion: out of all which M. higgon's hath singled out only five, which (it may seem) he thought to be more singularly false than any others. These have I examined, and after due trial am now provoked to expostulate the matter with my Adversary, as jacob did with Laban, saying: * Gen. 3. 1. v. 36. 37. What have I trespassed, what have I offended, that thou hast pursued after me? Seeing thou hast searched all my stuff, what hast thou found (suffer me to change a word) to charge me withal? Put it here before thy brethren and mine (either Protestants or Romanists) that they may judge between us both. I can say no more, but laying open the parcels, wish that the Brethren of both sides would judge between us: & both are in some sort chargible hereunto, not only by my adversaries challenge, who entitleth this part of his book thus, Try before you trust; but much more by the Apostles authority, exhorting all men (concerning things of this nature) to * 1. Thess. 5. 21. Try all things, and to keep that which is good. The Lord jesus bless us, and by his preventing Grace prepare us always for a comfortable appearance before him in the great day of Trial. Thy friend and servant in Christ jesus, TH. MORTON. A DIRECT ANSWER UNTO THE SCANDALOUS EXCEPTIONS WHICH Theophilus higgon's hath lately objected against D. Morton. Theoph: higgon's. THE PREFACE. IF you consider the a See before pag. 147. deliberation of D. MORTON in the contexture of his APOLOGY, or his b Ibid. & pag. 99 pretended sincerity therein, it may seem very strange, that this work, which was borne after so long travel, should be surcharged with impertinent trifles, or subtle collusions, or malicious untruths. The Answer. I doubt not but my sincerity will indeed seem strange unto any that shall consider aright with what insincerity and impiety it is impugned. T. H. For which respects, c Defence. Bellarm. pag. 435. james Gretzer (a very noble author) hath exorned it with a special encomion: viz. Hoc opus. etc. This censure, because it proceedeth from an adversary (and a JESVITE also; with whose order, it pleaseth D. Morton to contend more eminently, then with any other) may peradventure seem unjust; but yet the equity of it, or credibility (at the least) may appear unto you by the sequel, which, being a part, doth delineate the condition and quality of the whole. The Answer. I cannot envy james Gretzer your exornation, of a very noble, if you add, Railer: for although I have seen many Doctors, yet never read I of any other that was professor in that kind; whose only phrases and emblems of uncivil Rhetoric used against learned Protestants, in that one book here cited by you, I have seen collected into such a swelling bulk, as may bewray that your noble Author in writing it, laboured of a tympany; which since hath been so skilfully vented by the reasons of a learned a Sibrandus Lubbertus in his Replication against that cited book of Gretzer. Protestant, that we stand in good hope of his better temper hereafter. Concerning whose censure of me, you have said in my behalf, that it proceedeth from an Adversary, whom myself might have encountered with by the testimony of a friend, even of his own Nation, b The same Lubbertus with his own hand. Omnes docti, qui hîc sunt, etc. but I abhor this folly. Yet I wish that I had been so much beholden unto you, M. higgon's, as to have examined the particular exceptions which james Gretzer hath taken against me, & to have noted any one thing, wherein I have been justly charged of subtle collusion, or of malicious untruths. I should think that you were unwilling to do me this disgrace, but that I find by your practice how now adhering unto them, who hold it a Catholicisme to brand me with only an imaginary imputation, you have honoured your noble Author by your imitation of him: and yet proceed, and challenge belief. T. H. Believe me, Sir, that I write this out of my certain experience, not provoked by any personal dislike of the Author himself (for I may freely say with the Apostle; he hath not hurt me at all,) Galat. 4. 12. but moved thereunto by tender compassion of your estate, and others, lending your credit unto them, who pay you with falsehood, and build up their fortunes in the ruin of your souls. The Answer. I easily believe that I have done you no hurt: therefore if I shall be wronged by you, the less will be my hurt, but the greater my injury, as is this wherein I am charged to build up my fortunes with the ruin of men's souls. Fortunes? (M. higgon's,) advise with S. c Dixi quidem hoc, verumtamen poenitet me sic illie nominasse fortunam, cum videam homines habere in pessima consuetudine; & ubi dici debet, hoc Deus voluit: dicere, hoc voluit fortuna. Augustinus Retract. li. 1. ca 1. Augustine concerning the lawful use of the word Fortune in Christianity▪ and further consider whether the Roman Clergy, or the ministery among the Protestants are, in regard of worldly interests (to requite you with your own) more fortunate: and then confer you with yourself, whether this fortune was not the chief motive to him, of whom the Apostle said, * 2 Tim. 4. 10. Demas hath forsaken me. As for me, I am sure there is nothing so dear unto me in this life, which I shall not willingly lay down at the Apostles feet; never entertaining any portion in this profession further than the religion itself shall be found justifiable by the Apostles doctrine. But to the matter: You profess to speak nothing but upon certain experience: This, I confess, is a wise Mistress, I desire to hear what she will say. T. H. CHAP. I. D. Mortons' untruth in his defence of LUTHER, and CALVIN. §. 1. How D. Morton diverteth the scandal of the devils dispute with Luther against the Mass. I will not handle this controversy now: wherefore I come unto D. Morton, who expediting the same in six questions, proposeth this in the third place, viz. Ought the MASS to seem HOLY▪ because the Devil did reprehend it? He answereth; no: and yieldeth this reason of his denial. Apud * Del' rius, jesuit. lib. 4. de Magia, cap. 1. q. 3. §. 5 Surium liquet, DIABOLUM in specie Angelica apparuisse, & statim Abbatem, ut MISSAM CELEBRARET, HORTABATUR. Do you see how the infernal serpent doth implicate, and wind himself? He objecteth the MASS unto Luther as a thing execrable, and odious unto God; the same [Devil] endeavoureth to allure the Abbot unto it, as it were to kiss God's dearest daughter. Therefore, the MASS is no more to be accounted HOLY because Satan seemed to reprehend it, than it is to be accounted EXECRABLE, because he seemed to allow it. And thus the one may componderate with the other; the Devil is always a knave. 4 But, do you see how this glorious Doctor doth implicate, and wind himself? Before I go any further, I must put you in mind of his protestation; viz. I may call God to be witness, and revenger against my soul, si sciens fallo. Again, you may perceive here, that he cannot possibly derive the cause of his error upon the weakness of his memory; for he is very exact in his quotation of book, chapter, question, section: and therefore you will see, that I had just cause to charge him with malicious untruth, when you have examined the Author's discourse, which he hath mangled by a rare depravation. For thus writeth his Author: Item DIABOLI revelatio censenda est, si suadeat aliqua contra Canon's, vel constitutiones, vel regulas, vel alia praecepta maiorum. Hoc indicio B. Simeon, Monachus Treverensis, eum deprehendit. Narratur historia ab * Apud Surium. 1. Junii. Euerwino Abbate. In verticem montis Sinai jussu superiorum cum missus fuisset, ibi habitaturus; nocturnis horis illi specie Angelicâ Daemon apparuit, &, ut Missam celebret, hortatur. Ipse, nec planè dormiens, nec perfectè vigilans, contradicit; non debere SINE PRESBYTERII ORDINE hoc ministerium implere. NOTA. Contrà, inimicus instat, se Dei legatum esse, Christum hoc velle, nec decere sanctum locum ministerio tali diutiùs privari. Renitentem ergo, & contradicentem, adiuncto sibi consortio alterius Daemonis, de lectulo educunt, ante altare iam vigilantem statuunt, albâ induunt, de stolâ utrimque altercantur, hostis more presbyteri, Simeon more diaconi contendebat sibi imponi debere. Tandem Dei famulus, ad se reversus, virtute orationis, & signo Crucis inimicum repellit, seque delusum ingemiscit. 5 This is the narration of Delrius, concerning this matter. And now (all circumstances duly weighed) I dare be bold to say, that, if D. Morton himself, or any other in his behalf, can clear this corruption from the just imputation of voluntary, known, resolved, determinate malice, than the infernal Serpent (as he speaketh) did never tell a lie, for which he, or they, may not likewise extort some colourable defence. The Answer, relating the whole dispute. ALthough you will not handle this Controversy now, yet give me leave to report what I have already handled in that Chapter, wherein you insist. First were produced the Romish Authors, as namely, Bellarmine, Feuardentius, Gregory de Valent. Coster, and Serarius, who all urgently and violently object against Luther, that his Religion was received from the Devil. And did not the Pharisees upbraid our Saviour, saying, that his virtue of Miracles came from the power of d Luke. 11. 15. Belzebub Prince of Devils? wherefore, this taxation gave me occasion seriously to inquire into Luther's confession hereof, with a purpose, that if any such thing should sensibly appear unto me, then utterly to abhor his name, and suspect all his doctrine. For the manifestation of this matter, I examined all circumstances by six Interrogatories; and supposing the conference had been personal, and not (as it may be thought) only imaginary, I thus propounded The first Interrogatory. Whether it be damnable in Luther to confer with the Didivell? The truth is, No, because both Christ had a e Matth. 4. Colloquy with the devil, and many other men (in the opinion of our Adversaries, godly) have done the like, as their Legends, and this Del'rio and other jesuits do copiously show. The second Interrogatory. Whether Luther did not acknowledge the Devil to be a liar? This was satisfied from Luther's own speech: As though (saith he) I were ignorant that the Devil is a liar, except you Papists had instructed me. So far was it from him to entertain the counsel of the Devil as an Oracle of truth. The third Interrogatory. Whether the Mass be therefore to be esteemed as holy, because the Devil did reprehend it? I answered, No, because then may we as well say that the Mass is nought, because the Devil did allow it: which I endeavoured to prove from that testimony of Del-rio, whereupon M. higgon's hath so youthfully insulted, and whereunto I shall presently return him (I doubt not) a satisfiable answer. The fourth Interrogatory. Whether whatsoever the Devil speaketh be therefore to be judged devilish, because it proceedeth from the Devil? This was determined from the confessions of their own jesuits, viz. that although the Devil be the Father of lies, yet doth he tell some truth. Which is proved by Scripture, where he is noted to have cried out, saying unto Christ, f Luc. 8. 28. g The Jesuit Tollet upon that place. What have I to do with thee, jesus, thou son of the Almighty? and therein to have▪ confessed two Articles of Christian faith, even the humanity and divinity of Christ. The fifth Interrogatory. Whether Satan in his Conference objected any Argument against private Mass, which is not a certain & confessed truth? The points were these: First, that the Sacrament of the Eucharist is to be administered in both kinds, bread and wine. Next, that it is no Coommunion, wherein only the Priest doth communicate. Lastly, that the action of the Sacrifice of the true Mass, is the Annunciation of Christ's death. Which were partly proved, by the confessions of our Adversaries, to accord with Christ's institution, and might also be as easily confirmed by the consent of the best antiquity. But what said Luther to all this? He showeth that the Devil is the most subtle liar, even then when he speaketh truth: as for example, in striking the heart of judas with that direful thought, I have betrayed the innocent blood; this (saith Luther) judas could not deny, (for it was too true a truth:) but the lie of the Devil was this; Therefore must thou, O judas, despair of the grace of God. Therefore brother Papist (saith Luther) the Devil doth not lie when he accuseth a man, for he bringeth with him two inconuincible witnesses, even God's law & man's conscience. The truth of which Assertion every conscience of man will readily confess. Now followeth The last Interrogatory. Whether Luther in that conflict did conquer the devils temptation, or no? This needed none other answer than Luther's own Application. So (saith he) I cannot deny but that I have sinned, (meaning in celebrating private Mass, contrary unto Christ's holy institution,) but the devil doth herein lie in tempting me to despair with Cain, I confessed indeed, even before the Devil, that I had sinned with judas; but I turn myself unto Christ with Peter, I call upon Christ, I believe in Christ, who hath condemned all horrible damnation, and blotted out my sin with his blood; whereof I doubt not, for to this end I have received the Sacraments, his seals of grace. Which combat with the Devil, I showed how semblable it was unto S. Bernard's case, of whom we read, that h Author vitae S. Bernardi ●. 1. cap. 12. in the fierce conflict which he had with the Devil, (tempting him to despair:) I confess (saith he) that I am unworthy, neither can I by my merits obtain the kingdom of heaven: but Christ my Lord doth possess it by a double right, the one is by inheritance from the Father, the other by the merit of his own passion: he is contented with the one, and the other doth he impart unto me. This being my discourse, whereby their ordinary slander against Luther was sponged out, none need to marvel why M. higgon's forbore to handle this controversy, and choose rather to scratch me by the face, by an imputation of voluntary, known (M. higgon's wanted not his Inkhorn) resolved, determinate malice. But I come to The justification of myself. That which belonged unto me to prove, was, that the Devil doth sometime exhort unto good, although with a wicked intent: which, as our Adversaries will easily grant, may be confirmed by his commendation of i Alteri item Daemon apparuit imagine B. Vrsulae, crucis vexillum praeferens, cum multarum virginum comitatu, atque ita locutus est: Videt Deus amatque istud tuum tuendae pudicitiae studium etc. Del'rio. Tom. 2. l. 4. c. 1. q. 3. sect. 5. chastity, and by innumerable other examples. But because the Objection made against Luther was concerning the Mass, therefore did I endeavour to give instance in the like example, & happened upon that sentence out of Del'rio the jesuit, which I myself afterwards did discern, and in print in the end of my second part of Apology did plainly k Animiaduers. in lib. 2. cap. 21 acknowledge to have been much mistaken, acquainting my Reader therewith: and therefore repaired that breach with another example out of the same Author in this manner: I will show you (saith the jesuit Del'rio) an example worthy your memory, wherein notwithstanding this is to be marveled, that a Devil did command one to buy a bell, and to bestow it upon a poor Church, whereby the faithful might every Sunday be called unto Divine Service. By this confession I fortified my former consequence, thus: If the Mass must be therefore accounted sacred, because the Devil did reprehend it, then must it likewise be judged to be sacrilegioús, because the Devil doth provide means to call men unto it. Hereby manifesting how pitifully our Adversaries are deluded, who will not discern the devils subtlety, which is always to speak, aut falsum, aut ad falsum, that is, either to teach that which is false, or else a truth but with a false intent. The thing he delivereth is often most true, and truth (as their jesuit l Scrupulo us est, qui ex prophanis authoribus nihil audet mutuari, cum omnis veritas à quecumque dicatur, à spiritu Sancto dicatur. Salmeron Ies. Comm. in Tit. 1. Pag. 626 Tom. 15. confesseth) is originally from the the holy Ghost, whosoever be the preacher: but his conclusion, Ergo thou must kill, or steal, or despair etc. is always the daughter of him who is the father of lies. What remaineth but The guilt of my Accuser. Tell me now you that profess to speak out of certain experience, and yet confess that I have exactly quoted the book, chapter, question, section of this testimony, whether you ever knew in all your experience any voluntary corrupter (especially being compassed about with so many left-eyed Adversaries) to have directly pointed at the place, where his corruption might be certainly found out? and than note me for a man voluntarily and resolvedly false. Secondly, whether any determinately malicious could ever be induced to acknowledge (as I did) his error, before he were publicly convicted. Thirdly, whether he can call the answer resolvedly false in me, who could have confirmed the same conclusion, viz. that the Devil will acknowledge some good, * See a little after. both by other, and also by the same Author Del'rio, in the same story, from an example of the same kind. I would add a fourth, whether M. higgon's read not that my satisfaction in my Animadversions, & so with mine own heiffer would maliciously plough upon my back. But I will not gall his conscience. God forgive him his wrong. Although this his former precipitancy might move me to pity his indiscretion, yet the last clause of his sentence deserved a smile, when he saith, that Except this be a resolved and determinate malice, than the infernal serpent did never tell a lie (saith he) for which he or they may not extort some colourable defence. Hereby necessarily imagining, that there may possibly be a lie, which wanteth all colour of defence. Which indeed is most true amongst all faithful Professors of Christ, but cannot hold firm in that sect, which defendeth an equivocation by a mental reservation: for say (good M. higgon's in your humanity,) if I should have been so graceless, as in alleging that misconceived testimony taken out of Del'rio, to have used a mental reservation, as thus; so saith Del'rio—— for ought you shall know, had I lied, or no? If I had not, how can you accuse me of lying? but if, notwithstanding the mental reservation, I had lied, then accursed by your newly devised Art of lying, which is so notably devilish, that as long as it is defended, it shall be impossible for any to give the Devil the lie, seeing that he is taught by you to answer, I lied not, because I did aequiuocate. T. H. 6 Finally, doth D. Morton believe that this history is true, or doth he repute it to be false? If false; why doth he urge it? If true; then he must remember, that there is some efficacy in the sign of the Cross, to terrify his infernal Serpent. If he say with Brentius, that the Devil doth fly it in subtlety, to draw men into superstition, I answer, that Pagans, and Protestants do symbolise as well in this devise, as in many others. For Theodoret. hist. l. 3. c. 3. when julian admired to see, that the Devils fled away at the sign of the Cross, the Magician answered, oh Sir; it was not for any fear of that sign, but for detestation of your fact. The Answer. I am persuaded he thinketh that by this Dilemma he hath posed me: but I answer, that although I can allow many reports of Del'rio no better than I can do this story of S. Dunstane, whom he believeth to have m Lasciuâ formâ & motu eundem (Daemonem) cognovit sanctus Dunstanus, & ignito forcipe arrepto, eius naso lepidè irrisit: Teste Osberro Cantuatiensi. Del'rio Ies. disq. Magic. Tom. 2. li. 4. ca 1. q. 2. sect. 5. catched the Devil by the nose with a pair of pincers, (for I marvel what metal his nose, and the pincers were of;) yet do I think that this other of the cross might be true: but so, as that in repelling his consequence I shall appear to be neither julianist, nor Papist, that is, neither profane nor superstitious. For it may be observed, that in the days of julian the Cross was used in such cases by holy men in, at least, a secret invocation of Christ crucified (whom that wicked Apostate contemned:) but not (as the Papists do) by attributing (to use M. higgon's word,) an efficacy or virtue to the Cross itself, as though the Devil could not possibly endure it. Which bringeth into my remembrance a story which Banks told me at Franck●ford, from his own experience in France among the Capuchins, by whom he was brought into suspicion of Magic, because of the strange feats which his horse Morocco played (as I take it) at Orleans: where he, to redeem his credit, promised to manifest to the world that his horse was nothing less than a Devil. To this end he commanded his horse to seek out one in the press of the people, who had a crucifix on his hat; which done, he bade him kneel down unto it; & not this only, but also to rise up again, and to kiss it. And now (Gentleman quoth he) I think my horse hath acquitted both me, and himself; and so his Adversaries rested satisfied: conceiving (as it might seem) that the Devil had no power to come near the Cross. If M. higgon's be become a man of the same faith, to ascribe unto the very sign such an efficacy, let him suffer me to spur him with a question. The forenamed jesuit Del'rio telleth us of the n Alteri item Daemon ●e noctu ostendit, imagine B. Vrsulae crucis vexillum praeferens, etc. Idem Tom. 2. l. 4. c▪ 1. q. 3. sect. 5. Paulò post. Illa, quod si Dei Legatione fungimini, has sanctorum reliquias (habebat alligatas ad collum) veneramini. Mirum dictu, procubuerunt in genua laruae venerabundae. Del'rio Tom. 1. lib. 2. q. 27. sect. 2. Apparition of a Devil unto an holy Virgin, in the form of S. Vrsulae, carrying a crucifix before him, and accompanied with a train of other Devils, representing Virgins: But she su●●ecting some delusion, If (saith she) you have any message from God, then worship these holy Relics, which are about my neck. What then? Then, for I shall tell you a marvel (saith Del'rio) those infernal hags prostrated themselves in worship of those holy Relics. Now then, M. higgon's, either you believe that this Apparition was true, or not; if you think it possible that the Devil did carry a crucifix, and kiss holy relics, then why may he not be said sometimes to use, or flit it in subtlety? or how shall the Devil be thought altogether to fear the very sign? And if you answer, that the story cannot be true, then must you necessarily stumble upon Del'rio, and by acknowledgement of his fabulous book, return back again, at least, one step from Babylon. T. H. §. 2. How D. Morton defendeth Calvin from the note of jovinianisme. 1 AMongst sundry errors of jovinian (a Father of Protestants; whence * Loc. come. Luth. part. 4. pag. 44. Luther saith, that Hierome wrote pestilent books against jovinian, but he, at that time, had more learning and judgement in his little finger, than Hierome in all his body) this was one; A man cannot sin after baptism, if he were truly baptised: that is to say, if he truly received faith, and grace. This error is imputed by * De notis Eccles. cap 9 Bellarmine unto Calvin; and the reason is, because Calvin teacheth, that true faith (which, in his opinion, is inseparable from grace,) can never be lost. For though Calvin doth not, by way of position, defend, that a faithful man cannot sin, yet the question is now, whether it follow out of the aforesaid principle, by way of necessary deduction. Bellarmine affirmeth it, * Part. 1. li. 1. cap. 34. D. Morton denieth it; and pretendeth, that this jovinianisme may be imputed as well unto Augustine or Campian, as unto Calvin. 2 The sentence which he produceth out of * De corrept. & g●at. cap. 7. S. Augustine, is this. Horum fides, quae per dilectionem operatur, aut omnino non deficit, aut reparatur, priusquàm haec vita finiatur. I grant that S. Augustine saith so; but what is this unto Calvin? For first, S. Augustine doth not teach, that faith cannot be severed from grace. Secondly, he doth not affirm, that a man can never fall from faith, or grace. Thirdly, he doth not teach, that only the elect can have these gifts, but he showeth the contrary in that place; & who knoweth not that many have lost both faith, and grace? Lazily, S. Augustine doth there distinguish betwixt the elect, & reprobate; & teacheth that the faith of * Horum sides etc. that is spoken of the elect. elect, which worketh by Charity, either doth not fail at all; or if it do [as sometimes it doth] yet it is repaired again, before their departure; but in the reprobate, the case is very different; for they may have faith, and grace, but faith and grace endure not in them with perseverance, a gift proper only unto the elect. 3 Wherefore, there is no correspondency betwixt S. Augustine and Calvin in this point. For Calvin annexing grace inseparably unto faith, and averring, that faith can never be lost; must inevitably thence infer, that a faithful man doth never lose grace also, and consequently he doth never sin mortally, because a mortal sin excludeth * Grace inherent. grace from the soul. 4 The sentence of ¶ Rat. 10. Campian is cited in these words: Nisi divi è coelo deturbentur, cadere ego nunquam potero; and here your Doctor pretendeth that Campian, even as Calvin himself, did believe constantly, that he could never fall from faith, but was certain of his salvation. Which if it were so, then judge of the soundness of your Divinity, according to the principles whereof, Campian, a resolute Papist and opposite unto your Religion, might be infallibly secure of his salvation: and the like all sectaries may (as many do) apply unto themselves with a supposed certainty of perseverance. But as F. Campian doth * Rat. 8. Age▪ somniet hoc: sed unde etc. post medium. elsewhere particularly reprove this conceit, and taxeth your Calvin precisely for the same, so in ¶ In the conclusion of his tenth Reason. this place he is far from that imagination, howsoever it pleaseth D. Morton to propose his words by the half, and to pervert his meaning in the whole. For that blessed Martyr having yielded a reason of his confidence (which he deriveth from all kinds of witnesses in heaven, earth, and hell itself) non diffiteor, (saith he) animatus sum, & incensus ad conflictum; IN QVO, nisi divi de coelo deturbentur, & superbus Lucifer coelum recuperet, cadere nunquam potero. 5 Now I remit me unto your ingenuity, and conscience, whether D. Morton did not with voluntary, and determinate malice (as I said before) abridge the sentence, and violate the intention Sciens fallit of Campian, to deceive the Reader, with, and against his knowledge. For what doth F. Campian affirm? but only this; since I have these testimonies of my religion, it is not possible that, relying thereupon, I should ever causâ cadere, be vanquished in that combat which I do seriously desire. 6 This may be a sufficient instruction for you; and by it alone, you may perceive, whether his heart be single, and sincere in his impugnation of the Catholic faith; which he laboureth to extinguish by these miserable inventions. But it will flourish much more, even for his sake. God, of his infinite mercy, will either mollify his affection, or cohibite his purpose. And now (kind Master S.) I might ease myself, and you from any more pain in this kind, if one more vast untruth than all the rest, did not compel me to proceed yet a little farther; the matter being of great importance, and, for many respects, not to be passed over in silence. The Answer. I wish to breathe only so long as that the Catholic faith may flourish by me. As for my Affections, I thank God, they are such, that if I had a window in my heart, I would open it for M. higgon's, or any Adversary to look in and see as much as I can myself; and then, am I sure, they could not judge me either deceitful, or malicious. But to the point, first, The state of the question, showing the slander which Cardinal Bellarmine committeth against Calvin. The first heresy of jovinian is, (saith the Cardinal) that man cannot sin after Baptism: which is the heresy of Calvin, who saith that true faith can never be lost. The falsehood of this accusation is not obscurely o For he redoubleth his blows upon Calvin almost in every chapter. convinced by the jesuit Maldonate, who discussing that heresy, durst not impute it unto Calvin: secondly, by Caluins p Apolog part. 1. lib. 1 ca 42. acknowledged sentences, wherein he requireth repentance as necessary in all that have been baptised, that they may be justified. But M. higgon's would cover the Cardinal's nakedness with a mantle of Deduction, thus: Because Calvin annexeth grace inseparably unto faith, and anerreth that faith can never be lost, it must inevitably infer, that a faithful man doth never lose grace also, and consequently doth never sin mortally, because a mortal sin doth exclude grace from the soul. This M. higgon's his Inference telleth me that he was never yet rightly catechised in the rudiments of faith: which I must be persuaded of, until he make this consequence good, A man cannot lose a justifying faith after Baptism: Ergo he cannot sin after Baptism. Can this be enforced either from the doctrine of Calvin▪ or else of all the Romanists? Calvin teacheth that the justified man's good actions are polluted with sin, and some of the Romanists have acknowledged, in effect, as much (as I there q Both by Vega and Lindan: see the Apology. proved;) whom their jesuit confesseth to have been r Caeterum ex doctioribus Catholicis nonnulli graves etiam & pij aliam sententiam improbabilem secuti sunt: dicunt enim differentiam venialis & mortalis peccati non nasci ex natura ipsa operationun, led ex legedei ita statuente, ut hoc sit veniale, illud verò mortale. Quam opinionem docuerunt Gerson.— Almaynus,— Roffensis,— qui omnes contra Caluinum docent esse aliqua peccata venialia, quae Dei amicitiam non dissoluunt; & alia mortalia, quae justitiam Dei omninò tollunt: hanc tamen differentiam in Dei voluntatem & statutum ita revocant, ut cum aliâs omnia peccata à se mortalia essent, solâ Dei misericordiâ ad aeternam poenam non imputentur. Vasquez●es. Tom. 1. disp. 142. cap. 1. grave and godly Catholic Doctors, who taught that all sins are in their nature mortal, albeit those sins which are called venial, by the mercy of God, do not dissolve the favour of God: but may consist together with inherent Grace, as not imputed unto us for our eternal punishment. Here we see sins in their nature mortal, and justifying Grace to be coincident in one man after Baptism. But what need we any longer dispute? let M. higgon's, or any other man show where any Romanist (except Bellarmine) laid unto Calvin's charge this heresy of jovinian, which is thus expressed by s Haeres. lib. 12. Tit. Peccatum. Alphonsus à Castro: jovinian held that a man, who once was justified by Grace, could not sin any more. But Calvin taught such a faith, which after Baptism obtaineth remission of sin. After, Alphonsus maketh the heresy of the Begwardi to be near of kin to the former errors of jovinian, who taught, that A man may attain unto that perfection in this life, that he cannot sin. Hath Calvin any alliance with this heretic? But I am chargeable to yield A justification of myself. After that I had infringed the consequence, which Bellarmine inferred upon Calvin's Assertion, it belonged unto me only to maintain the terms of Calvin his propositition, viz. True faith cannot be lost. And doth not S. Augustine so distinguish, as supposing▪ that some men's faith either doth not fail at all, or not finally? and yet he never doubted but that the most perfect man is guilty of sin, as his own t August▪ in Psal. 142. Non iustificabitur omnis vivens: Fortè iustificare potest se coram se, non coram te: Quomodo coram se? sibi placens, tibi displiciens: Noli ergo intrare mecumin judicium Domine, quam tumlibet rectus mihi videar: producis tu de thesauro tuo regulam, coaptas me ad eam, & praws invenior: ad te cum respicio, nihil aliud meum quam peccatum invenio: nolo tecum habere causam, ut ego proponam justitiam meam, & tu convincas iniquitatem meam; commemorate iustiti as vestras, ego novi facinora vestra, inquit Dominus. Idem Confess. lib. 9 cap. 13. confession doth at large demonstrate. Which is all that concerned me to prove, whereby to acquit Calvin from the imputation of the heresy of jovinian, who without all u For the words of Alphonsus de Castro▪ haeres. 8. Tit. Peccatum, are these: Augustine imputed unto jovinian this heresy, that he taught all sins to be equal. distinction of sin said, that the once baptised, could never after sin. That which he objecteth out of the testimony of M. Campian, is so silly a fly, that this his so greedy catching at it argueth, that my Adversary is not of the Eagles kind. It is true that M. Campian meant that he should not fall in his cause; but doth not M. higgon's see in that testimony an Ego? [I (saith he) shall never fall;] which might give me an apprehension of his personal constancy in his cause: which sounded to me like the voice of S. Peter, saying, Master, though all forsake thee, yet will not I. For I did not imagine that M. Campians own defence could consist without a defender, or that his confidence in the maintenance of the cause of Faith had not been founded upon an assurance of his own perseverance in Faith. And other understanding hereof then this (if there be any truth in me) I had none: so far was I from violating his intention. T. H. CHAP. II. D. Mortons' untruth concerning the Article of Christ his descent into Hell. §. 1. The necessity, and weight of this Article. 1 AMongst sundry difficulties, which did sometimes afflict my conscience, when I was a brother of your society, this was not the least, viz. What is that, which doth properly, and entirely make a man to be a member of your Church, so that, precisely, for defect thereof, he ceaseth absolutely from being of that communion? The Answerer. What is the matter? T. H. 2 This position (with me) is an impregnable bulwark of my Religion: viz. Whosoever doth pertinaciously reject any point of faith (accepted by public consent of the CATHOLIC Church) he is an HERETIC, and no member of her communion. For which consideration, I am as tenderly affected in this article, as in any other of my Creed, esteeming myself obliged thereunto for two respects. FIRST, because the essential truth thereof, is clearly revealed unto me by God, both in his word written; and by Apostolical Tradition. In his word written; for what can be more perspicuous, than this saying? * Act. 2. 27. Thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, etc. By Apostolical Tradition; for what can be more plain, than this Article? He descended in hell. 3 SECONDLY; I am moved by the authority of the Church. For who (saith * Epist 99 Augustine) denieth that Christ descended into hell, unless he be an INFIDEL? And for the sense of this Article, * Tract 78. in joh. he hath this clear resolution. Who is he that was not left in hell? Christ jesus: but in his SOUL only. Who is he that lay in the grave? Christ jesus: but in his FLESH only. For the NATURAL union of his body and soul was dissolved, but not the HYPOSTATICAL union of either with his Person. 4 This truth being so patent, and perspicuous, I ask you now; what reason have you for any part of your faith, if you have not assurance in this? And if you fall from this, what See Luther's saying, before, pag. 40. certainty have you in any other point? Therefore it importeth your Church to show a due conformity in this Article of the Creed. Finally you may remember, that S. Athanasius in his Creed, (which your * Artic. Redig. 8. Church pretendeth to admit thoroughly, etc. having premised this denunciation; Whosoever keepeth not the Catholic faith entire, and inviolate, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly; doth afterward subnect this Article of Christ his descent into hell, as parcel of that CATHOLIC faith. The Answer. No man may justly discommend M. Hiogons' resolution, if he can make good all that he professeth. The heads be three: the first is the equal necessity of this Article, with any other, and secondly the equal evidence for the proof hereof: and lastly a general conformity of profession herein. For the weight and necessity he pretendeth to be as tenderly affected in this Article, is in any other. I would willingly believe him, but that in my book of Apology, in the same Chapter, from whence he now maketh his objection, I propounded the judgement of their learned Professor and jesuit Suarez, who determined this question in these words: a Sequitur brevi dubium, etc. Suarez Ies. Tom. 2. disp. 43. §. 2. See my Apol. Cath. part. 1. lib. 1. cap. 59 There followeth (saith he) a doubt, whether the truth of Christ his descent into hell be not only a matter to be believed, but also an article of faith; the reason hereof is this▪ because it was not in the Nicene Creed, nor set down by the Apostles, and because the Fathers, as namely Augustine, Tertullian, Irenaeus, Origen have omitted it in their expositions of the Creed. I answer (saith he) that it is not altogether certain, that the Apostles added this Article, if by an Article of faith we understand a truth which all faithful men are bound explicitly to know and believe: I think it not necessary to reckon this among the Articles of faith, because it is not a matter altogether so necessary for all men: and for this cause, peradventure it was omitted in the Nicene Creed, the knowledge of which Creed may seem to be sufficient for the fulfilling the precept of faith. This resolution M. higgon's, doubtless, there saw, wherein an odds of necessary use of this article is professed by your eminent jesuit & schoolman ; and yet doth our young Antagonist exact an equal necessity of this with any other Article. The equal evidence of this Article is the second point, wherein he doth insist, requiring as good an assurance and certainty for this, as for any other point, accounting it an essential truth clearly revealed unto him by God, both by Apostolical Tradition, and by the word written, and by custom of the Church: as though he had observed a certainty hereof among the Romanists, which he could not find among Protestants; not understanding that their foresaid jesuit hath said concerning his first hold, that it is not certain that the Apostles added this Article. And as for the Scriptures which they produce for the proof of the Romish sense thereof, the same Suarez saith, b Nonnulli Catholici itâ aas (Scripturas) exponunt, ut evertant, & rem ipsam negent. Suarez Ies. Tom. 2. disp. 43. sect. 2. some Catholics so expound these Scriptures as destroying and denying this Article: and of the Article itself their jesuit Salmeron durst pronounce saying, c Non dubitamus non ita apertè & expressè esse in sacris Euangeliis declaratum, ut reliquos ad Christi humanitatem spectantes: adeo ut Franciscus de Maior in 3. Sent. asserat Scotum putâsse non probari descensum Christi ad inferos per Scripturas: & idem docuit Durandus in eodem libro. Salmeron Ies Tom. 10. Tract. 50. We doubt not that this article is not so evidently declared in Scriptures, as the other Articles are, which concern the humanity of Christ; insomuch that Scotus and Durand thought (as he saith) that it could not be proved out of Scriptures: and yet their novice M. higgon's presumed that all Romanists held it as most perspicuously delivered in Scriptures. As for his ground taken from the testimony of S. Augustine, this * See hereafter at the letter. q will prove marvelously prejudicial to the Romish sense. The last point, which he professeth, is conformity in this Article of the Creed: whereby he would be thought to avouch their own consent herein: notwithstanding he d As was showed in the same place of my Apology. knew that among their Romanists, there hath been broached these differences, one saying that Christ's descent into hell was only virtual, and not personal: the second sort of them, who held a personal descent, but some applying it unto the real hell of the damned; others only unto a Limbus Patrum, which will be proved out of S. Augustine to be no part of hell. As yet the Romanists afford us neither an absolute necessity of the Article, nor evidence of their sense either from Apostolical tradition, or from perspicuous places of Scriptures, nor yet entertain among themselves a conformity of consent. So that as yet we cannot persuade ourselves of M. higgon's equal tenderness of affection in this behalf: but now concerning myself. T. H. His Accusation. §. 2. D. Mortons' pretence of his Church's unity in this point, is clearly refuted. NOw see your Doctor's sincerity, who may call God to revenge it upon his soul, if he deceive any man with his knowledge. First▪ he citeth the opinion of * Lib. 4. de Christo. ca 15. Bellarmine in these words: Opinio Catholica haec est, CHRISTUM VERE SECUNDUM ESSENTIAM FVISSE IN INFERNO. As much as to say, Christ, in his soul substantially, did descend into hell. Then he addeth: Hanc vestram sententiam NOS quoque iuxtà cum Augustana confession libentissimè profitemur; non tamen quatenus vestram, sed quatenus veram: We also, together with the Augustane confession, do most willingly profess this opinion, etc. It is well that he left out the Scottish, French, Belgian, and Helvetian confessions; for he knoweth, that the true Caluinists are heretics in this behalf. The Answerers' justification. I concealed not the different expositions of some other Protestants, who notwithstanding are no more guilty of heresy in this point, then are the Romanists, as will appear. But first say your mind. T. H. But, I beseech you, do YOU (that is to say, your Church of England) most willingly profess this Catholic opinion? Alas, that your Apologist hath so justly called God to revenge this falsehood upon his soul: let him entreat our Lord to pardon that provocation of his judgement. The Answerer. First in general, I said indeed we, but I said not we all. If now that which was spoken indefinitely in these words, We profess: (nothing the e Common sense, becaust as being taught by the then L●. Archbishop of Canterbury, D. Bilson, Bishop of Winchester, and other Fathers of our Church, & by the tenor of the Article itself (as by the convocation it was allowed) implied, As Christ died for us, & was buried, so also it is to be believed that he went down into hell. common opinion of our Church) must necessarily be enforced universally (as M. higgon's doth,) to signify all, why did the Apostle without distinction condemn the Corinthians for not sorrowing at the wickedness of the incestuous? or generally reprove the Galathians as being bewitched & revolted from the Gospel? Will M. higgon's his divinity conclude, that every Christian man in Corinth, and in Galathia were reprehensible? If all such indefinite speeches may be thus racked, then may all human & divine writings be condemned of falsehood: for f Dico Prophetas & Apostolos saepèreprehendere universum populum, quasi nemo sit bonus, cum tamen permulti sint boni. Bellar. lib. 3. de Eccles▪ Milit. ca 16. §. Ad quartum. Both Apostles & Prophets (saith Cardinal Bellarmine) do often reprehend all the people, as though there were not one good, when notwithstanding diverse good ones are among them. I further demand, doth he think the opinion of the real descent Catholic, that is, universal? yes, he will say, it is among all Romanists universal: and yet knoweh that their great & subtle schoolman Durandus held it to be but a virtual descent. T. H. And, in the mean time, I will demonstrate his falsehood by four evidences. FIRST, if YOU be of this opinion (as he pretendeth) Act. 2. 27. some say life, or person, some body, or carcase. why are your Bible's infected with this absurd Translation? Thou wilt not leave my soul in grave. Is this to submit your sense unto the Scripture, or it is not rather to draw it unto your prejudicate opinion? This is to measure the yard by the cloth: and thus, while you should be faithful Translators, you become corrupt Interpreters of the Scripture. SECONDLY, why was your Church so distracted in this matter upon the Sermon and Treatise of D. Bilson? How came it to pass, that D. Reinolds his Calvinian resolution in this matter, was confuted by M. Perks? and why did M. Willet (the Synopticall Theologue, as he is phrased by * In his epist. prefixed before the book of Conference at Hampton Court: D. Barlow) oppose himself against M. Perks his answer? Why do your Ministers publicly in Sermons, and in print, impugn this true, and Catholic opinion? THIRDLY, why is no Minister punished for his repugnancy unto this truth? which is of greater consequence, then cross, cap, surplice, or any ceremonious thing, or whatsoever institution of your Church, for which many have suffered deprivation of their livings. FOURTHLY, the testimony of M. Rogers, (whose book hath a special approbation, as you may see ¶ pag. 160 before) will convince D. Morton of notorious falsehood. For though his purpose was to deliver the * That is the title of all his pages. Catholic doctrine of YOUR Church, yet when ¶ pag. 16. he cometh unto this Article, he saith, that in the interpretation of it, there is not that consent which were to be wished; some holding one opinion thereof, and some another. Wherefore, yielding no certain doctrine, but leaving men unto their choice, he addeth; TILL we know the native, and undoubted * Faith consisteth not in the words, but in the sense. sense of this Article, etc. The Answer. Here are many questions, which may be answered by questioning. First, in our Church-Bible it is read, Thou shalt not leave my soul in hell: why then did M. higgon's insist only in the Geneva translation? Notwithstanding if this one place were in all Bible's translated hell, yet it is but a fond piece of Sophistry to conclude a general from a particular, and that also negatively: which is all one as if he should have said, Not long before my public revolt I writ a book against the Romish doctrine of venial sin: Ergo before that time I held not any point of popery. Again let him ingenuously satisfy us, if their Church hold the Article by force of the word Hell in Scriptures; then why were some of their Romanists suffered to say (as their jesuit g Valent. Ies. Tom. 4. disp. 2. q. 4. punct. 3● he addeth: Dixerunt citrà pertinaciam tamen. Valentia affirmeth) that the word Infernus, [that is, Hell] in Scriptures is nothing else but the grave? Why durst their jesuit h Pineda Ies. in job. 7. v. 9 Pineda confess, that the word Sheol (which many Romanists appropriate unto hell) is sometimes in Scripture used for the grave? Or, why might i job. 17. 13. Infernus domus mea est.] Aliqui interpretantur de cruciatibus inferni, & domo Tartarea: sed non cohaeret sensus. Sententia plana est & lenis: Quid aliud possit moribundus homo sperare quam sepulchrum ut Domicilium commune cum aliis defunctis in subterranea illa station? Pineda Ies. in eum locum. Pineda expound the vulgar Translation Hell (job. 17. 13.) to signify Grave, contrary unto their expositors, who (as he saith) did interpret it to betoken the pains of hell? Thirdly, why doth M. higgon's charge me with the foreknowledge of M. willet's opposition against M. Perks, or the testimony of M. Rogers, whose books were published after my Apology? and he might well think that I was no Prophet, to foresee what would afterwards be written by other men. Fourthly, (if such kind of conjectures may be called demonstrations,) let him answer for their Council of Trent, which prescribed (as itself saith) k Decretum de symbolo fidei. Haec sancta Trident. Synodus— symbolum fidei, quo sancta Rom. Ecclesia utitur, tanquam principium illud in quo omnes, qui fidem Christi profitentur, necessariò conveniunt, ac fundamentum firmum ac unicum contra quod portae inferi nunquàm praevalebunt▪ totidem verbis, quibus in omnibus Ecclesiis legitur, exprimendun esse censuit; quod quidem eiusmodi est, Credo in Deum, etc. Con. Trident. Sess. 3. A Creed used by the Church of Rome as the principle wherein all the professors of Christ do consent, holding it as the only firm foundation (against which the gates of hell shall never prevail,) in so many words as it is read in all Churches, I believe in God, etc. why it did choose that form wherein this Article of descent into hell is not expressly mentioned? which form l Tele●●s, & Acosta Ies. as they have been cited in my Apology. two of your jesuits did follow even then when they sought to catechize people in the rudiments of faith. The most of these their own abovementioned differences M. higgon's did, no doubt, perceive in my book of Apology, whence he took his objections; and yet hath adventured to make this his assault, being twice convicted in himself, both by the frivolousnesse of his reasons, and also by the regest of their own like contradictions. But of this article more remaineth to be delivered after that I have answered unto my last taxation. T. H. If this be not a sensible conviction of M. Doctors singular untruth, I must confess that I have done him injury, and will be ready to make any satisfaction, that he can reasonably demand. Meanwhile, he must give me leave to detect another of his excellent sleights, and there I will refer him unto his best thoughts. As it was a notable vanity in him to affirm, that YOU do willingly embrace the Catholic opinion in this Article, so that is a delicate collusion, which ensneth within the compass of three lines: à VOBIS etc., WE [in England] differ from YOU [Papists] concerning the place, unto which Christ descended. For WE say, that he descended unto the hell of the damned; hut YOU say, that he descended only ad Limbum Patrum, the region of the Fathers. The Author cited by him, is * Theomach. lib. 7. ca 1. Feuardentius, whose opinion he imputeth here as generally unto the Papists, as he applied the other unto your English Church. But, forasmuch as M. Doctor doth continually deal with BELLARMINE, and in the words immediately precedent, alleged him particularly also in this matter (as you * Numb. 1. see:) why did he now pretermit him, and select another? I will show you the reason; for Bellarmine himself in the very next chapter, is of a contrary opinion unto that, which M. Doctor deriveth generally upon the Papists. What piety then, or humanity was in this preposterous device? The Answerer. I will tell you; even with that piety which truth itself did challenge of my conscience, and which your humanity, I hope, will easily acknowledge, after that I have informed your ignorance what among the Romanists is the most common opinion. Feuardentius (you know) delivering the Romish meaning of this Article held, that Christ's soul went not into the place of the damned, but only unto the place which is called sinus Abrahae, the bosom of Abraham, and is commonly termed, Limbus Patrum: where, say they, the souls of patriarchs were detained until Christ his ascension into heaven. But Cardinal Bellarmine held thus: m Bellar. li. 4. de Christo. c. 1. At probabile profectò est, etc. That is, It is probable that his soul descended through all the parts of hell, both because the Scriptures do not otherwise distinguish, and because S. Augustine, Fulgentius, Ambrose, Eusebius Emissenus, Nyssenus, and Cyrill do signify as much. You now ask me why I did pretermit this opinion of Bellarmine, and suggest the other of Feuardentius? my reason was, because the opinion propounded by Feuardentius is the more common as may appear by n Salmeron Ies. Tom. 10. Tract. 50. Valentianus Ies. Tom. 4 disp. 2. & Suarez Ies. Tom. 2. disp: 43. which is the same with Salmeron. Salmeron, and other jesuits, saying, Ad Limbum Patrum reipsa descendit, ad damnatos per effectum: that is, Christ went down into the Limbus Patrum in deed, but only virtually or by the effects thereof, unto the place of the damned. O but Bellarmine himself (say you) is of a contrary opinion. Take heed what you say: he is of a contrary opinion: he was indeed, but now he is not, because even Bellarmine himself hath lately retracted that his former opinion, and is become contrary unto himself in these express words: o Bellarm. Recognit. pag. 11. in eum locum ex lib. 4▪ de Chron. cap. 16. Re m●lius consideratâ, etc. that is, after that I had better advised of the matter, I resolved to follow the judgement of Thomas, wherein other Schoolmen do consent. Do you not perceive how wisely your great Bellarmine had considered of so many testimonies of Fathers, whence he concluded his probabile est with a profectò, for his former opinion? Do you not also see how he reclaimeth himself, and acordeth unto the common opinion which I proposed from Feuardentius to be the ordinary tenet of the Romish faith? Faithless therefore had I been in setting down the doctrine of your Church, if I had objected a private opinion in stead of a common. Whereby it is evident that I have not been preposterous, but you (I forbear to give you your due) perverse. For you confess that the different judgements of Bellarmine and Feuardentius were both by me expressly set down: so that you could not justly interpret the word you, to signify you all. Is this the man that cried * Alas that your Apologist hath etc.▪ See above. Alas? etc. weep not for me, but weep for yourself: who (if I had been so unconscionable as to commit a sleight) meant by this knack to be even with me; and yet calleth his collusion a faithful conviction. But God forgive him this also. I return unto that Article. This being the doctrine of your Church, I will make bold to inquire, Whether the sense of the Article of Christ's descent, now commonly maintained in the Romish Church, doth stand upon any sound foundation. T. H. SECONDLY, that your difference is in the substantial sense and meaning of this article, but our difference is a scholastical disceptation in a matter of greater or lesser probability; which, being a doubt not resolved by the Church, may be indifferently accepted by her children, without breach of charity, or violation of faith. The Answer. The place which the Romanists assign unto the real presence of Christ in his descension into hell, is only that Limbus Patrum which they call Abraham's bosom; which place p Tert. lib. 4. adversus Mar●ion. cap. 34. Tertullian calleth sublimiorem inferis, that is, higher than hell. Other Fathers might be alleged, but because M. higgon's dependeth principally upon S. Augustine, let us hear q Quanquàm & illud me nondúm invenisse fateor, inferos appellatos, ubi justorum animae requiescunt, & Christianimam venisse ad ea loca, ubi peccatores cruciantur, ut eos solueret à tormentis, quos esse soluendos occulta nobis sua justitia iudicabat, non immeritò creditur: quomodò enim aliter accipiendum est, Act. 2. solutis doloribus inferni? Paulò post: Inter sinum Abrahae & tormenta inferni legimus esse magnum Chaos,— & videmus inferni mentionem non esse factam in requie pauperis, sed in supplicio divitis.— Proindè, ut dixi, nondum inveni, & adhuc quaero, nec mihi occurrit, Inferos alicubi in bono posuisse Scripturam duntaxat Canonicam: non autem in bono positam esse illam requiem & sinum Abrahae, nescio utrum quisquam possit audire, & ideò quomodò apud inferos credamus esse, non video. August. in Gen. ad lit. lib. 12. cap. 33. him: for in his time this opinion of assigning the place of Abraham's bosom unto a part of hell had some suggestors; but I confess (saith S. Augustine) that I have not found that place called hell, wherein the souls of the patriarchs did rest. And then he reasoneth thus; We read (saith he) of a great gulf or distance set between the place of torment and Abraham's bosom, and many observe that when mention is there made of hell, it is not applied unto the rest of Lazarus, but unto the punishment of Dives. Therefore (as I have said) I have sought and yet search, and cannot find in all the Canonical Scripture, that hell is taken for any place of well-being. But who will say that the place of rest (wherein the patriarchs were) was not good? The Argument which was necessarily deduced from this doctrine of S. Augustine, is this: They who believed that Christ's soul descended only into the place of the souls of the patriarchs, called Abraham's bosom, or Limbus Patrun, do not believe the descending of Christ into the real hell. But the common and almost universal doctrine of the Romish Church at this day is, to believe that the soul of Christ went only unto that Limbus. Ergo (by the judgement of S. Augustine) they hold not the real descent of Christ into hell. And can you, yielding unto S. Augustine, call your now common exposition no violation of faith? The differences of opinions thus standing, I add A determination of this question, concerning Christ his descending into Hell, whereunto our Adversaries are compellable to accord. I can truly say with M. higgon's, that the difficulty of this Article did not a little perplex me, to hear of such differences of senses, not only among Protestants, whom he hath noted, but also among the Romanists: some of our Adversaries holding this descension of Christ to be virtual only, and not personal; and among these who defend the personal, some to believe his presence in the real hell, and the most to fancy only such a Limbus, which hath been proved to be no part of hell. And again, concerning the Romish sense of this Article, some of themselves doubting whether it be an Apostolical Tradition; and some affirming, that it is not proved by Scriptures. And finally (not to urge the Council of Trent, & other Catechisms which have singled out that form of Creed as the only foundation of faith in all Churches, wherein this Article is wanting:) their own most accomplished jesuit Suarez to account it an Article of no such absolute necessity: I thought it necessary to dive deeper into this mystery, & (as God should enable me) in some sort to compose the distractions of all parts, which do arise from the foresaid differences of expositions; so far as otherwise they are consonant unto Scriptures; by conceiving that our Adversaries (if they will religiously acquit themselves) must grant, that notwithstanding all these diversities of senses attributed unto this Article, yet both sides generally do hold that which is most necessary to salvation, and merely fundamental herein: because whatsoever belongeth unto such the foundation of faith, from the time of Christ his passion unto his resurrection, consisteth in these two points, the truth of his death and passion, & the power thereof; now to explain my purpose somewhat more particularly. The burial of Christ in the grave, was for the avouching and ratifying of the truth of his death and resurrection. Suppose we now, that some Christian had not the perfect revelation of this article of Christ's burial in the grave, and should notwithstanding believe the truth of his death and resurrection, with the powerful effect of both; should he not be thought to be a fundamental Christian, and (though not literally, yet savingly to believe his burial? seeing the reason of the burial of Christ in the grave, was (as I said before) to verify the certainty of his death, proving it to have been true, and not fantastical. Not that the Article of his burial, being now so evidently revealed, is not necessarily to be believed (far be it from us thus to conceive:) but only supposing that there were no better evidences for this Article than such as our Adversaries have for proof of their sense in the other, which (as some principal Doctors among them have confessed) is not evident by Scriptures, nor yet consonantly agreed upon in their Church. Now then, the power which any ascribeth unto his descension, is either Christ's triumph over hell, or his deliverance of souls from hell. For his triumph, every intelligent Christian will say, that as soon as it was revealed, that Christ had consummated his glorious work of our Redemption, all the powers of hell were at their last gasp. As for the deliverance of souls from hell, every one doth likewise believe & profess that there is no redemption whatsoever of any from hell, but it is wrought by the virtue of the same Death of Christ, either by subvention (as the Romanists hold) which is, by delivering souls from hell, wherein before Christ's death, patriarchs and holy men were imprisoned: or else (as the Protestants teach) by prevention, that is, (which maketh more for the glory of his power and grace,) in preventing the souls of his faithful, that they should not come into hell: even by that power of his death (he being the Lamb slain from the beginning of the world) whereby he freed the same patriarchs and all his elect, that they should never suffer the eternal pains of hell, according to the belief of all Christians in the world. This foundation of faith thus standing in the belief of all Christian professors, the Romanists (notwithstanding all the forenamed different senses) are chargeable to acknowledge in both sides an accordance in that which is absolutely necessary & essential in this point of Christian faith, except they will plunge themselves into the gulf of doubtfulness and distraction. T. H. Thus I have given you a little signification of those many untruths, which I have observed in this Doctor. If it consist not with his credit, or profit to yield; yet it concerneth you to beware of his sirenical incantations. Your benefit shall be my reward; if not so, yet this schedule may be a token of my love; and be you well assured, that either, by following my counsel [TRY BEFORE YOU TRVST,] you shall prevent an heavy doom; or, by neglecting it, you shall increase your judgement. The Answer. Nay, but these are not all the inditements which you prosecute against me; for you have inserted in your book another taxation: * The Doctor (say you) is pleased to colour Book. 1. pa. 43 and cloak the exposition of Lombard with the name of Ambrose, and for this purpose frameth this quotation in the margin, ex Ambrosio. etc. If in the margin of r Lombard in Rom. 11. ad finem primae paginae. Printed at Paris apud johannem Foucher. Anno. 1537. Lombard there be not quoted Ambrose directly over this place, or if any one in reading that place, could have otherwise understood it, then will I acknowledge myself guilty of all the imputations, which M. higgon's hath devolved upon me: by whose reproof I am admonished not to believe their own Lombard, who was Master of the Romish School, in his marginal allegation of Fathers. But I hold him in better regard, and therefore think that although the testimony alleged, be not found in Ambrose upon the 11. Chap. ad Rome: yet (for Lombard nameth no place) that it is extant in him elsewhere. Thus we see that M. higgon's among more than twenty plain calumniations, and slanders, whereof I convicted Cardinal Bellarmine, could instance but in one, for justification of that Doctor: whereby appeareth his partiality in swallowing of Camels, and straining out Gnats. Again, out of many hundreds of testimonies, wherein I manifested the irksome contradictions of our Romish Adversaries among themselves, & thereby the confirmation of our Religion in the chief controversies, he hath taken exception unto these silly few, whereby to advance his clamorous insultation: and notwithstanding bewrayeth in his proofs (as hath been shown,) more will than wit, and yet more wit than good conscience. Of whom I may as well challenge (according to his promise) a satisfaction, as I may not expect it. I wish that he may conscionably satisfy himself; and pray the Father of all mercy not to charge him with any wrong done against me, but to illuminate his heart, and fashion it unto the obedience of the Apostolic faith. Amen.