A DIRECT ANSWER VNTO THE SCANDALOVS EXCEPtions, which Theophilus Higgons hath lately obiected against D. Morton. In the which there is principally discussed, Two of the most notorious Obiections vsed by the Romanists, viz. 1. M. Luthers conference with the diuell, and 2. The sence of the Article of Christ his descension into hell.
Though mine aduersaries would write a booke against me, Would I not take it vpon my shoulder, and binde it as a crowne vnto me?
LONDON, Printed for EDMVND WEAVER. 1609.
TO THE RIGHT HONORABLE RAPH LORD EVRE; LORD PRESIDENT OF the Principalitie, Dominion and marches of Wales, and Lord Lieutenant of the same.
THe many tokens of that interest, which by your fauour (right Honorable) I haue in your fauour, hath thus emboldened me in this little Treatise to manifest my due acknowledgement of your Lordships loue towards me, but much more vnto 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 vnto the flesh; that we should not wonder at this defect, but deplore it: for we know that the Spirit of Christ which called the faithfull of Thessalonica Act. 17. 11. noble, because of their diligent studie in the sacred Scriptures, and zealous inquisition of the truth of the Gospell, doth teach vs to esteeme of all such as the off-spring of right Nobilitie, which issueth not from generation but from regeneration; [Page] the praise and glorie whereof is not of men, but of God. My speciall intendment in this dedication (right Honorable) was to giue your Lordship notice what kinde 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 vpon me, vnder a pretence of charging me with falsifications. But how farre my disposition hath bene from this wickednesse, I haue presumed to appeale vnto your Honours experience. What my desert is, the examination of his particulars will best discouer, which I referre vnto the equanimity of your Lordships censure; submitting my selfe either vnto the abalienation of your Honorable fauour, or else your further approbation of me, according as I shalbe found in these points innocent or obnoxious. Our Lord Iesus preserue your Honour vnto the glorie of his sauing grace.
To the Reader.
THe speciall occasion of this Answer (Christian Reader) was in thy behalfe, lest thou shouldest stumble vpon me, as vpon a Falsificator, who professe my selfe a publisher of truth. I haue read my Aduersarie his pretended Motiues, and haue since also vnderstood of his true motions, which occasioded him to reuolt; and comparing them together, I could not but recken 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 deuised pretext of Reasons, which he calleth his Motiues, the law of charitie and of humanitie would haue chalenged him to haue consulted with those Authors whom he doth impugne, with whom the Motioner did then stand in the termes of brotherhood. As for my selfe, I perceiue he hath read my Apologie, in which there are many hundreds of testimonies alledged out of the Romish writers, wherein they are found to contradict one another almost in euery question, and to conuince their owne men of manifest slaunders against Protestants, and almost in euery Article to iustifie the grounds of our Religion: out of all which M. Higgons hath singled out onely fiue, which (it may seeme) he thought to be more singularly false then [Page] any others. These haue I examined, and after due triall am now prouoked to expostulate the matter with my Aduersarie, as Iacob did with Laban, saying: Gen. 3. 1. v. 36. 37. What haue I trespassed, what haue I offended, that thou hast pursued after me? Seeing thou hast searched all my stuffe, what hast thou found (suffer me to change a word) to charge me withall? Put it here before thy brethren and mine (either Protestants or Romanists) that they may iudge betweene vs both. I can say no more, but laying open the parcels, wish that the Brethren of both sides would iudge betweene vs: & both are in some sort chargible hereunto, not onely by my Aduersaries chalenge, who intitleth this part of his booke thus, Trie before you trust; but much more by the Apostles authoritie, exhorting all men (concerning things of this nature) to 1. Thess. 5. 21. Trie all things, and to keepe that which is good. The Lord Iesus blesse vs, and by his preuenting Grace prepare vs alwaies for a comfortable appearance before him in the great day of Triall.
A DIRECT ANSWER VNTO THE SCANDALOVS EXCEPTIONS WHICH Theophilus Higgons hath lately obiected against D. Morton.
Theoph: Higgons.
THE PREFACE.
IF you consider the See before pag. 147. deliberation of D. MORTON in the contexture of his APOLOGY, or his Ibid. & pag. 99. pretended sinceritie therein, it may seeme very strange, that this worke, which was borne after so long trauell, should be surcharged with impertinent trifles, or subtile collusiōs, or malicious vntruthes.
The Answer.
I doubt not but my sincerity will indeed seeme strange vnto any that shall consider aright with what insinceritie and impietie it is impugned.
T. H.
For which respects, Defens. Bellarm. pag. 435. Iames Gretzer (a verie noble author) hath exorned it with a speciall encomion: viz. Hoc opus. &c.
This censure, because it proceedeth from an aduersarie (and a IESVITE also; with whose order, it pleaseth D. Morton to contend more eminently, then with any other) may peraduenture seeme vniust; but yet the equitie of it, or credibilitie (at the least) [Page 2] may appeare vnto you by the sequele, which, being a part, doth delineate the condition and qualitie of the whole.
The Answer.
I cannot enuie Iames Gretzer your exornation, of a very noble, if you adde, Rayler: for although I haue seene many Doctors, yet neuer read I of any other that was professor in that kinde; whose onely phrases and emblemes of vnciuill Rhetoricke vsed against learned Protestants, in that one booke here cited by you, I haue seene collected into such a swelling bulke, as may bewray that your noble Author in writing it, laboured of a tympanie; which since hath bene so skilfully vented by the reasons of a learned Sibrandus Lubbertus in his Replication against that cited booke of Gretzer. Protestant, that we stand in good hope of his better temper hereafter. Concerning whose censure of me, you haue said in my behalfe, that it proceedeth from an Aduersarie, whom my selfe might haue incountred with by the testimony of a friend, euen of his own Nation, The same Lubbertus with his own hand. Omnes docti, qui hîc sunt, &c. but I abhorre this folly. Yet I wish that I had bene so much beholdē vnto you, M. Higgons, as to haue examined the particular exceptiōs which Iames Gretzer hath taken against me, & to haue noted any one thing, wherin I haue bene iustly charged of subtle collusion, or of malicious vntruths. I should thinke that you were vnwilling to do me this disgrace, but that I find by your practise how now adhering vnto them, who hold it a Catholicisme to brand me with only an imaginarie imputation, you haue honoured your noble Author by your imitation of him: and yet proceede, and challenge beliefe.
T. H.
Beleeue me, Sir, that I write this out of my certaine experience, not prouoked by any personall dislike of the Author himselfe (for I may freely say with the Apostle; he hath not hurt me at all,)Galat. 4. 12. but moued thereunto by tender compassion of your estate, and [Page 3] others, lending your credit vnto them, who pay you with falshood, and build vp their fortunes in the ruine of your soules.
The Answer.
I easily beleeue that I haue done you no hurt: therefore if I shall be wronged by you, the lesse will be my hurt, but the greater my iniurie, as is this wherein I am charged to build vp my fortunes with the ruine of mens soules. Fortunes? (M. Higgons,) aduise with S. Dixi quidē hoc, verumtamen poenitet me sic illie nominasse fortunam, cū videam homines habere in pessima cōsuetudine; & vbi dici debet, hoc Deus voluit: dicere, hoc voluit fortuna. Augustinus Retract. li. 1. ca. 1. Augustine concerning the lawfull vse of the word Fortune in Christianitie▪ and further consider whether the Romane Clergie, or the ministerie among the Protestants are, in regard of worldly interests (to requite you with your owne) more fortunate: and then conferre you with your selfe, whether this fortune was not the chiefe motiue 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 deare vnto me in this life, which I shall not willingly lay downe at the Apostles feete; neuer entertaining any portion in this profession further then the religion it selfe shall be found iustifiable by the Apostles doctrine. But to the matter: You professe to speake nothing but vpon certaine experience: This, I confesse, is a wise Mistresse, I desire to heare what she will say.
T. H.
CHAP. I. D. Mortons vntruth in his defence of LVTHER, and CALVIN.
§. 1. How D. Morton diuerteth the scandall of the Diuels dispute with Luther against the Masse.
I will not handle this controuersie now: wherefore I come vnto D. Morton, who expediting the same in sixe questions, [Page 4] proposeth this in the third place, viz. Ought the MASSE to seeme HOLY▪ because the Diuell did reprehend it? He answereth; no: and yeeldeth this reason of his deniall. Apud Del' rius, Iesuit. lib. 4. de Magia, cap. 1. q. 3. §. 5 Surium liquet, DIABOLVM in specie Angelica apparuisse, & statim Abbatem, vt MISSAM CELEBRARET, HORTABATVR. Do you see how the infernall serpent doth implicate, and wind himselfe? He obiecteth the MASSE vnto Luther as a thing execrable, and odious vnto God; the same [Diuell] endeuoreth to allure the Abbot vnto it, as it were to kisse Gods dearest daughter. Therefore, the MASSE is no more to be accounted HOLY because Satan seemed to reprehend it, then it is to be accounted EXECRABLE, because he seemed to allow it. And thus the one may componderate with the other; the Diuell is alwaies a knaue.
4 But, do you see how this glorious Doctor doth implicate, and wind himselfe? Before I go any further, I must put you in mind of his protestation; viz. I may call God to be witnesse, and reuenger against my soule, si sciens fallo. Againe, you may perceiue here, that he cannot possibly deriue the cause of his errour vpon the weaknesse of his memorie; for he is very exact in his quotation of booke, chapter, question, section: and therefore you will see, that I had iust cause to charge him with malicious vntruth, when you haue examined the Authors discourse, which he hath mangled by a rare deprauation. For thus writeth his Author: Item DIABOLI reuelatio censenda est, si suadeat aliqua contra Canones, vel constitutiones, vel regulas, vel alia praecepta maiorum. Hoc indicio B. Simeon, Monachus Treuerensis, eum deprehendit. Narratur historia ab Apud Surium. 1. Iunij. Euerwino Abbate. In verticem montis Sinai iussu superiorum cùm missus fuisset, ibi habitaturus; nocturnis horis illi specie Angelicâ Daemon apparuit, &, vt 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 priuari. Renitentem ergo, & contradicentem, adiuncto [Page 5] sibi consortio alterius Daemonis, de lectulo educunt, ante altare iam vigilantem statuunt, albâ induunt, de stolâ vtrimque altercantur, hostis more presbyteri, Simeon more diaconi contendebat sibi imponi debere. Tandem Dei famulus, ad se reuersus, virtute orationis, & signo Crucis inimicum repellit, se (que) 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 himselfe, or any other in his behalfe, can cleare this corruption from the iust imputation of voluntarie, knowne, resolued, determinate malice, then the infernall Serpent (as he speaketh) did neuer 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 Controuersie now, yet giue me leaue to report what I haue alreadie handled in that Chapter, wherein you insist. First were produced the Romish Authors, as namely, Bellarmine, Feu-ardentius, Gregory de Valent. Coster, and Serarius, who all vrgently and violently obiect against Luther, that his Religion was receiued from the Diuell. And did not the Pharisees vpbraid our Sauiour, saying, that his vertue of Miracles came from the power of Luke. 11. 15. Belzebub Prince of Diuels? wherfore, this taxation gaue me occasion seriously to enquire into Luthers confession hereof, with a purpose, that if any such thing should sensibly appeare vnto me, then vtterly to abhorre his name, and suspect all his doctrine. For the manifestation of this matter, I examined all circumstances by sixe Interrogatories; and supposing the conference had bene personall, and not (as it may be thought) onely imaginarie, I thus propounded
The first Interrogatorie.
Whether it be damnable in Luther to conferre with the Didiuell? [Page 6] The truth is, No, because both Christ had a Matth. 4. Colloquie with the diuell, and many other men (in the opinion of our Aduersaries, godly) haue done the like, as their Legends, and this Del'rio and other Iesuits do copiously shew.
The second Interrogatorie.
Whether Luther did not acknowledge the Diuell to be a lier? This was satisfied from Luthers owne speech: As though (saith he) I were ignorant that the Diuell is a lier, except you Papists had instructed me. So farre was it from him to entertaine the counsell of the Diuell as an Oracle of truth.
The third Interrogatorie.
Whether the Masse be therefore to be esteemed as holy, because the Diuell did reprehend it? I answered, No, because then may we as well say that the Masse is naught, because the Diuell did allow it: which I endeuoured to prooue from that testimonie of Del-rio, whereupon M. Higgons hath so youthfully insulted, and whereunto I shall presently returne him (I doubt not) a satisfiable answer.
The fourth Interrogatorie.
Whether whatsoeuer the Diuell speaketh be therefore to be iudged diuellish, because it proceedeth from the Diuell? This was determined from the confessions of their owne Iesuits, viz. that although the Diuell be the Father of lies, yet doth he tell some truth. Which is proued by Scripture, where he is noted to haue cried out, saying vnto Christ, Luc. 8. 28. g The Jesuit Tollet vpon that place. What haue I to do with thee, Iesus, thou sonne of the Almightie? and therein to haue▪ confessed two Articles of Christian faith, euen the humanitie and diuinitie of Christ.
The fift Interrogatorie.
Whether Satan in his Conference obiected any Argument [Page 7] against priuate Masse, which is not a certaine & confessed truth? The points were these: First, that the Sacrament of the Eucharist is to be administred in both kinds, bread and wine. Next, that it is no Coommunion, wherein onely the Priest doth communicate. Lastly, that the action of the Sacrifice of the true Masse, is the Annunciation of Christs death. Which were partly proued, by the confessions of our Aduersaries, to accord with Christs institution, and might also be as easily confirmed by the consent of the best antiquitie. But what said Luther to all this? He sheweth that the Diuell is the most subtle lier, euen then when he speaketh truth: as for example, in striking the heart of Iudas with that direfull thought, I haue betraied the innocent bloud; this (saith Luther) Iudas could not denie, (for it was too true a truth:) but the lie of the Diuell was this; Therefore must thou, O Iudas, despaire of the grace of God. Therefore brother Papist (saith Luther) the Diuell doth not lie when he accuseth a man, for he bringeth with him two inconuincible witnesses, euen Gods law & mans conscience. The truth of which Assertion euerie conscience of man will readily confesse. Now followeth
The last Interrogatorie.
Whether Luther in that conflict did conquer the Diuels temptation, or no? This needed none other answer then Luthers owne Application. So (saith he) I cannot denie but that I haue sinned, (meaning in celebrating priuate Masse, contrarie vnto Christs holy institution,) but the diuell doth herein lie in tempting me to despaire with Cain, I confessed indeed, euē before the Diuell, that I had sinned with Iudas; but I turne my selfe vnto Christ with Peter, I call vpon Christ, I beleeue in Christ, who hath condemned all horrible damnation, and blotted out my sinne with his bloud; whereof I doubt not, for to this end I haue receiued the Sacraments, his seales of grace. Which combat with the Diuell, I shewed how semblable it was vnto S. Bernards case, of whom we reade, that Author vitae S. Bernardi [...]. 1. cap. 12. in the fierce conflict which he had with the Diuell, (tempting him to despaire:) [Page 8] I confesse (saith he) that I am vnworthie, neither can I by my merits obtaine the kingdome of heauen: but Christ my Lord doth possesse it by a double right, the one is by inheritance from the Father, the other by the merit of his owne passion: he is contented with the one, and the other doth he impart vnto me. This being my discourse, whereby their ordinarie slander against Luther was sponged out, none neede to maruell why M. Higgons forbare to handle this controuersie, and choose rather to scratch me by the face, by an imputation of voluntarie, knowne (M. Higgons wanted not his Inkehorne) resolued, determinate malice. But I come to
The Iustification of my selfe.
That which belonged vnto me to proue, was, that the Diuel doth sometime exhort vnto good, although with a wicked intent: which, as our Aduersaries will easily grant, may be confirmed by his commendation of Alteri item Daemon apparuit imagine B. Vrsulae, crucis vexillū praeferens, cum multarum virginū comitatu, atque ita locutus est: Videt Deus amat (que) istud tuum tuendae pudicitiae studium &c. Del'rio. Tom. 2. l. 4. c. 1. q. 3. sect. 5. chastitie, and by innumerable other examples. But because the Obiection made against Luther was concerning the Masse, therefore did I endeuour to giue instance in the like example, & happened vpon that sentence out of Del'rio the Iesuit, which I my selfe afterwards did discerne, and in print in the end of my second part of Apology did plainely Animiaduers. in lib. 2. cap. 21 acknowledge to haue bene much mistaken, acquainting my Reader therewith: and therefore repaired that breach with another example out of the same Author in this manner: I will shew you (saith the Iesuite Del'rio) an example worthie your memorie, wherein notwithstanding this is to be maruelled, that a Diuell did command one to buy a bell, and to bestow it vpon a poore Church, whereby the faithfull might euery Sonday be called vnto Diuine Seruice. By this confession I fortified my former consequence, thus: If the Masse must be therefore accounted sacred, because the Diuel did reprehend it, then must it likewise be iudged to be sacrilegioús, because the Diuell doth prouide meanes to call men vnto it. Hereby manifesting how pitifully our Aduersaries are deluded, [Page 9] who will not discerne the Diuels subtilty, which is alwaies to speake, 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 deliuereth is often most true, and truth (as their Iesuite Scrupulo us est, qui ex prophanis authoribus nihil audet mutuari, cùm 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, whosoeuer be the preacher: but his conclusion, Ergo thou must kil, or steale, or despaire &c. is alwaies the daughter of him who is the father of lies. What remaineth but
The guilt of my Accuser.
Tell me now you that professe to speake out of certaine experience, and yet confesse that I haue exactly quoted the booke, chapter, question, section of this testimonie, whether you euer knew in all your experience any voluntary corrupter (especially being compassed about with so many lefteyed Aduersaries) to haue directly pointed at the place, where his corruption might be certainly found out? and then note me for a man voluntarily and resoluedly false.
Secondly, whether any determinately malicious could euer be induced to acknowledge (as I did) his errour, before he were publikely conuicted.
Thirdly, whether he can call the answer resoluedly false in me, who could haue confirmed the same conclusion, viz. that the Diuell 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 adde a fourth, whether M. Higgons read not that my satisfaction in my Animaduersions, & so with mine owne heiffer would maliciously plough vpon my backe. But I will not gall his conscience. God forgiue him his wrong.
Although this his former precipitancie might moue me to pitie his indiscretion, yet the last clause of his sentence deserued a smile, when he saith, that Except this be a resolued and determinate malice, then the infernall serpent did neuer tell a lie (saith he) for which he or they may not extort some colourable defence. Hereby necessarily imagining, that there [Page 10] may possibly be a lie, which wanteth all colour of defence. Which indeed is most true amongst all faithfull Professors of Christ, but cannot hold firme in that sect, which defendeth an Aequiuocation by a mentall reseruation: for say (good M. Higgons in your humanitie,) if I should haue bene so gracelesse, as in alledging that misconceiued testimonie taken out of Del'rio, to haue vsed a mentall reseruation, 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, notwithstāding the mental reseruatiō, I had lied, then accursed by your newly deuised Art of lying, which is so notably diuellish, that as long as it is defended, it shal be impossible for any to giue the Diuel 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 beleeue that this historie is true, or doth he repute it to be false? If false; why doth he vrge it? If true; then he must remember, that there is some efficacie in the signe of the Crosse, to terrifie his infernall Serpent. If he say with Brentius, that the Diuell doth flie it in subtiltie, to draw men into superstition, I answer, that Pagans, and Protestants do symbolize as well in this deuise, as in many others. ForTheodoret. hist. l. 3. c. 3. when Iulian admired to see, that the Diuels fled away at the signe of the Crosse, the Magitian answered, oh Sir; it was not for any feare of that signe, but for detestation of your fact.
The Answer.
I am perswaded 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 then I can do this storie of S. Dunstane, whō he beleeueth to haue Lasciuâ formâ & motu eundem (Daemonem) cognouit sanctus Dunstanus, & ignito forcipe arrepto, eius naso lepidè irrisit: Teste Osberro Cantuatiēsi. Del'rio Ies. disq. Magic. Tom. 2. li. 4. ca. 1. q. 2. sect. 5. catched the Diuell by the nose with a paire of pincers, (for I maruel what mettall his nose, and the pincers were of;) yet do I thinke [Page 11] that this other of the crosse might be true: but so, as that in repelling his consequence I shall appeare to be neither Iulianist, nor Papist, that is, neither profane nor superstitious. For it may be obserued, that in the daies of Iulian the Crosse was vsed in such cases by holy men in, at least, a secret inuocation of Christ crucified (whom that wicked Apostate contemned:) but not (as the Papists do) by attributing (to vse M. Higgons word,) an efficacie or vertue to the Crosse it selfe, as though the Diuell could not possibly endure it. Which bringeth into my remembrance a storie which Banks told me at Franck [...]ford, from his own experience in France among the Capuchins, by whom he was brought into suspition of Magicke, because of the strange feats which his horse Morocco plaied (as I take it) at Orleance: where he, to redeeme his credit, promised to manifest to the world that his horse was nothing lesse then a Diuell. To this end he commanded his horse to seeke out one in the preasse of the people, who had a crucifixe on his hat; which done, he bad him kneele downe vnto it; & not this onely, but also to rise vp againe, and to kisse it. And now (Gentlemen quoth he) I thinke my horse hath acquitted both me, and himselfe; and so his Aduersaries rested satisfied: conceauing (as it might seeme) that the Diuell had no power to come neare the Crosse.
If M. Higgons be become a man of the same faith, to ascribe vnto the very signe such an efficacie, let him suffer me to spurre him with a question. The fore-named Iesuit Del'rio telleth vs of the Alteri item Daemon [...]e noctu ostendit, imagine B. Vrsulae crucis vexillum praeferens, &c. Idē Tom. 2. l. 4. c▪ 1. q. 3. sect. 5. Paulò post. Illa, quod si Dei Legatione fungimini, has sanctorū reliquias (habebat alligatas ad collū) veneramini. Mirum dictu, procubuerūt in genua laruae venerabū dae. Del'rio Tom. 1. lib. 2. q. 27. sect. 2. Apparitiō of a Diuell vnto an holy Virgin, in the forme of S. Vrsulae, carying a crucifixe before him, and accompanied with a traine of other Diuels, representing Ʋirgins: But she su [...]ecting some delusion, If (saith she) you haue any message from God, then worship these holy Relicks, which are about my necke. What then? Then, for I shall tell you a maruell (saith Del'rio) those infernall hagges prostrated themselues in worship of those holy Relicks. Now then, M. Higgons, either you beleeue that this Apparition was true, or not; if you thinke it possible that the Diuell did carie a crucifixe, and kisse holy [Page 12] relicks, then why may he not be said sometimes to vse, or flit it in subteltie? or how shall the Diuel be thought altogether to feare the verie signe? And if you answer, that the storie cannot be true, then must you necessarily stumble vpon Del'rio, and by acknowledgement of his fabulous booke, returne backe againe, at least, one steppe from Babylon.
T. H.
§. 2. How D. Morton defendeth Caluin from the note of Iouinianisme.
1 AMongst sundrie errours of Iouinian (a Father of Protestants; whence Loc. com. Luth. part. 4. pag. 44. Luther saith, ‘that Hierome wrote pestilent bookes against Iouinian, but he, at that time, had more learning and iudgement in his little finger, then Hierome in all his bodie’) this was one; A man cannot sinne after baptisme, if he were truly baptized: that is to say, if he truly receiued faith, and grace. This errour is imputed by De notis Eccles. cap 9. Bellarmine vnto Caluin; and the reason is, because Caluin teacheth, that true faith (which, in his opinion, is inseparable from grace,) can neuer be lost. For though Caluin doth not, by way of position, defend, that a faithfull man cannot sinne, yet the question is now, whether it follow out of the aforesaid principle, by way of necessarie deduction. Bellarmine affirmeth it, Part. 1. li. 1. cap. 34. D. Morton denieth it; and pretendeth, that this Iouinianisme may be imputed as well vnto Augustine or Campian, as vnto Caluin.
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 vnto Caluin? For first, S. Augustine doth not teach, that faith cannot be seuered from grace. Secondly, he doth not affirme, that a man can neuer fall from faith, or grace. Thirdly, he doth [Page 13] not teach, that onely the elect can haue these gifts, but he sheweth the contrarie in that place; & who knoweth not that many haue lost both faith, and grace? Lasily, S. Augustine doth there distinguish betwixt the elect, & reprobate; & teacheth that the faith of Horum sides &c. that is spoken of the elect. elect, which worketh by Charitie, either doth not faile at all; or if it do [as sometimes it doth] yet it is repaired againe, before their departure; but in the reprobate, the case is verie different; for they may haue faith, and grace, but faith and grace endure not in them with perseuerance, a gift proper onely vnto the elect.
3 Wherfore, there is no correspondencie betwixt S. Augustine and Caluin in this point. For Caluin annexing grace inseparably vnto faith, and auerring, that faith can neuer be lost; must ineuitably thence inferre, that a faithfull man doth neuer lose grace also, and consequently he doth neuer sinne mortally, because a mortall sinne excludeth Grace inherent. grace from the soule.
4 The sentence of Rat. 10. Campian is cited in these words: Nisi Diui è coelo deturbentur, cadere ego nunquam potero; and here your Doctor pretendeth that Campian, euen as Caluin himselfe, did beleeue constantly, that he could neuer fall from faith, but was certaine of his saluation. Which if it were so, then iudge of the soundnesse of your Diuinitie, according to the principles whereof, Campian, a resolute Papist and opposite vnto your Religion, might be infallibly secure of his saluation: and the like all sectaries may (as many do) apply vnto themselues with a supposed certaintie of perseuerance. But as F. Campian doth Rat. 8. Age▪ somniet hoc: sed vnde &c. post medium. elsewhere particularly reproue this conceit, and taxeth your Caluin precisely for the same, so in In the conclusion of his tenth Reason. this place he is farre from that imagination, howsoeuer it pleaseth D. Morton to propose his words by the halfe, and to peruert his meaning in the whole. For that blessed Martyr hauing yeelded a reason of his confidence (which he deriueth from all kinds of witnesses in heauen, earth, and hell it selfe) non diffiteor, (saith he) animatus sum, & incensus ad conflictum; IN QVO, nisi Diui de coelo deturbentur, & superbus Lucifer coelum recuperet, cadere nunquam potero.
5 Now I remit me vnto your ingenuitie, and conscience, [Page 14] whether D. Morton did not with voluntarie, and determinate malice (as I said before) abridge the sentence, and violate the intentionSciens fallit of Campian, to deceiue the Reader, with, and against his knowledge. For what doth F. Campian affirme? but onely this; since I haue these testimonies of my religion, it is not possible that, relying thereupon, I should euer 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 perceiue, whether his heart be single, and syncere in his impugnation of the Catholicke faith; which he laboureth to extinguish by these miserable inuentions. But it will flourish much more, euen for his sake. God, of his infinite mercie, will either mollifie his affection, or cohibite his purpose. And now (kind Master S.) I might ease my selfe, and you from any more paine in this kind, if one more vast vntruth thē all the rest, did not cōpell me to proceed yet a little farther; the matter being of great importance, and, for many respects, not to be passed ouer in silence.
The Answer.
I wish to breath onely so long as that the Catholicke faith may flourish by me. As for my Affections, I thanke God, they are such, that if I had a window in my heart, I would open it for M. Higgons, or any Aduersarie to looke in and see as much as I can my selfe; and then, am I sure, they could not iudge me either deceitfull, or malicious. But to the point, first,
The state of the question, shewing the slander which Cardinall Bellarmine committeth against Caluin.
The first heresie of Iouinian is, (saith the Cardinall) that man cannot sinne after Baptisme: which is the heresie of Caluin, who saith that true faith can neuer be lost. The falshood of this accusation is not obscurely For he redoubleth his blows vpon Caluin almost in euery chapter. cōuinced by the Iesuit Maldonate, who discussing that heresie, durst not impute it vnto Caluin: secondly, by Caluins Apolog part. 1. lib. 1 ca. 42. acknowledged sentences, wherein he requireth repentance as necessary in all [Page 15] that haue bene baptized, that they may be iustified. But M. Higgons would couer the Cardinals nakednesse with a mantle of Deduction, thus: Because Caluin annexeth grace inseparably vnto faith, and anerreth that faith can neuer be lost, it must ineuitably inferre, that a faithfull man doth neuer lose grace also, and consequently doth neuer sinne mortally, because a mortall sinne doth exclude grace from the soule. This M. Higgons his Inference telleth me that he was neuer yet rightly catechized in the rudiments of faith: which I must be perswaded of, vntill he make this consequence good, A man cannot lose a iustifying faith after Baptisme: Ergo he cannot sin after Baptisme. Can this be enforced either from the doctrine of Caluin▪ or else of all the Romanists? Caluin teacheth that the iustified mans good actions are polluted with sinne, and some of the Romanists haue acknowledged, in effect, as much (as I there Both by Vega and Lindan: see the Apologie. proued;) whom their Iesuite confesseth to haue bene Caeterum ex doctioribus Catholicis nō nulli graues etiā & pij aliā sententiā improbabilē secuti sunt: dicunt enim differentiā venialis & mortalis peccati nō nasci ex natura ipsa operationū, led ex legedei ita statuēte, vt hoc sit veniale, illud verò mortale. Quam opinionem docuerunt Gerson.—Almaynus,—Roffensis,—qui omnes contra Caluinū docēt esse aliqua peccata venialia, quae Dei amicitiā non dissoluunt; & alia mortalia, quae iustitiam Dei omninò tollunt: hanc tamen differentiam in Dei voluntatem & statutum ita reuocant, vt cùm aliâs omnia peccata à se mortalia essent, solâ Dei misericordiâ ad aeternam poenam non imputentur. Vasquez [...]es. Tom. 1. disp. 142. cap. 1. graue and godly Catholicke Doctors, who taught that all sinnes are in their nature mortall, albeit those sinnes which are called veniall, by the mercy of God, do not dissolue the fauour of God: but may consist together with inherent Grace, as not imputed vnto vs for our eternall punishment. Here we see sinnes in their nature mortall, and iustifying Grace to be coincident in one man after Baptisme. But what need we any longer dispute? let M. Higgons, or any other man shew where any Romanist (except Bellarmine) laid vnto Caluins charge this heresie of Iouinian, which is thus expressed by Haeres. lib. 12. Tit. Peccatum. Alphonsus à Castro: Iouinian held that a man, who once was iustified by Grace, could not sinne any more. But Caluin taught such a faith, which after Baptisme obtaineth remission of sinne. After, Alphonsus maketh the heresie of the Begwardi to be neare of kin to the former errours of Iouinian, who taught, that A man may attaine vnto that perfection in this life, that he cannot sinne. Hath Caluin any alliance with this hereticke? But I am chargeable to yeeld
A iustification of my selfe.
After that I had infringed the consequence, which Bellarmine inferred vpon Caluins Assertion, it belonged vnto me onely to maintaine the termes of Caluin his propositition, viz. True faith cannot be lost. And doth not S. Augustine so distinguish, as supposing▪ that some mens faith either doth not faile at all, or not finally? and yet he neuer doubted but that the most perfect man is guiltie of sinne, as his own August▪ in Psal. 142. Nō iustificabitur omnis viuens: Fortè iustificare potest se coram se, non coram te: Quomodo coram se? sibi placens, tibi displiciens: Noli ergo intrare mecumin iudicium Domine, quā tumlibet rectus mihi videar: producis tu de thesauro tuo regulam, coaptas me ad eam, & prauus inuenior: ad te cum respicio, nihil aliud meum quam peccatū inuenio: nolo tecum habere causam, vt ego proponā iustitiā meam, & tu conuincas iniquitatem meam; commemorate iustiti as vestras, ego noui facinora vestra, inquit Dominus. Idem Confes. lib. 9. cap. 13. confession doth at large demonstrate. Which is all that concerned me to proue, whereby to acquit Caluin from the imputation of the heresie of Iouinian, who without all For the words of Alphonsus de Castro▪ haeres. 8. Tit. Peccatum, are these: Augustine imputed vnto Iouinian this heresie, that he taught all sinnes to be equall. distinction of sinne said, that the once baptized, could neuer after sinne.
That which he obiecteth out of the testimonie of M. Campian, is so silly a flie, that this his so greedie catching at it argueth, that my Aduersarie 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. Higgons see in that testimonie an Ego? [I (saith he) shall neuer fall;] which might giue me an apprehension of his personall constancie 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 owne defence could consist without a defender, or that his confidence in the maintenance of the cause of Faith had not bene founded vpon an assurance of his owne perseuerance in Faith. And other vnderstāding hereof then this (if there be any truth in me) I had none: so farre was I from violating his intention.
T. H.
CHAP. II. D. Mortons vntruth concerning the Article of Christ his descent into Hell.
§. 1. The necessitie, and weight of this Article.
1 AMongst sundrie difficulties, which did sometimes afflict my conscience, when I was a brother of your societie, 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 ceasseth absolutely from being of that communion?
The Answerer.
What is the matter?
T. H.
2 This position (with me) is an impregnable bulwarke of my Religion: viz. Whosoeuer doth pertinaciously reiect any point of faith (accepted by publike consent of the CATHOLICKE Church) he is an HERETICKE, and no member of her communion. For which consideration, I am as tenderly affected in this article, as in any other of my Creede, esteeming my selfe obliged thereunto for two respects. FIRST, because the essentiall truth thereof, is clearely reuealed vnto me by God, both in his word written; and by Apostolicall Tradition. In his word written; for what can be more perspicuous, then this saying? Act. 2. 27. Thou wilt not leaue my soule in hel, &c. By Apostolicall Tradition; for what can be more plaine, then this Article? He descended in hell.
3 SECONDLY; I am moued by the authoritie of the [Page 18] Church. ‘For who (saith Epist 99. Augustine) denieth that Christ descended into hell,’ vnlesse he be an INFIDELL? And for the sence of this Article, Tract 78. in Ioh. he hath this cleare resolution. Who is he that was not left in hell? Christ Iesus: but in his SOVLE onely. Who is he that lay in the graue? Christ Iesus: but in his FLESH onely. For the NATVRALL vnion of his bodie and soule was dissolued, but not the HYPOSTATICALL vnion of either with his Person.
4 This truth being so patent, and perspicuous, I aske you now; what reason haue you for any part of your faith, if you haue not assurance in this? And if you fall from this, whatSee Luthers saying, before, pag. 40. certaintie haue you in any other point? Therefore it importeth your Church to shew a due conformitie in this Article of the Creed. Finally you may remember, that S. Athanasius in his Creed, (which your Artic. Re [...]ig. 8. Church pretendeth to admit throughly, &c. hauing premised this denuntiation; ‘Whosoeuer keepeth not the Catholicke faith entire, and inuiolate, without doubt he shall perish euerlastingly; doth afterward subnect this Article of Christ his descent into hell, as parcell of that CATHOLICKE faith.’
The Answer.
No man may iustly discommend M. Hiogons resolution, if he can make good all that he professeth. The heads be three: the first is the equall necessitie of this Article, with any other, and secondly the equall euidence for the proofe hereof: and lastly a generall conformitie of profession herein.
For the weight and necessitie he pretendeth to be as tenderly affected in this Article, is in any other. I would willingly beleeue him, but that in my booke of Apologie, in the same Chapter, from whence he now maketh his obiection, I propounded the iudgement of their learned Professor and Iesuite Suarez, who determined this question in these words: Sequitur breui dubiū, &c. 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 onely a matter to [Page 19] be beleeued, but also an article of faith; the reason hereof is this▪ because it was not in the Nicene Creed, nor set downe by the Apostles, and because the Fathers, as namely Augustine, Tertullian, Irenaeus, Origen haue omitted it in their expositions of the Creed. I answer (saith he) that it is not altogether certaine, that the Apostles added this Article, if by an Article of faith we vnderstand a truth which all faithfull men are bound explicitly to know and beleeue: I thinke it not necessarie to reckon this among the Articles of faith, because it is not a matter altogether so necessarie for all men: and for this cause, peraduenture it was omitted in the Nicene Creed, the knowledge of which Creed may seeme to be sufficient for the fulfilling the precept of faith. This resolution M. Higgons, doubtlesse, there saw, wherein an ods of necessary vse of this article is professed by your eminent Iesuit & Schoolemā; and yet doth our yong Antagonist exact an equall necessity of this with any other Article.
The equall euidence of this Article is the second point, wherein he doth insist, requiring as good an assurance and certaintie for this, as for any other point, accounting it an essentiall truth clearely reuealed vnto him by God, both by Apostolicall Tradition, and by the word written, and by custome of the Church: as though he had obserued a certaintie hereof among the Romanists, which he could not finde among Protestants; not vnderstanding that their foresaid Iesuite hath said concerning his first hold, that it is not certaine that the Apostles added this Article. And as for the Scriptures which they produce for the proofe of the Romish sence thereof, the same Suarez saith, Nonnulli Catholici itâ aas (Scripturas) exponūt, vt euertant, & rem ipsam negēt. Suarez Ies. Tom. 2. disp. 43. sect. 2. some Catholicks so expound these Scriptures as destroying and denying this Article: and of the Article it selfe their Iesuite Salmeron durst pronounce saying, Non dubitamus nō ita apertè & expressè esse in sacris Euangeliis declaratum, vt reliquos ad Christi humanitatem spectā tes: adeo vt Franciscus de Maior in 3. Sent. asserat Scotum putâsse non probari descensū Christi ad inferos per Scripturas: & idem docuit Durādus in eodem libro. Salmeron Ies Tom. 10. Tract. 50. We doubt not that this article is not so euidently declared in Scriptures, as the other Articles are, which concerne the humanitie of Christ; insomuch that Scotus and Durand thought (as he saith) that it could not be proued out of Scriptures: and yet their nouice M. Higgons presumed that all Romanists [Page 20] held it as most perspicuously deliuered in Scriptures. As for his ground taken from the testimonie of S. Augustine, this See hereafter at the letter. q wil proue maruellously preiudicial to the Romish sence.
The last point, which he professeth, is conformitie in this Article of the Creed: whereby he would be thought to auouch their owne consent herein: notwithstanding he As was shewed in the same place of my Apologie. knew that among their Romanists, there hath bene broached these differences, one saying that Christs descent into hell was onely vertuall, and not personall: the second sort of them, who held a personal descent, but some applying it vnto the reall hell of the damned; others onely vnto a Limbus Patrum, which wil be proued out of S. Augustine to be no part of hell. As yet the Romanists affoord vs neither an absolute necessity of the Article, nor euidēce of their sence either from Apostolicall tradition, or from perspicuous places of Scriptures, nor yet entertaine among themselues a conformitie of consent. So that as yet we cannot perswade our selues of M. Higgons equall tendernesse of affection in this behalfe: but now concerning my selfe.
T. H. His Accusation.
§. 2. D. Mortons pretence of his Churches vnity in this point, is clearely refuted.
NOw see your Doctors syncerity, who may cal God to reuenge it vpon his soule, if he deceiue 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, CHRISTVM VERE SECVNDVM ESSENTIAM FVISSE IN INFERNO. As much as to say, Christ, in his soule substantially, did descend into hell. Then he addeth: Hanc vestram sententiam NOS quo (que) iuxtà cum Augustana confessione libentissimè profitemur; non tamen quatenus vestram, sed quatenus veram: We also, together with the Augustane confession, do most willingly professe this opinion, &c.
It is well that he left out the Scottish, French, Belgian, and Heluetian confessions; for he knoweth, that the true Caluinists are hereticks in this behalfe.
The Answerers Iustification.
I concealed not the different expositions of some other Protestants, who notwithstanding are no more guiltie of heresie in this point, then are the Romanists, as will appeare. But first say your mind.
T. H.
But, I beseech you, do YOV (that is to say, your Church of England) most willingly professe this Catholicke opinion? Alas, that your Apologist hath so iustly called God to reuenge this falshood vpon his soule: let him intreate our Lord to pardon that prouocation of his iudgement.
The Answerer.
First in generall, I said indeed wee, but I said not we all. If now that which was spoken indefinitely in these words, We professe: (nothing the Common sence, becaust as being taught by the then L [...]. Archbishop of Canterburie, D. Bilson, Bishop of Winchester, and other Fathers of our Church, & by the tenor of the Article it selfe (as by the conuocation it was allowed) implied, As Christ died for vs, & was buried, so also it is to be beleeued that he went downe into hell. common opinion of our Church) must necessarily be enforced vniuersally (as M. Higgons doth,) to signifie all, why did the Apostle without distinction condemne the Corinthians for not sorrowing at the wickednesse of the incestuous? or generally reprooue the Galathiās as being bewitched & reuolted from the Gospel? Wil M. Higgons his diuinity cōclude, that euery Christian man in Corinth, and in Galathia were reprehensible? If all such indefinite speeches may be thus racked, then may all humane & diuine writings be condemned of falshood: for Dico Prophetas & Apostolos saepèreprehendere vniuersum populum, quasi nemo sit bonus, cùm tamen permulti sint boni. Bellar. lib. 3. de Eccles▪ Milit. ca. 16. §. Ad quartū. Both Apostles & Prophets (saith Cardinal Bellarmine) do often reprehend all the people, as though there were not one good, when notwithstāding diuerse good ones are among thē. I further demand, doth he think the opinion of the reall descent Catholick, that is, vniuersal? yes, he wil say, it is among all Romanists vniuersall: and yet knoweh that their great & subtle schooleman Durandus held it to be but a vertuall descent.
T. H.
And, in the meane time, I will demonstrate his falshood by foure euidences. FIRST, if YOV be of this opinion (as he pretendeth)Act. 2. 27. some say life, or person, some bodie, or carcasse. why are your Bibles infected with this absurd Translation? Thou wilt not leaue my soule in graue. Is this to submit your sense vnto the Scripture, or it is not rather to draw it vnto your preiudicate opiniō? This is to measure the yard by the cloth: and thus, while you should be faithfull Translators, you become corrupt Interpreters of the Scripture. SECONDLY, why was your Church so distracted in this matter vpon the Sermon and Treatise of D. Bilson? How came it to passe, that D. Reinolds his Caluinian 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 booke of Conference at Hampton Court: D. Barlow) oppose himself against M. Perks his answer? Why do your Ministers publickly in Sermons, and in print, impugne this true, and Catholicke opinion? THIRDLY, why is no Minister punished for his repugnancie vnto this truth? which is of greater consequence, then crosse, cap, surplice, or any ceremonious thing, or whatsoeuer institution of your Church, for which many haue suffered depriuation of their liuings. FOVRTHLY, the testimonie of M. Rogers, (whose booke hath a speciall approbation, as you may see pag. 160 before) will conuince D. Morton of notorious falshood. For though his purpose was to deliuer the That is the title of all his pages. Catholicke doctrine of YOVR Church, yet when pag. 16. he cometh vnto 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, yeelding no certaine doctrine, but leauing men vnto their choise, he addeth; TILL we know the natiue, and vndoubted Faith consisteth not in the words, but in the sence. sence of this Article, &c.
The Answer.
Here are many questions, which may be answered by [Page 23] questioning. First, in our Church-Bible it is read, Thou shalt not leaue my soule in hell: why then did M. Higgons insist onely in the Geneua translation? Notwithstanding if this one place were in all Bibles translated hell, yet it is but a fond peece of Sophistrie to conclude a generall from a particular, and that also negatiuely: which is all one as if he should haue said, Not long before my publike reuolt I writ a booke against the Romish doctrine of veniall sin: Ergo before that time I held not any point of popery. Again let him ingenuously satisfie vs, 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 Iesuit 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 graue? Why durst their Iesuite Pineda Ies. in Iob. 7. v. 9. Pineda confesse, that the word Sheol (which many Romanists appropriate vnto hell) is sometimes in Scripture vsed for the graue? Or, why might Iob. 17. 13. Infernus domus mea est.] Aliqui interpretantur de cruciatibus inferni, & domo Tartarea: sed non cohaeret sensus. Sē tentia plana est & lenis: Quid aliud possit moribundus homo sperare quàm sepulchrum vt Domicilium cō mune cùm aliis defunctis in subterranea illa statione? Pineda Ies. in eum locum. Pineda expound the vulgar Translatiō Hell (Iob. 17. 13.) to signifie Graue, contrarie vnto their expositors, who (as he saith) did interprete it to betoken the paines of hell? Thirdly, why doth M. Higgons charge me with the fore-knowledge of M. Willets opposition against M. Perks, or the testimonie of M. Rogers, whose bookes were published after my Apologie? and he might well thinke that I was no Prophet, to foresee what would afterwards be written by other men. Fourthly, (if such kind of coniectures may be called demonstrations,) let him answer for their Councell of Trent, which prescribed (as it selfe saith) Decretum de symbolo fidei. Haec sancta Tridēt. Synodus—symbolum fidei, quo sancta Rom. Ecclesia vtitur, tanquam principium illud in quo omnes, qui fidē Christi profitentur, necessariò conueniunt, ac fundamentū firmum ac vnicū contra quod portae inferi nunquàm praeualebunt▪ totidem verbis, quibus in omnibus Ecclesiis legitur, exprimendū esse censuit; quod quidē eiusmodi est, Credo in Deū, &c Con. Trident. Sess. 3. A Creed vsed by the Church of Rome as the principle wherein all the professors of Christ do consent, holding it as the onely firme foundation (against which the gates of hell shall neuer preuaile,) in so many words as it is read in all Churches, I beleeue in God, &c. why it did chuse that forme wherin this Article of descent [Page 24] into hell is not expresly mentioned? which forme Tele [...]s, & Acosta Ies. as they haue bene cited in my Apologie. two of your Iesuits did follow euen then when they sought to catechize people in the rudiments of faith. The most of these their owne aboue-mentioned differences M. Higgons did, no doubt, perceiue in my booke of Apologie, whence he tooke his obiections; and yet hath aduentured to make this his assault, being twise conuicted in himselfe, both by the friuolousnesse of his reasons, and also by the regest of their owne like contradictions. But of this article more remaineth to be deliuered after that I haue answered vnto my last taxation.
T. H.
If this be not a sensible conuiction of M. Doctors singular vntruth, I must confesse that I haue done him iniurie, and will be readie to make any satisfaction, that he can reasonably demaund. Meanewhile, he must giue me leaue to detect another of his excellent sleights, and ther I will referre him vnto his best thoughts. As it was a notable vanitie in him to affirme, that YOV do willingly embrace the Catholicke opinion in this Article, so that is a delicate collusion, which ensneth within the compasse of three lines: à VOBIS &c, WE [in England] differ from YOV [Papists] concerning the place, vnto which Christ descended. ‘For WE say, that he descended vnto the hell of the damned; hut YOV say, that he descended onely ad Limbum Patrum, the region of the Fathers.’
The Author cited by him, is Theomach. lib. 7. ca. 1. Feu-ardentius, whose opinion he imputeth here as generally vnto the Papists, as he applied the other vnto your English Church. But, forasmuch as M. Doctor doth continually deale with BELLARMINE, and in the words immediatly precedent, alledged him particularly also in this matter (as you Numb. 1. see:) why did he now pretermit him, and select another? I will shew you the reason; for Bellarmine himselfe in the verie next chapter, is of a contrarie opinion vnto that, which M. Doctour deriueth generally vpon the Papists. What pietie then, or humanitie was in this preposterous deuice?
The Answerer.
I will tell you; euen with that pietie which truth it selfe did challenge of my conscience, and which your humanitie, I hope, will easily acknowledge, after that I haue informed your ignorance what among the Romanists is the most common opinion.
Feu-ardentius (you know) deliuering the Romish meaning of this Article held, that Christs soule went not into the place of the damned, but onely vnto the place which is called sinus Abrahae, the bosome of Abraham, and is commonly termed, Limbus Patrum: where, say they, the soules of Patriarcks were detained vntill Christ his ascension into heauen. But Cardinall Bellarmine held thus: Bellar. li. 4. de Christo. c. 1. At probabile profectò est, &c. That is, It is probable that his soule 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 signifie as much. You now aske me why I did pretermit this opinion of Bellarmine, and suggest the other of Feu-ardentius? my reason was, because the opiniō propoū ded by Feu-ardentius is the more common as may appeare by 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 Iesuits, saying, Ad Limbum Patrum reipsa descendit, ad damnatos per effectum: that is, Christ went downe into the Limbus Patrum in deed, but onely vertually or by the effects thereof, vnto the place of the damned. O but Bellarmine himselfe (say you) is of a contrarie opinion. Take heed what you say: he is of a contrary opinion: he was indeed, but now he is not, because euen Bellarmine himself hath lately retracted that his former opinion, and is become contrarie vnto himselfe in these expresse words: Bellarm. Recognit. pag. 11. in eum locum ex lib. 4▪ de Chron. cap. 16. Re m [...]lius consideratâ, &c. that is, after that I had better aduised of the matter, I resolued to follow the iudgement of Thomas, wherein other Schoolemen do consent. Do you not perceiue 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? [Page 26] Do you not also see how he reclaimeth himselfe, and accordeth vnto the common opinion whch I proposed from Feu-ardentius to be the ordinary tenet of the Romish faith? Faithlesse therefore had I bene in setting downe the doctrine of your Church, if I had obiected a priuate opinion in stead of a common. Whereby it is euident that I haue not bene preposterous, but you (I forbeare to giue you your due) peruerse. For you confesse that the different iudgements of Bellarmine and Feu-ardentius were both by me expresly set downe: so that you could not iustly interprete the word you, to signifie you all. Is this the man that cried Alas that your Apologist hath &c▪ See aboue. Alas? &c. weepe not for me, but weep for your selfe: who (if I had bene so vnconscionable as to cōmit a sleight) meant by this knacke to be euen with me; and yet calleth his collusion a faithfull conuiction. But God forgiue him this also. I returne vnto that Article. This being the doctrine of your Church, I will make bold to inquire,
T. H.
SECONDLY, that your difference is in the substantiall sence and meaning of this article, but our difference is a scholasticall disceptation in a matter of greater or lesser probabilitie; which, being a doubt not resolued by the Church, may be indifferently accepted by her children, without breach of charitie, or violation of faith.
The Answer.
The place which the Romanists assigne vnto the reall presence of Christ in his descension into hell, is onely that Limbus Patrum which they call Abrahams bosome; which [Page 27] place Tert. lib. 4. aduersus Mar [...]ion. cap. 34. Tertullian calleth sublimiorem inferis, that is, higher then hell. Other Fathers might be alledged, but because M. Higgons dependeth principally vpon S. Augustine, let vs heare Quanquàm & illud me nondúm inuenisse fateor, inferos appellatos, vbi iustorum animae requiescunt, & Christianimam venisse ad ea loca, vbi peccatores cruciantur, vt eos solueret à tormentis, quos esse soluendos occulta nobis sua iustitia iudicabat, non immeritò creditur: quomodò enim aliter accipiendum est, Act. 2. solutis doloribus inferni? Paulò post: Inter sinū Abrahae & tormenta inferni legimus esse magnum Chaos,—& videmus inferni mentionē non esse factam in requie pauperis, sed in supplicio diuitis.—Proindè, vt dixi, nondum inueni, & adhuc quaero, nec mihi occurrit, Inferos alicubi in bono posuisse Scripturam duntaxat Canonicam: non autem in bono positam esse illam requiem & sinum Abrahae, nescio vtrum 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 Abrahams bosome vnto a part of hell had some suggestors; but I confesse (saith S. Augustine) that I haue not found that place called hell, wherein the soules of the Patriarks did rest. And then he reasoneth thus; We reade (saith he) of a great gulfe or distance set betweene the place of torment and Abrahams bosome, and many obserue that when mention is there made of hell, it is not applied vnto the rest of Lazarus, but vnto the punishment of Diues. Therefore (as I haue said) I haue sought and yet search, and cannot find in all the Canonical Scripture, that hell is takē for any place of well-being. But who will say that the place of rest (wherein the Patriarks were) was not good? The Argument which was necessarily deduced from this doctrine of S. Augustine, is this: They who beleeued that Christs soule descended onely into the place of the soules of the Patriarks, called Abrahās bosome, or Limbus Patrū, do not beleeue the descending of Christ into the reall hell. But the common and almost vniuersall doctrine of the Romish Church at this day is, to beleeue that the soule of Christ went only vnto that Limbus. Ergo (by the iudgement of S. Augustine) they hold not the reall descent of Christ into hell. And can you, yeelding vnto S. Augustine, call your now common exposition no violation of faith? The differences of opinions thus standing, I adde
[Page 28] I can truly say with M. Higgons, that the difficultie of this Article did not a little perplexe me, to heare of such differences of sences, not onely among Protestants, whom he hath noted, but also among the Romanists: some of our Aduersaries holding this descension of Christ to be vertuall onely, and not personall; and among these who defend the personall, some to beleeue his presence in the reall hell, and the most to fancie onely such a Limbus, which hath bene proued to be no part of hell. And againe, concerning the Romish sence of this Article, some of themselues doubting whether it be an Apostolicall Tradition; and some affirming, that it is not proued by Scriptures. And finally (not to vrge the Councell of Trent, & other Catechismes which haue singled out that forme of Creed as the onely foundation of faith in all Churches, wherin this Article is awanting:) their owne most accomplished Iesuite Suarez to account it an Article of no such absolute necessitie: I thought it necessarie to diue deeper into this mystery, & (as God should enable me) in some sort to compose the distractions of all parts, which do arise from the fore-said differences of expositions; so farre as otherwise they are consonant vnto Scriptures; by conceiuing that our Aduersaries (if they wil religiously acquit themselues) must grant, that notwithstanding all these diuersities of sences attributed vnto this Article, yet both sides generally do hold that which is most necessarie to saluation, and meerely fundamentall herein: because whatsoeuer belongeth vnto such the foundation of faith, from the time of Christ his passion vnto his resurrection, consisteth in these two points, the truth of his death and passion, & the power thereof; now to explane my purpose somewhat more particularly.
The burial of Christ in the graue, was for the auouching and ratifying of the truth of his death and resurrection. Suppose we now, that some Christian had not the perfect reuelation of this article of Christs burial in the graue, and should notwithstanding beleeue the truth of his death and [Page 29] resurrection, with the powerfull effect of both; should he not be thought to be a fundamental Christian, and (though not literally, yet sauingly to beleeue his buriall? seeing the reason of the buriall of Christ in the graue, was (as I said before) to verifie the certaintie of his death, prouing it to haue bene true, and not phantasticall. Not that the Article of his buriall, being now so euidently reuealed, is not necessarily to be beleeued (farre be it from vs thus to conceiue:) but onely supposing that there were no better euidences for this Article then such as our Aduersaries haue for proofe of their sence in the other, which (as some principall Doctors among them haue confessed) is not euident by Scriptures, nor yet consonantly agreed vpon in their Church.
Now then, the power which any ascribeth vnto his descension, is either Christs triumph ouer hell, or his deliuerance of souls from hell. For his triumph, euery intelligent Christian will say, that as soone as it was reuealed, that Christ had consummated his glorious worke of our Redemption, all the powers of hell were at their last gaspe. As for the deliuerance of soules from hell, euerie one doth likewise beleeue & professe that there is no redemption whatsoeuer of any from hell, but it is wrought by the vertue of the same Death of Christ, either by subuention (as the Romanists hold) which is, by deliuering souls from hell, wherein before Christs death, Patriarks and holy men were imprisoned: or else (as the Protestants teach) by preuention, that is, (which maketh more for the glorie of his power and grace,) in preuenting the soules of his faithfull, that they should not come into hell: euen by that power of his death (he being the Lambe slaine from the beginning of the world) whereby he freed the same Patriarks and all his elect, that they should neuer suffer the eternall paines of hell, according to the beleefe of all Christians in the world.
This foundation of faith thus standing in the beleefe of all Christan professors, the Romanists (notwithstanding [Page 30] all the forenamed different sences) are chargeable to acknowledge in both sides an accordance in that which is absolutely necessarie & essential in this point of Christian faith, except they will plunge themselues into the gulfe of doubtfulnesse and distraction.
T. H.
Thus I haue giuen you a little signification of those many vntruths, which I haue obserued in this Doctor. If it consist not with his credit, or profit to yeeld; yet it concerneth you to beware of his Sirenicall incantations. Your benefit shall be my reward; if not so, yet this schedule may be a token of my loue; and be you well assured, that either, by following my counsell [TRIE BEFORE YOV TRVST,] you shall preuent an heauie doome; or, by neglecting it, you shall increase your iudgement.
The Answer.
Nay, but these are not all the inditements which you prosecute against me; for you haue inserted in your booke another taxation: *The Doctor (say you) is pleased to colour Booke. 1. pa. 43 and cloake the exposition of Lombard with the name of Ambrose, and for this purpose frameth this quotation in the margent, ex Ambrosio. &c. If in the margent of Lombard in Rom. 11. ad finem primae paginae. Printed at Paris apud Iohannē Foucher. Anno. 1537. Lombard there be not quoted Ambrosius directly ouer this place, or if any one in reading that place, could haue otherwise vnderstood it, then will I acknowledge my selfe guiltie of all the imputations, which M. Higgons hath deuolued vpon me: by whose reproofe I am admonished not to beleeue their owne Lombard, who was Master of the Romish Schoole, in his marginall allegation of Fathers. But I hold him in better regard, and therefore thinke that although the testimonie alledged, be not found in Ambrose vpon the 11. Chap. ad Rom: yet (for Lombard nameth no place) that it is extant in him else-where.
[Page 31]Thus we see that M. Higgons among moe then twenty plaine calumniations, and slanders, whereof I conuicted Cardinall Bellarmine, could instance but in one, for iustification of that Doctor: whereby appeareth his partialitie in swallowing of Camels, and straining out Gnats. Againe, out of many hundreds of testimonies, wherin I manifested the irkesome contradictions of our Romish Aduersaries among themselues, & therby the confirmation of our Religion in the chiefe controuersies, he hath taken exception vnto these silly few, whereby to aduance his clamorous insultation: and notwithstanding bewrayeth in his proofes (as hath bene shewne,) more will then wit, and yet more wit then 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 satisfie himselfe; and pray the Father of all mercie not to charge him with any wrong done against me, but to illuminate his heart, and fashion it vnto the obedience of the Apostolike faith.
Amen.