A direct answer vnto the scandalous 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. Morton, Thomas, 1564-1659. 1609 Approx. 83 KB of XML-encoded text transcribed from 19 1-bit group-IV TIFF page images. Text Creation Partnership, Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) : 2009-03 (EEBO-TCP Phase 1). A07803 STC 18181 ESTC S103393 99839147 99839147 3546

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.

Early English books online. (EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A07803) Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 3546) Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1475-1640 ; 1249:03) A direct answer vnto the scandalous 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. Morton, Thomas, 1564-1659. [6], 31, [1] p. Printed [by R. Field] for Edmund Weaver, London : 1609. By Thomas Morton. A reply to: Theophilus Higgons. The first motive of T.H. Maister of Arts, and lately minister, to suspect the integrity of his religion. Printer's name from STC. Printer's device (McKerrow 210) on title page. Some print show-through; some pages stained. Reproduction of original in the Union Theological Seminary (New York, N.Y.). Library.

Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford.

EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO.

EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org).

The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source.

Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data.

Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so.

Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor.

The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines.

Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements).

Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site.

eng Higgons, Theophilus, 1578?-1659. -- First motive of T.H. Maister of Arts, and lately minister, to suspect the integrity of his religion. Catholic Church -- Controversial literature -- Early works to 1800. 2007-06 Assigned for keying and markup 2007-07 Keyed and coded from ProQuest page images 2008-06 Sampled and proofread 2008-06 Text and markup reviewed and edited 2008-09 Batch review (QC) and XML conversion

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.

IOB. 31. v. 35. 36.

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; 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.

Your Lordſhips in all due thankfulneſſe, TH. MORTON.
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 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.

Thy friend and ſeruant in Chriſt Ieſus, TH. MORTON.
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) 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 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, 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 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? 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 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:) 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, 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 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. For Theodoret. 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 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 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 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, 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 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 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 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 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 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 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? 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,

Whether the ſence of the Article of Chriſts deſcent, now commonly maintained in the Romiſh Church, doth ſtand vpon any ſound foundation.
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 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

A determination of this queſtion, concerning Chriſt his deſcending into Hell, whereunto our Aduerſaries are compellable to accord.

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 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 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.

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.