The Descent Into Hell

THE DESCENT INTO HELL:

AN ELIZABETHAN CONTROVERSY

By

PATRICIA WEIGHTMAN STEWART

M.A., Cambridge University, 1980

THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT

THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF

MASTER OF ARTS

in

THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES

Department of History

We accept this thesis as conforming

to the^ required standard

THE UNIVERSITY'OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

August 1984

® Patricia Weightman Stewart, 1984

'6 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission.

Department of #/s7~rt/ty

The University of British Columbia 1956 Main Mall Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Y3

DE-6 (3/81) ABSTRACT

The Protestant schism with Rome involved a rejection of Catholic beliefs about the nature of hell. As a result it was imperative that Protestants reinterpret)? a central article of Christian belief. This article was Christ's descent into hell which had long been accepted in the

Apostles' Creed as having followed the death and burial of

Christ. Debate about the meaning and purpose of Christ's descent grew in England during the reign of Queen Elizabeth

I. The Protestant emphasis on the Word as the all important foundation of faith meant that the Scriptures and the Church

Fathers were consulted to establish the meaning of the article. Original Greek and Hebrew texts of the Scriptures were analysed. Calvin had propounded a radically different interpretation of the article which some Englishmen accepted.

Others employed "reason" to "prove" the validity of one interpretation or another. These different methods employed to ascertain the true interpretation of the article produced widely divergent results.

The authorities of the Church of England were faced with disagreement and dissention which they were unable to

subdue. As a result, by 1607 the Church was retreating from maintaining authority over the content of belief in this article. The theological inclination of Church authorities on this issue contradicts the views which some modern

historians hold about the beliefs and motivations of these men. The debate also undermines the impression sometimes

given of a solid, theologically stable, "Calvinist" Church

in England. - iv -

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abstract ii-iii

List of Tables v

Acknowledgement vi

I THE CONTROVERSIALISTS:

A GROWING PROBLEM 1

II CHRIST'S DESCENT INTO HELL:

A THEOLOGICAL PROBLEM . .' 24

(i) The Continental Background 24

(ii) From Protestant versus Catholic to Protestant versus Protestant 37

(iii) The Threat of "Reason" 57

III AUTHORITY CURTAILED:

AN INSOLUBLE PROBLEM 82

NOTES 96

BIBLIOGRAPHY 108 - V -

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE I A Table of Tracts Published on Christ's

Descent into Hell 10 - vi -

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The modern distinction between religious belief and intellectual activity has tended to inhibit the exploration of the latter in Tudor England. For the fundamental insight that such a distinction is unwarranted in this period I am deeply indebted to my supervisor, Prof. M. Tolmie. In addition, I have benefited from and am most grateful for all of his advice and assistance throughout the year. I appreciate the help and guidance of other members of the

Faculty and Staff of the Department of History. Also, I would like to thank my husband whose constant support and understanding have been much needed and greatly appreciated. CHAPTER ONE

THE CONTROVERSIALISTS: A GROWING PROBLEM

Christ's descent into hell was an article of Christian doctrine in mid-sixteenth century England. The article was included in the Apostles' Creed as prescribed by the Edwardian

Prayer Book of 1552 and by the Elizabethan Prayer Book of

1559: "Jesus Christ ... suffered under Ponce Pilate, was crucified, dead and buried, He descended into hell."1 On certain feast days the Quicunque Vult, or Athanasian Creed, was prescribed for Evensong; this also made reference to

Christ's descent into hell: "Christ ... suffered for our salvation: descended into hell, rose again the third day from 2 the dead." Thus, the accepted creeds established Christ's descent into hell as an integral part of Christian doctrine.

The Forty-Two Articles of 1552 provided the official

Edwardian interpretation of Christ's descent. The third article declared that: As Christ died and was buried for us: so also it is to be beleved, that he went downe into Hell. For the bodie laie in the sepulchre, untill the resurrection: but his Ghoste departing from him, was with the Ghostes that were in prison or in Helle, and didde preache to the same, as the place of St. Peter dooeth testifie.3 The Forty-Two Articles carried all the weight and authority of the Edwardian Church, having been "agreed on by the

Bishoppes, and other learned menne in the Synode at London,

... for the avoiding of controversie in opinions, and the establishement of a godlie concorde in certeine matiers of Religion." The Elizabethan Church produced a corresponding document, the Thirty-Nine Articles of 1563, which were also intended "for the auoydyng of the diversities of opinions, 5 and for the stablishyng of consent, touchyng true religion."

Again, the third article dealt with Christ's descent into hell but the coverage was extremely cryptic: "As Christe dyed and was buryed for vs: so also it is to be beleued that he went downe into hell." The 1552 Articles had provided an explanation of how and why Christ descended into hell; the

1563 Articles provided none. This omission was to have serious implications. The absence of an authoritative interpretation of Christ's descent into hell presented the

Church of England with substantial problems in maintaining authority over the interpretation of this article.

The omission added fuel to controversy to come: however, it was itself the result of controversy which already surrounded the article by 1563. Over a decade before, in 1552,

Christopher Carlile, a member of Clare Hall, Cambridge, and a

Hebrew scholar, had gone so far as to deny that Christ had 7 descended into hell in either body or soul. He had denied

Christ's descent at his commencement for Bachelor of Divinity at Cambridge University; this was a public disputation, attended and judged by eminent and influential men. In

Carlile's case, some of those involved were Dr. Perne, the Vice-

Chancellor of the University; Bishop Ghest of Salisbury; Dr.

Younge, the master of Pembroke Hall (appointed Vice-Chancellor - 3 - of the University in 1553 and Regius Professor of Divinity in

1555); and perhaps most important of all, Sir John Cheke, a renowned Greek scholar and prominent courtier who was to become both a Privy Councillor and the Secretary of State in

1553.8

These men made pronouncement against Carlile's views,

"determining that Christes bodye laye in the graue, but his

q soule wente into hell," but Carlile's views had received a public airing, and possibly at least one important adherent.

In the work which he published later about Christ's descent into hell, Carlile claimed that Sir John Cheke had been convinced by his arguments. Supposedly, Sir John was the author of some rhyming couplets quoted by Carlile:

For wayghing al his /Carlile's7 words of waght which did his cause pursue, I Sir lohn Cheeke do here aduouch his iudgement to be true: And firmelye with him do confesse and do beleue it well, That Christ in body nor in soule descended into hell.1^

Cheke's authorship of this verse cannot be substantiated,11 and clearly Carlile would have had a vested interest in claiming such an eminent convert. However, if the evidence about converts is dubious, the evidence of reaction to

Carlile's views is not. In 1562, Richard Smith, an Oxford divine who was in exile by this time due to his Roman Catholic persuasion, published a refutation of Carlile's and Calvin's 12 interpretations of Christ's descent into hell. Carlile's views may have been denounced at his commencement, but - 4 - obviously they had not been forgotten.

Neither was Carlile's commencement the only expression of dissent over the article during this period. In 1563, the

Bishop of Exeter sent a petition to the Convocation in London

(the same Convocation which was responsible for compiling the

Thirty-Nine Articles) pleading for the settlement of contro• versial issues in order to achieve uniformity of doctrine. He wrote that "tragedies and dissensions" were resulting from disagreements about Christ's descent into hell: "There have been in my diocese great invectives between the preachers, one against the other, and also partakers with them," and these invectives were causing "dissensions, contentions, and 13 strifes." The Bishop of Exeter had been confronted with an outbreak of popular unrest over the meaning of this article.

He placed the problem first in his petition of issues requiring settlement by the Convocation. He informed the

Convocation members that "your grave, wise, and godly learning might do well and charitably, to set some certainty concerning 14 this doctrine." The Convocation completely failed to do this. Its members reaffirmed that Christ's descent into hell was a true article of faith, but they removed the interpret• ation of the article which had been provided in 1552; and they put nothing at all in its place.

In The Life and Acts of John Whitgift, John Strype suggested a possible reason for the omission of an interpret• ation of the article in 1563: It was the wisdom of the famous Synod at London, 1562, /156-37 to set down this article barely, without the explication that went with it in the articles, as it stood under King Edward the Vlth, 1552; on purpose to avoid, as it seems, all caviling and disputation, and to allow a liberty to men's judgments and understand• ings in such disputable points, wherein the essence of faith was not concerned.

This explanation says far more about the benefits of hind• sight, and about the outcome of the debate, than it does about the situation in 1563. The Creed was "the essence of faith" and the Bishop of Exeter's petition provides a vivid express• ion of the chaos arising from disagreement about the meaning of a part of it. The omission of an interpretation of Christ's descent into hell was due more to the complexity of the arguments already surrounding the article in 1563, than to the desire to provide "liberty to men's judgments and understand• ings," as Strype had suggested. The production of Alexander

Nowell's Catechism bears out this argument. The Catechism was the outcome of a recommendation by the 1563 Convocation that

"there should be authorized one perfect Catechism for the 16 bringing up of the youth in godliness." It was not published until 1570 because of intense problems involved in clarifying 17 doctrine during this unsettled period, but the interpret• ation of Christ's descent ultimately provided in the Catechism was specific and fully supported by scriptural references. The 18 views of Nowell, and so by implication, of the Bishops, were clear and uncompromising, and certainly not inclined towards freedom of judgement. The interpretation provided was traditional and authoritative: Christ descended to vanquish - 6 - hell, and to complete the redemption of the godly who had " 19 died before him. There was no suggestion that the meaning of the article was open to individual interpretation.

Another incident reinforces the impression that authorities were maintaining a firm stance over the interpret• ation of the article. The episode concerned William Hughes, a minister in Leicester, whose sermons on Christ's descent into hell caused popular disturbances in 1567. Hughes was educated 20 first at Oxford (although some doubt exists over this) and later at Queen's College, Cambridge. He had matriculated in

1554 and so was probably a contemporary of Carlile (who matriculated BD in 1552 but later became DD, indicating that he remained at Cambridge for several more years). Hence,

Hughes's concern with Christ's descent into hell could have originated in his Cambridge days, perhaps with Carlile's commencement. But it was not till 1567 that he reached the attention of the University authorities for preaching a sermon at Leicester covering the "Decensu Christi ad inferos."

Unfortunately, no account of Hughes's interpretation of the article is extant. Strype was unable to shed any light on the matter: "whether he /Hughes7 explained it /Christ's descent into hell7 the Popish or the Calvinistical way, it is un- 21 certain." The inhabitants of Leicester were sufficiently outraged by Hughes's sermon to appeal to the university authorities (Hughes was still studying there, matriculating

DD in 1570). At first, the University Senate reacted by - 7 - establishing a committee of the "Vice-Chancellor, Dr. Stokes,

Dr. Whitgift, and some others" to decide the issue, and the

Senate denied Hughes the right of appeal to the Ecclesiast• ical Commission, or any other foreign court, this being a 22 course members often took "when censured by the Heads." When no decision was reached and no action was taken by this committee, the inhabitants of Leicester appealed again, this time to the Earl of Leicester, "complaining to him of this public Preacher of the University, for preaching among them 23 certain insincere and unsound doctrines of religion."

Clearly, Hughes's preaching had caused a severe public reaction. Rather than taking direct action himself, the Earl referred the matter back to the University, but with the recommendation that perhaps it should be dealt with by "Sir William Cecil the Chancellor /of Cambridge University/, and the Archbishop of Canterbury /Parker7: which the University 24 accordingly yielded to." It was from Parker that the disciplinary measures came: restraint from preaching, or loss of office. The latter of these two measures was never enforced (records survive outlining Hughes's career as a rector, and 25 later the Bishop of St. Asaph), but another firm disciplin- 2 Q ary measure was drafted by Cecil, and sent to the Univers• ity: as much as in him lay, ... no manner of person there, should in any sermon, open disputation, or reading, move any question or doubt upon the article de descensu Christi ad inferos.27 - 8 -

Thus, in 1567, not only was the issue of Christ's

descent into hell creating forceful public reaction, but also it was attracting the attention of both spiritual and lay authorities; Parker, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and Cecil, the Chancellor of Cambridge. The man who was to become Arch• bishop of Canterbury later in Elizabeth's reign had also been involved in this episode. John Whitgift had been a member of the committee appointed by the University Senate to hear

Hughes's case. Whitgift was to be involved with the

controversy in his official capacity as Archbishop of

Canterbury in the years to come; for if the authorities in

1567 had"hoped that disciplining Hughes would be an end to the matter, they were sadly mistaken. The controversy

continued.

In the 1570's, the debate spilled over into print for

the first time. In 1571 John Northbrooke, a minister in

Bristol, published a tract specifically addressing the issue of Christ's descent into hell. Spiritvs Est ... A breefe and 2 8 pithie summe of the Christian faith, was the first tract published in England during the Elizabethan period which

focused on this topic. There were two later editions of the 29 work, both probably in 1582. This was the same year that

Carlile published A Discovrse Concerning two diuine Positions,

a work which covered the topic he had first disputed in

Cambridge thirty years earlier. From this beginning, the

momentum of published controversy grew steadily. Table I - 9 - provides details of the works published on the subject of

Christ's descent into hell during Elizabeth's reign and beyond.

However, because Table I covers only written tracts, it does not include another important instance of disagreement over Christ's descent. In 1586, John Udal, a Cambridge divine whose preaching had been causing unrest in his parish 30

(Kingston-upon-Thames), was interrogated in the Court of

High Commission. Whitgift (who had been appointed Archbishop of Canterbury in 1583) sat on the bench. He challenged Udal that "When you /Udal7 spoke of Christ's descent into hell, 31 that which you said is most absurd." The exchange which followed provides a direct statement of Whitgift's own views on the meaning of Christ's descent. It also demonstrates the difficulty inherent in establishing and then enforcing the meaning of the article when no interpretation had been stipulated in the Thirty-Nine Articles of 1563: A /Archbishop7 The human soul of Christ after his death, • -descended into the place of the damned; and whosoever believeth not this, but denieth it, is an heretic. U /Udal7 The Church of England is taught, and also believeth, that which you account heresy. A No matter for that. We receive nothing for the doctrine of the church of England, but that which is authorized by act of parliament. U Then your doctrine is not the doctrine of the church. For one of her articles saith only, that Christ descended into hell, without expressing how.* A You speak of unpreaching ministers being foisted in by satan, that you may disgrace authority. 32

(* signifies my italics)

The authority of the Churclv of England was in a TABLE I: A Table of Tracts Published on Christ's Descent into Hell.

DATE AUTHOR OPPONENT SHORT TITLE PLACE OF SIZE PUBLICATION

1571 Northbrooke,J. Harding,T, Spiritvs Est ... London 1582? Northbrooke,j. Harding,T, Spiritvs Est ... 2nd Ed. London fols.266 1582 Northbrooke,J. Harding,T, Spiritvs Est ... 3rd Ed. London fols.266 1582 Carlile^C. Smith,R. A Discovrse Concerning London fols.173 two Diuine Positions ... 1592 Hill,A. Hume,A. Defence of the Article .. . London fols.70 1593 Hume,A. Hill,A. Reioynder to Doctor Hil .. Edinburgh pp.159 1595 Perkins,W. An Exposition of the Cambridge pp.544 Symbole or Creed ... 1596 Perkins,W. An Exposition ... 2nd Ed. Cambridge 1597 Perkins,V/. An Exposition ... 3rd Ed. Cambridge pp.775 1598 Jacob,H. Bilson.T. A Treatise of the Middelburg pp,174' Svfferings ... 1599 Bilson.T. Jacob,H. The effect of certaine London pp.420 Sermons ...

1599 Broughton.H. Master Broughtons Letters London ... about Sheol ... 1600 Jacob,H. Bilson.T. Defence of a Treatise ... Middelburg pp.211 * 1600 Broughton.H. Master Broughtons Letters London ... 2nd Ed. 1602 Higgins.J. Perkins,W. Answere to Master Perkins Oxford pp.52 Bilson.T. Declaration of generall Middelburg 1603 Broughton.H. corruption of Religion . . . Bilson.T. Declaration of generall Middelburg 1604 Broughton.H. corruption . ... 2nd Ed. Jacob,H. A Svrvey of Christs London pp.678 1604 Bilson.T. Svfferings ...

1604 Parkes.R. Reynolds,J. Briefe Answere vnto Oxford pp. 58 Certaine obiections ...

1604 Willet.A. Parkes,R. Limbomastix ... London PP•60. 1604 Broughton.H. Two little workes .. . Middelburg An Explication of the Mi'ddelburg? 1605 Broughton.H. Article ... Bilson.T. A Replie upon the r.R.F. Amsterdam 1605 Brougnton.H. Th.Winton ... Positions of the Word 1605 Broughton.H. Hades ... Willet.A. An Apologie ... London fols.281 1607 Parkes.R. 1607 Willet.A. Parkes,R. Loidoromastix .. . Cambridge pp.195 : 1608 Broughton.H. Bancroft,R. Petition to the Lords . . . ? 1611 Perkins,W. An Exposition ... 4th Ed. London 1613 Parkes.R. Reynolds,J. Briefe Answere vnto Oxford pp. 58 Certaine obiections .... Another issue 1615 Perkins,W. An Exposition ... 5th Ed. London 1621 Perkins,W. An Exposition ... 6th Ed. London

* signifies pamphlets of under fifty pages in length. This table does not include tracts in which Christ's descent into hell was discussed but In which it was not a main theme.

- 10 - difficult position, and yet the need for a settlement of the controversy was more pressing than ever. Adam Hill, a prebendary of Salisbury Cathedral, dedicated his work on

Christ's descent (The Defence of the Article: Christ descend• ed into Hell, published in 1592) to Whitgift, claiming that one of his reasons for writing the tract was

that there is like to be as great strife about the true vnderstanding of this Article in England, as there was in Germany about the true meaning of (This is my body.) ... If therefore this controuercie be not shortly by the prouidence of almighty God, and your grace his ministery, decided: there will grow among vs enuy, strife, sedition, and al manner of euill workes. Sith then as there is but one God, so there is but one truth.33

Indeed, the background to the publishing of this tract demonstrates considerable popular turbulence and unrest over the interpretation of Christ's descent. There are two accounts of this unrest: one provided in Hill's work; and one provided in the work of Hill's opponent, Alexander Hume, a Scottish schoolmaster who wrote A Reioynder to Doctor Hil concerning 34 the Descense of Christ into Hell, in 1593. Although these accounts vary in places, they both confirm two outbreaks of controversy over this article of faith. The first outbreak was in the mid 1580's in Sarum, Wiltshire, when "M. Connam, a 35 man both learned, and Chaplane to my L. of Pembroke," had expressed opinions which were rejected by the authorities.

Hill claims that it was the Bishop of Salisbury who subdued the controversy, although Hume suggests that it was Hill himself who had settled the matter. - 12 -

This outbreak had not been forgotten when in 1589

(following an order by the Bishop of Salisbury that preachers

should lecture in town market-places), a preacher named

Wisdome gave a lecture on Christ's descent into hell in the market-place at Chippenham, Wiltshire. Wisdome's interpret•

ation was immediately opposed by "one Chalfont Vicar of that

towne /who 7 stood vp, and protested to the people, that hee

— T 36

/Wisdome/ had taught false doctrine." Chalfont suggested that the crowd should return the following week to hear his

interpretation of the article; and return they did. According to Hume, Chalfont delivered his interpretation of Christ's

descent but it was accompanied by a vicious, undignified

attack on Wisdome which created more discontent among the parishoners: This exclamation, (for sermon I cannot call it) being ended, the people departed some saying this, and some saying that; and all (sauing such as loue, or malice did carrie more then truth or matter) condemning Chalfonts impudencie. That day. =seuen-night, the people meets againe, hoping to heare M. Wisdome reply, for that was his day by the Bishops order.37 Instead of M. Wisdome, the people were presented with the more weighty authority of Hill, the prebendary from Salisbury.

Hill delivered a sermon on Christ's descent, but this did not put an end to the public controversy because Wisdome gave a

further sermon at Cosham, and Hill delivered another at O Q

Leycocke. Clearly opinions were inflamed. Hume himself is

an excellent indication of the kind of unrest that this public

controversy, was creating. He heard and was not convinced by - 13 -

Hill's sermon in Chippenham, but was sufficiently incensed to write a letter to Hill, expressing his objections. Thus, a visiting Scottish schoolmaster who had published no work before, became involved with, and published on Christ's descent into hell.

The powerful sentiments generated over Christ's descent are evident in the works of Hill and Hume. That Hume disliked

Hill can be seen in the aspersions which he cast on Hill's motives for becoming involved in the debate. Hume accused Hill of wishing only to advance his career, suggesting that Hill had settled the problems in Sarum in the mid 1580's, and then deliberately intervened in the debate in Chippenham. Hill had publicized Hume's letter to him when it was intended for private correspondence:

speaches were giuen out, that I /Hume7 had answered his sermon, that he had replied, and I recanted. These speeches grew dailie, and lifted his heart as high as his name. Whereon hee resolued to dispute in Oxenford for a scarlet hood .... In this story (thou maiest see good Reader) that my adversary did thrust his hooke in an other man's haruest at Chippinhame ... That he bare the simple in hand, that all the learned of the Vniuersitie were of his mind. That he fed an vntrue rumour, that I had recanted ... And that to trouble the simple with it, he published that in english, which I wrote in latine.39

Hill's version of events was completely different.

Accusations that he had intervened at Chippenham for the sake

of his career were unfounded. He insisted that he had only

become involved because he was asked "to deliuer my iudgement

in the matter, not by M. Chalfoult, but by one Richard Woodlands /presumably a parishoner7 to set unity betwixt my 40 bretheren." The strong animosity between these men, and the popular involvement which their accounts describe, show the strength of reaction which the issue of Christ's descent into hell was generating.

Another example of this reaction is the case of John 41

Higgins, who published a short tract in 1602. Sources disagree about his identity, but it can be ascertained that a layman otherwise uninvolved in theological issues published 42 work on this one theological problem of Christ's descent.

Higgins's work was written in response to the voluminous contribution to the debate by William Perkins. The 1590's saw a number of tracts being published specifically on the descent of Christ into hell, and the activity continued through into the 1600's. This burst of production is illustrated and summarized in Table I.

Two of the most voluminous contributors were William

Perkins and Hugh Broughton, both of whom were educated at

Cambridge. However, they were voluminous in different ways.

Perkins, who had remained in university life as a teacher at

Cambridge after graduating MA in 1584, wrote only one work which was devoted to Christ's descent into hell, An Exposition 43 of the Symbole or Creed of the Apostles, first published in

1595. This-was a hefty tome, the first edition of which ran to 544 pages. There were six editions in all, the last of which was not printed till 1621. Broughton, on the other hand, c produced short works, none of which were more than fifty pages long, and none of which ran to more than two editions; but he produced seven of them. There were compilations of letters to influential people on the subject of Christ's descent; there were tracts against those who advocated interpretations which differed from his own; and there were tracts to expound and justify his own interpretation.

Nor were these works Broughton's only contribution to the debate. He had first made known his interpretation of 44

Christ's descent into hell in 1579, and Strype records that in 1594, he was in disagreement with Archbishop Whitgift, Dr.

Bancroft and Dr. Reynolds of Oxford about how the word "hell" 45 should be understood in the creedal context. In 1597, he disputed with Ben Armara, a Jew, on this same topic, claiming by this time to have Whitgift's support for his interpret-.- .-• 46 ation. Broughton expended considerable time and effort to gain acceptance for his views on Christ's descent into hell, and he did so over three decades (1579 to 1608, when his last work covering the topic was published). Hence, his contribu• tion to the debate must be considered as even more substantial than his extensive publishing record would suggest.

The aforementioned Dr. Reynolds, who disagreed with

Broughton in 1594, was another strong influence in the controversy. He wrote but never published a treatise on

Christ's descent into hell with which several of the pro- 47 tagonists were familiar. Reynolds was an eminent Oxford theologian and his work was greatly respected by some writers.

Referring to Reynold's work on Christ's descent, Hume had expressed great admiration: "If there were any hope, that that worke would come out shortlie, I would burie my papers in the 48 duste." Thus, even though his work was not published,

Reynolds should be considered as an important contributor to the debate.

Yet another individual who was involved in the debate, even though he also never published a book on the subject, was

Lancelot Andrewes, Chaplain of Archbishop Whitgift. Broughton had challenged Andrewes to a disputation on Christ's descent 49 to be held in Cambridge in 1594. There is no evidence that the challenge was accepted, and clearly Broughton was not 50 satisfied, because in 1597 the same challenge was repeated.

Again, there is no report that the disputation took place, but

Strype records that Andrewes held "another opinion" than 51

Broughton over Christ's descent into hell.

The examples of Reynolds and Andrewes indicate that opinions on Christ's descent were being expressed by more people than those who went into print about it. The scale of the controversy was spreading, and in Lent of 1597, it had reached the point that Bishop Bilson, preaching at St. Paul's Cross: thought fit to discourse on this subject. But first communicated his purpose to our Archbishop; who allowed and encouraged him thereunto; for the better quieting and settling the minds of the people, who were now run into differences and discords about it.52 Agitation about the meaning of the article was sufficiently prevalent that Bilson felt the need to consult Whitgift before preaching on the subject. Clearly Whitgift endorsed his sermon, although unfortunately for Whitgift the sermon did not quieten the controversy, as he had hoped, but rather helped to inflame it:

So displeased were some with the Bishop /Bilson7 ... that a young man took the confidence soon after, in the same pulpit, to confute what the Bishop had said. This was so much noised abroad, that it was thought advis• able to acquaint the Lord Treasurer with the whole business.53

Thus, in 1597 both the highest spiritual authority

(Whitgift) and the highest lay authority (the Lord Treasurer) in the land aside from the Queen herself, were involved in trying to settle the controversy. Bilson wrote a letter to the Lord Treasurer (William Cecil, who as Chancellor of

Cambridge University had tried to prevent discussion of the article in 1567) in which he outlined his attempt to provide a clear and scripturally supported interpretation of Christ's descent in his sermons. As a result of this letter, Cecil authorized a compilation of all the different interpretations of the article, as he was "desirous to be informed more particularly of the opinions of the learned in this so 54 mightily controverted article." Strype records that this compilation was indeed produced, describing it as "a pretty large discourse, with many quotations out of the Fathers." It contained the "different opinions of learned men" and outlined 55 all the prevalent opinions about the article. Although there is no record of further action being taken by Cecil (he died in 1598), both Church and State interests continued to be involved in the debate. Bilson's sermons at St. Paul's Cross had inflamed the problem because

"some ... misremembred, some misconstrued, and some misliked" what he had preached, "whereupon I /Bilson/ was both aduised and intreated by men of greater place then I will name; to put 56 the effect of that which I had deliuered in writing." But the printing of the tract which Bilson compiled, (The effect of certaine Sermons Tovching the Fvll Redemption of mankind) was delayed. Bilson had had the work ready by St. Bartholom• ew's day, 1597, but the calling of Parliament meant that men were "otherwise imploied" so he was advised by those "men of greater place" to stay from publishing. In addition, a great hustle raised against it by certaine popular preachers in that citie, through whose mouthes the contrarie had often passed to the people as currant, I was desired by the same persons againe to staie, till that time of .business were ouer past, that heat of contradiction somewhat alaied, and respite giuen that it might be translated into Latin.57 Peace and co-operation in the parliamentary session were considered by someone in authority to be more important than the settlement of religious controversy. Someone realized that

Bilson's work was likely to inflame rather than to solve the problem, with the result that the work was not published till

1599. Cecil was the person most likely to be intervening in this way, but the identity of the individual concerned must remain conjectural. - 19 -

In the period which elapsed before his work was published, Bilson's opponents had been busy. Bilson's sermons had prompted Henry Jacob to write and publish in 1598

A Treatise of the Svfferings and Victory of Christ.58 At this point, the debate reached the ears of the very highest authority in the land, the Queen herself. In Athenae

Oxonienses, Anthony a Wood relates that "the matter of the controversie /came/ to the Queen's knowledge, (she being at 5 9

Farnham castle belonging to the B. of Winchester)." Bilson was appointed Bishop "of Winchester on May 13th 1597, and so it is likely that it was he who informed the Queen of the controversy. There can be no doubt about Elizabeth's sentiments on the matter: she signified her pleasure to Bilson, that he should neither desert the doctrine, nor suffer the Function, which he had exercised in the Church of England, to be trodden and trampled under foot by unquiet men, who both abhorred the truth and dispised authority. Upon which command, the Bishop did set himself upon the writing of that learned Treatise (chiefly also delivered by him in Sermons) entituled A Survey of Christ's Sufferings ...60 This substantial second tract of-Bilson's (678 pages) was not 61 published till 1604, by which time Jacob too had contribut• ed another tract to the debate, A Defence of a Treatise 6 2

Tovching the Svfferings and victorie of Christ, published in 1600. As the disagreement between these two men continued, Wood relates that they were not alone in their argument: Which controversie, /Christ's descent into_hell7 though eagerly bandied to and fro between them, '/Jacob and - 20 -

Bilson7 yet it was afterwards plyed more hotly in both the Universities, in 1604 and after; where Bilson1s doctrine was maintained and held up, yet publickly opposed by many of our Zealots, both at home and abroad. At home by Gabr. Powell ... and abroad by Hugh Broughton and Rob. Parker .... There were two more bretheren at least of the separation, who opposed Bilson's doctrine, but their names I cannot now justly tell you.63

Certainly, Broughton was continuing to write during the early years of James's reign, and so were two other protagonists,

Andrew Willet, and Richard Parkes. The work of that same Dr.

Reynolds with whom Broughton had disagreed in 1594, and whom 64

Hume had lauded, lay behind the dispute between Willet and

Parkes. Parkes had gained access to the work, and disagreed with Reynold's argument. Therefore, in 1604, Parkes published

A Brjefe Answere vnto Certaine objections and Reasons against 65

The descension of Christ into hell. In the course of the work, Parkes objected to the views which Willet had already propounded on Christ's descent into hell, in an earlier work entitled Synopsis Papismi. Willet responded rapidly to

Parkes's attack, publishing Limbomastix ... Containing also a briefe replie to so much of a Pamphlet lately published . . . 6 7 personally directed against some writers of our Church, in

1604.

After a lull of three years, they both published works against each other on the same subject of Christ's descent 6 8 into hell, in 1607. Both of these works were dedicated to

Archbishop Bancroft, in the hope that he would settle the debate once and for all. Parkes considered that matters of - 21 -

such weight ought to be judged by the highest authority, that the true doctrine should be embraced, "the impugners therof silenced, & their Bookes as abortiue brats, not suffered to 69 see the Sunne, whose light they seeke to obscure." Willet was equally vehement in his address to Bancroft:

I maruel, how your religious eares can endure to heare such strife of wordes, which auaile more for the subuersion, then finding out of the truth: correct this euill vse, and stay such vaine tongues, &c. you hold the whip, let the money chaungers feare to trust to their (counterfeit) coyne.70

These dedicatory epistles demonstrate that by 1607 there was a severe and entrenched disagreement over the interpretation of Christ's descent into hell, with strident appeals being made to the Archbishop of Canterbury £or settlement of the problem. In the preceding years the controversy had involved both the prominent and powerful, (Queen Elizabeth, Archbishop

Whitgift, and Lord Treasurer Cecil) and the obscure and powerless (the inhabitants of Leicester in 1567, and of

Wiltshire in the late 1580's). The controversy had reached from the market-place in Chippenham to the Palace at Lambeth and the Castle at Farnham. It had prompted a steady flow of

tracts, many written by the scholarly theologians of Oxford

and Cambridge; and yet, in 1607, the issue remained unresolved.

It is unrewarding to turn to modern historians for

insight into the nature of this intractable debate. They

maintain a profound silence about the whole subject. Given the

scope of the problem as outlined above, it is surprising to find that most historians have not even recognized the existence of the debate, let alone analysed its content. 71 H.C. Porter's Reformation and Reaction in Tudor Cambridge does not mention the issue despite the many links between the

University and the debate: Carlile's disputation; the involvement of the University authorities in Hughes's case in 1567; Perkins's teaching and preaching there throughout the 1580's and 90's, and Broughton's continued attachment to the University. James Bass Mullinger's extensive history of 72

Cambridge University fails to mention the debate either.

Works covering the Church of England and the religious problems of the late sixteenth century also neglect the topic,

For example, no mention of controversy about Christ's descent into hell can be found in Philip Hughes's work The Reform- 73 ation in England. Likewise, Peter Lake's Moderate puritans 74 and the Elizabethan church neglects the topic, despite the devotion of a chapter to "The theological disputes of the 1590's." John F.H.New ignores the debate in Anglican and 75 Puritan, even though one chapter deals with opposition surrounding the "Sacraments and Eschatology." Patrick

Collinson does not cover the controversy in The Religion of • 7fi Protestants. R.T.Kendall's Calvin and English Calvinism to 77

1649 omits:.', the issue, as does D.P.Walker's The Decline of

Hell.78

The debate has suffered from neglect and yet this neglect is not justified. The theological content of the debate offers insights and raises questions which bear directly upon the conclusions of several of these historians, 79 particularly those of Porter, Lake, and Collinson. If study of theological controversy is neglected it becomes all too easy for inappropriate or inaccurate conclusions to be drawn. A brief example of this may be seen in M.M.Knappen1s Tudor SO

Puritanism. Knappen does provide a brief analysis of the debate about Christ's descent into hell, but because the theology is not examined in detail, he draws inaccurate conclusions about the debate. He suggests that the dispute between Jacob and Bilson was a "further sign of the beginnings of theological differences between the two great parties of 81

English Protestants." For Knappen, Bilson and Jacob are the beginnings' of "Anglican" and "Puritan". As an examination of the theology will show, these labels are ill-fitting, and serve more to confuse than to clarify the arguments.

Consequently, it is to the theology of the controversy about Christ's descent into hell that attention must be turned. - 24 -

CHAPTER TWO

CHRIST'S DESCENT INTO HELL: A THEOLOGICAL PROBLEM

(i) The Continental Background

The outbreak of controversy in England over the descent of Christ into hell is firmly linked with the Protestant

Reformation in Europe. It was simply impossible for Protest• ants to hold the same interpretation of this article of the

Creed as the Catholics did. To understand why this was the case, it is necessary to understand the Catholic interpret• ation of Christ's descent in the sixteenth-century. In his

Summa Theologica, Aquinas had laid out the interpretation of

Christ's descent which prevailed within the Catholic Church.1

The Catechism of the Council of Trent followed Aquinas's view, and later Cardinal Bellarmine supported the like interpret- 2 ation in his Ample Declaration of the Christian Doctrine.

Though the statements of Trent and of Bellarmine post-dated the Protestant attack, they may be taken as representative of the orthodox pre-Reformation Catholic position, as they provided reiteration and reinforcement of Aquinas's interpretation in response to attack.

The orthodox Catholic explanation provided clarification of four separate issues concerning Christ's descent into hell: how, when, where, and why. The most easily dealt with was - 25 -

"when", because Christ's descent was accepted as having occurred between his death and resurrection. How Christ descended, in other words the form in which he did so, was a little more complicated. Christ was believed to have had not only body and soul, but also a divine person, nature, or spirit. Christ's body was not believed to have descended; the placing of his body in the sepulchre and the number of biblical references to its having remained there for three days precluded this. His soul descended, but the "divine nature" presented problems. On the one hand, his body could not be left in a non-divine state without it; on the other, the soul could not descend without it; furthermore, to suggest a split and hence two divine natures was heretical. As a result, the orthodox interpretation was that Christ's divine nature was omnipresent, so that the one spirit could be both with the body in the grave, and with the soul in its descent.

Cardinal Bellarmine explained that:

Death had force to separat the soule of Christ from his bodie, but it could not separate either the soule, or the bodie from the Diuine person of the same Christ. And therefore we beleue that the Diuine person of Christ remained with his bodie, in the sepulcre, and that the same person, descended with his soul into hel.3

Unfortunately, "where" was not quite as easily dis• missed as might be expected either. Clearly, Christ's descent was to hell, but the Catholic belief in various compartments or levels of hell made a more detailed explanation necessary. 4

Either three or four compartments of hell were recognized: the lowest was the place of the damned, also known as Gehenna, or the abyss where "the proud Diuels, and the men which 5 imitated them" were to be found suffering eternal torment; above this came purgatory "ou les ames des justes se purif- ient dans des' souffranees qui durent un temps determine, en attendant qu'elles soient dignes d'entrer dans l'6ternelle patrie;" the compartment above this was the limbo of the souls of children who had died without baptism; • and finally the highest level was Limbus Patrum, or Abraham's Bosom. Here rested the soules of the Patriarchs Prophets & other holie men, that died before the coming of Christ. For albeit, those holie soules had not anie thing to be purged, yet they could not enter into glorie, before Christ by his death, had opened the gate of eternal life.... they suffered no paines at al, but enioyed a swete repose, expecting the coming of our Lord with great ioy. '

In the Catholic interpretation, Christ descended to the g highest level only; the reasons for this become clear when the purposes of Christ's descent are examined. Christ did not descend to hell to suffer any torment; the Son of God was without sin and therefore it was heretical to suggest that he should suffer the torments of the wicked: thus he did not descend either to Gehenna, or to purgatory. Essentially, the purpose of the descent was threefold: he went to release the souls of the patriarchs from Limbus Patrum and take them up with him to salvation and paradise; secondly, he did not visit or suffer any of the pain of purgatory and Gehenna, but he

"made himself also scene vnto al the other parts of hel:.., comforting the soules in Purgatorie, as their Aduocate, and deliuerer." This purpose of his descent helped to fulfill the biblical passage in I Peter 3: 18-20, where it was written that "Christ ... being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit ... went and preached unto the spirits in prison; which were disobedient, when once the long- suffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is eight souls were saved by water." The final purpose of Christ's descent was for him to be seen by those in Gehenna, the damned and the devils alike.

He vanquished hell, "terrifying the Diuels, as a victorious

Triumpher: threatening the damned; as a supreme iudge. ""^

The Catholic interpretation was untenable for the

Protestants. Their initial schism from Rome had arisen over the sale of indulgences for the remission of punishment in purgatory. In rejecting the efficacy of indulgences, the

Protestants also rejected the whole notion of purgatory, and of levels within hell. For them, hell was simply the place of the damned and of eternal torment. Consequently, Christ could not have descended to comfort or to help to deliver the souls in purgatory for there was no such place. I Peter 3: 18-20 would have to be interpreted differently. In the same way,

Christ could not have descended to redeem the Patriarchs because the reformers denied that Abrahams Bosom was a level of hell, the majority preferring to see it as a place close to heaven, or paradise. For example, Calvin chose to deal with the two problems as one, claiming that I Peter 3: 18-20 - 28 - referred to the place where the souls of the faithful rested.

However, he denied that this place was a "prison", or level of hell. For him the suggestion that there was a place called

Limbus Patrum under the earth was

nothing els but a fable. For to enclose the soules of dead men as in a prison, is very chiledish. And what nede was it that Christes soule should go downe thither to set them at libertie. I do in dede willingly confesse, that Christ shined to them by the power of his spirite, that they might know that the grace which they had onely tasted of by hope, was then deliuered to the world. And to this purpose may the place of Peter be probably applied, where he sayth, that Christ came and preached to the spirites that were in a dongeon or prison, as it is commonly translated. For the very processe of the text leadeth us to this, that the faithfull which were dead before that time, were partakers of the same grace that we were: bycause he doth thereby amplify the force of Christes death, for that it pearced euen to the dead, when the Godly soules enioyed the present sight of that visitation which they had carefully loked for: on the other side it did more plainly appeare to the reprobate that they were excluded from all saluation.

This passage illustrates a fundamental problem for the reformers when they denied that Limbus Patrum was a level of hell. They could not adopt the simple solution of claiming that these good souls had gone straight to heaven, because this would have made Christ's death for the salvation of man• kind superfluous and meaningless. If good souls went to heaven even before Christ had died to redeem them from the curse of original sin, what was the point of his death? Hence the solution of Calvin that these good men were in a state of grace, but only received full salvation through Christ's death; if layers of hell were denied, layers within heaven had to be allowed! Given the reformers' view of hell, the only part of the

Catholic explanation of Christ's descent which was still plausible for them was that he descended to vanquish, or harrow hell. Christ's resurrection was seen as a glorious victory over death and sin, but such a triumph would have been incomplete without the full flexing of his power and dominion over the devil. Hence Christ could have descended to hell in his soul after death in order to harrow hell. On the other hand, if there were no levels of hell, this harrowing could not have been performed from the upper level where there was no suffering (as the Catholics believed); but Christ must have descended to Gehenna, the place of the damned, in order to perform the vanquishing. This was a proposition which some reformers were to find unacceptable, although it remained as a possible interpretation throughout the debate which followed.

The denunciation of purgatory was not the only issue which caused problems for this article of the Creed during the first half of the sixteenth-century. Erasmus had written two works in which he considered the descent of Christ into hell.

In them he raised several major problems which the Protest• ants were to confront later. Erasmus's first work, printed in

1524, was entitled An Examination Concerning Faith, and the 12 second was Symbolum Apostolorum, printed in 1533. Both took the form of a catechism, examining each article of the Creed.

In the Examination, Erasmus raised a problem by questioning - 30 - the authenticity of "he descended, into hell" as an article of the Creed. The question was posed:

Do you believe his /Christ's7 soul descended to hell?

An affirmative answer was given, but not before some doubt had been cast:

Cyprian bears witness that formerly this article was not a part of the Roman creed or of that of the Eastern churches; nor is it mentioned in Tertullian, a very ancient writer. Nevertheless I myself firmly believe it, both because it agrees with the prophecy of the psalm, "Thou wilt not leave my soul in hell," ... and because the apostle Peter, ... wrote thus: "... he went and preached unto the spirits in prison." But, as I believe he descended to hell, so I do not believe he suffered anything there; for he descended not to be tormented there but to shatter the Kingdom of Satan for us.13

Therefore Erasmus had detracted from rather than added to the authority of the article by indicating that it was not includ• ed in all the early Church creeds, it is also significant that when employing scripture to support the validity of the article, Erasmus did not use any passage which stated word for word "He descended into hell." This was because no scriptural passage makes this claim. There are allusions to the descent and prophecies about it, but no unequivocal statement that

Christ did it. The absence of direct biblical authority for the descent was to add to the reformers' doubts about the article because of the Protestant emphasis on the Word as the supreme authority in matters of belief.

Erasmus covered this problem again in the Symbolum

Apostolorum, reiterating the rather shaky foundations of the article. Also in this work he provided further grounds for - 31 -

controversy concerning the article. Doubt was raised about the

true meaning of the word "hell":

For the Scripture dothe oftentymes call deathe and the graue by this name inferos whiche same worde is englyshed otherwhiles helle ... Howe be it there semeth to be the same strengthe of the worde: in that that he is sayde to haue ben buried.... As who sholde saye that descendere ad inferna were noughte els: but to be buryed in the graue which our lorde speakynge of his owne buryall called to be the hert of the earth.14

This doubt (which can be paraphrased as a problem of trans•

lation) raised questions about the destination of Christ's

descent (the grave or hell), and also about how he descended,

.because it seemed sacrilegious to suggest that the soul, which

remained alive after the crucifixion, was buried in the grave.

These translation problems were to become the ground of

vehement controversy later.

The final problem raised by Erasmus concerned the

destination and the purpose of Christ's descent. Having

alluded to some contemporary controversy surrounding the

purpose of Christ's descent, Erasmus "utterlye reiected and

refuted" one interpretation that

Because orygynall synne dyd not onely brynge the deathe of body, but also the tormente and payne of soules, that by the reasone of it they sholde wante the uysyon and syghte of godes face: therefore they do suppose it to be conuenyente and accordynge that lykewyse as Christe by the deathe of his bodye dyd abolyshe and take awaye bodyly payne: euyn soo by suffrynge in his^goule he sholde take awaye the payne of the soules.

Erasmus was denying that Christ descended into hell to suffer

in his soul thereby saving the souls of men, in the same way

that he had suffered bodily torment on the cross to save the bodies of men. Such a dichotomy was heretical since, in the

Catholic belief, the death of Christ on the cross was the complete sacrifice which provided the means of salvation for man, body and soul. However, despite this outright denial that

Christ's descent into hell entailed the suffering of his soul there, Erasmus made an observation which deserves attention.

In a carefully worded passage, he supported the beliefs

"whiche the relygyouse contemplacyon of good and godly men hathe taughtej" and one of these was

that Christ by the reason of the complexion of his humane body (whiche they wyll to haue ben in hym farre moste subtyle, and so therefore of moste quicke and sharpe felynge) dyd suffre more greuouse and bytter paynes than any man may possibly suffre, the payne of them onely excepted whiche are perpetuallye damned in helle.16

Erasmus was suggesting immense suffering on Christ's behalf in the "complexion of his humane body". Whether by this

Erasmus meant the soul as well as the flesh is not entirely clear. However, this suggestion provides a hint of an interpretation to come: that the descent into hell really 17 meant the soul suffering of Christ.

It was Calvin who put forward this important treatment of Christ's descent. Since his interpretation was to be crucial in the English debate, not only his view of the article's meaning must be outlined, but also his reasons for rejecting other interpretations. He dealt with the same problems which Erasmus had raised: the question of the authenticity of the article; the difficulty in translating it; - 33 - and the issue of the suffering of Christ's soul. Concerning its authenticity, he conceeded that

it appeareth by the writinges of the olde Fathers, that that parte which is read in the Crede, was not in olde time so much used in the Chirches: yet in entreating of the summe of our doctrine, it is necessary that it haue a place allowed it, as a thing that conteineth a very profitable and not to be despised mystery of a right weighty matter.

According to Calvin, "by whome, or at what tyme it was first added, maketh little to the purpose," the important point being that

if any will not for precise curiositie admit it into the Crede, yet shall it streight way be made to appeare plainly, that it is of so great importaunce to the summe of our redemption, that if it be left out, there is lost a great parte of the fruite of the death of Christ.19

Therefore, although Calvin reached the same conclusion as

Erasmus (that the article ought to be included in the Creed), it was not because of the authority of the scriptures and/or 20 the Church, as Erasmus had suggested, but because Calvin saw the descent as an important part in the redemptive process. This the Catholic Church had denied.

In considering the translation of the word "hell",

Calvin was quite prepared to admit that it was frequently to be understood as "grave", but he offered two reasons why this was not its true meaning in the creedal context. It would have been repetitious to say "he was crucified, dead and buried; he descended to the grave". Calvin argued that it is not likely that such a superfluous vain repeticion could haue crept into this abrigement, where in the - 34 -

chief pointes of our faith aye summarily noted in as few wordes as was possible.

In addition, a qualifying phrase should clarify rather than confuse a statement:

For when two maners of speaking that expresse one thing be ioyned together, it behoueth that the later be an exposition of the former. But what an exposition were this, if a man should say thus: Wheras it is sayd that Christ was buried, thereby is meant that he went down to Hel.22

Calvin's authority for dismissing this translation was not the scriptures, the Church Fathers, or the Catholic Church itself (understandably enough); he relied on his own sense of language and logic, concluding that "I dout not that so many as shall haue somewhat diligently weyed the matter it 23 self, will easily agree with me."

Concerning the third issue, the suffering of Christ's soul, Calvin expressed an opinion which was to have radical repercussions. All the Catholic interpretations of the article were passed over; its meaning was that Christ suffered hellish torments in his soul: Christes death had bene to no effect, if he had suffered onely a corporall death: but it behoued also that he should feele the rigor of Gods vengeance: that he might both appease his wrath and satisfy his iust iudgement. For whiche cause also it behoued that he should as it were hand to hand wrastle with the armies of the helles and the horror of eternall death.24 Calvin believed that these torments were suffered during

Christ's agony and on the cross. Although the above passage could leave doubt as to the timing of this suffering, any such doubt was removed by his response to an objection which - 35 - had been made to his interpretation:

their exception is very fond, yea and to be scorned, which say, that by this exposition the order is peruerted, bycause it were an absurdity to set that after his buriall which went before it. For after the setting forth of those thinges that Christ suffered in the sight of men, in very good order foloweth that inuisible and incomprehensible iudgement which he suffered in the sight of Cod: that we should know that not onely the body of Christ was geuen to be the price of our redemption, but that there was an other greater and more excellent price payed in this, that in his soule he suffred the terrible tormentes of a damned and forsaken man.25

Thus, the essence of Calvin's interpretation was that the creedal descent into hell was Christ's agony of soul during the passion and crucifixion. In support of this interpretation

Calvin cited several biblical references: Matt.26:39 "Father, if it be possible, let this cup depart from me", repeated three times by Christ, which Calvin saw as evidence of

Christ's bitterness of heart and the extreme torment of his death; John 13:21, and Matt.26:37 which indicated that Christ was troubled in spirit in the garden; and the ultimate forsaking and suffering on the cross as indicated by Christ's prayer in Matt. 27:46, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"

There is one final point concerning Calvin's view which needs clarification because it was to cause problems later.

Even by the time that he wrote The Institvtion of Christian

Religion, some people must have objected that the soul suffering of the damned should-not be attributed to Christ, 2 6 who was without sin. What was more, Christ was God and man, - 36 -

so how could he be suffering such agonies of the soul because

he felt forsaken by God? Calvin's clearest treatment of these problems was in his Catechisme:

We muste understande that he /Christ7 was in suche distresse onelye as touchynge~hys humanitie. And to the entente that he myghte feele these panges in hys manhode, hys Godheade dyd in the meane tyme for a lyttle space kepe it selfe close, that is to say, it dyd not showe the myghte thereof.... Hereby then we see the difference betwene the griefe of mynde, which Christe dyd suffer, and that which the impenitente synners doe abyde, ... for that verye payne, whych Christe susteyned for a tyme, the wycked muste indure contynuallye: and that whych was unto Chryste but a pricke, is unto the wycked in steade of a glaiue to wounde theym to death.2,7

In this passage Calvin was making two important points about

the nature and the extent of Christ's soul suffering. Christ

could not have suffered in his divinity, and yet he could not

have been without it. This explains Calvin's careful wording

that Christ's divinity kept "it selfe close" but "dyd not

showe the myghte thereof." The other point which Calvin made

concerned the extent of Christ's suffering. Because Christ was

without sin Calvin did not wish to suggest that Christ

suffered as the damned suffer: hence, Christ's suffering was

a "pricke" in comparison with the deathly gashes of the damned.

Some of Calvin's followers were to overlook these limitations,

and claim that Christ's soul sufferings were very much more

substantial.

It is obvious that Calvin was interpreting this article

of faith in a way that differed fundamentally from the

Catholic viewpoint. His theology was to be of considerable - 37 - importance in the debate in England. The names of other continental reformers were cited as sources of authority by the English protagonists as well; Bucer, Beza, Bullinger and

Peter Martyr Vermigli were all referred to. The debate in

England was to revolve around the same four focuses as had been raised on the Continent: the denunciation of purgatory and levels of hell; doubt over the authenticity of the article; the true meaning of the word hell in the creedal context; and whether the descent was really Christ's soul suffering on the cross. However, even though the focuses were the same, the preoccupations and concerns of the authors were often quite different from each other. So too were the techniques which they used to support their positions. It was these differences in technique and preoccupation which ensured that the English controversy was not static, but rather one in which a fundamental shift in the nature of belief may be seen.

******

(ii) From Protestant versus Catholic to Protestant versus

Protestant

The first English tract on the subject of Christ's

descent into hell came from John Northbrooke. His main preoccupation was to denounce the Catholic belief that Christ - 38 - descended to free souls from purgatory, or Limbus Patrum. The

1571 edition of Spiritvs Est ... A breefe and pithie summe of the Christian faith claimed to show that

all the souls of the righteous, that died before Christes comyng in the fleshe, were in heaven, and not in any Purgatorie, Limbo, or Hell. That Christes soule should not neede to goe downe thither to fetch them out ... that his soule (departyng from his bodie) wente straight into heaven, and not into hell, the place of the dampned.

It appears that this work drew the criticism that he was 29 denying an article of the Creed, and so the later editions were changed somewhat to defend his position. The anti-Papist polemic did not change, however; the epistle dedicatory bristles with suspicion of those who draw nie with tongue and pen vnto vs, but their harts are at Roome: a number of them haue Gospel talke, but yet a Romish faith, an English face, but Spanish harts.... all this whyle they run into hugger mugger, a whispering in corners, saying to the simple people: beleeue not this new doctrine, it is naught, it wil not long endure ,... 30

When considering Christ's descent into hell, North- brooke consequently seems more certain of how the article should not be interpreted, than of how it should. The descent was not for the popish purpose of releasing the faithful

Fathers from Abraham's Bosom, because this was a place of

"ioy, rest, and comfort, such a space beeing betwixt it, and 31 hell, that the one can haue no accesse unto the other."

Interestingly, the descent was not in order that Christ's soul suffer in hell after his death. Northbrooke claimed that some supported this argument from a few of the Church Fathers - 39 - (Origen, Jerome, and Tertullian) who had believed that Christ had to suffer as we suffer in order to save us. According to them, Christ had to ..suffer in body and soul; thus, he suffered in body here on earth, and then in his soul in hell, after his death. Northbrooke denied this for three reasons.

Christ's fear in his passion indicated that he must have been suffering hell's torments in his soul then, because otherwise the only possible conclusion was that Christ faced death less bravely than many other martyrs; he would only need to suffer these torments once, and so having done this while alive, he would not have descended to hell in his soul after death. But most importantly, Northbrooke found fault with the assumption that Christ had to suffer as the wicked suffer in order to save mankind. He argued that if this was the requirement of redemption, Christ would have needed to suffer full and everlasting damnation, a notion unacceptable to any true

Christian.

This line of reasoning was to appear in the debate which followed, frequently being used against Calvin's argument that Christ needed to suffer in his soul on the cross to complete an otherwise "bodily" salvation. Although

Northbrooke was vehemently anti-Roman, it cannot be concluded that he was a die-hard, orthodox "Calvinist". Whether intentional or not, he had used this argument which could be problematic for Calvinists, and although several of his views were in line with Calvin's (the descent being in the soul and - 40 - whilst Christ was on the cross), he accepted some opinions which Calvin had rejected. For example, both Northbrooke and

Calvin accepted that Christ's soul suffering on the cross did perform the role of spoiling, or vanquishing hell, although clearly in a metaphorical sense. Thus Northbrooke could claim that Christ did descend into hell in power and in spirit, but he went on to accept an argument which Calvin had denied.

Christ also descended "in person, when as he was layde in the 33 graue ... as the manner of the Jewes is to bury." Calvin had 34 denied this to be a correct interpretation of the article.

Northbrooke was prepared to accept seemingly contradictory alternatives, provided that the descent to Limbus Patrum and 35 the descent of the soul to suffer hell fire were denied. One may conclude that the 1582 editions were aimed at denouncing these two interpretations of the article, and also at countering accusations that Northbrooke had denied the article of the Creed: "report not, that I doo deny any Article of the

Faith (God forbid I should) "°°

The other work published in 1582 on the subject of

Christ's descent into hell was Christopher Carlile's

A Discovrse Concerning two diuine Positions. The first of these two positions seems similar to Northbrooke's because Carlile wanted to show that "the soules of the faithfull fathers, 37 deceased before Christ, went immediately to heauen," thus denouncing the Catholic interpretation of Christ's descent.

But apart from this point of common ground, their approaches - 41 - and conclusions are very different. Carlile's aim was to denounce the article of the Creed completely, and he employed every available technique to do so. He used a systematic argument combined with a strict, literal adherence to certain passages of scripture to highlight the incongruity of some explanations of the descent. For example:

If Christe descended into Hel, either he must descende 'in Body or in Soule, or in his Godheade, or in all: but in Bodye hee did not: for it laye in the graue three dayes, as these places in the margent do testifye /Math. 26.61; iohn 2.19. Ionas 2.1. Mat 12.43. Gloss upon Act.27. Moreouer a body that is deade, without senses, without life, without soule, can neither descende, nor ascende, moue, stirre, or ryse, ... neither coulde his soule descende. Could that descende, whiche did ascend? or that descend into hell, that was in paradise, in felicity, in the Kingdme of God? But Christe his soule was in heauen, euen so soone as yt departed out of the bodye /Luke 23.42; Esay 66.1; Act. 7.497. As for his godhead, it can neither ascend, nor descende. Can that ascend, or descend, that is euery where, that filleth all places, that is in heauen, earth and hell, all at once? Ergo his godhead was not in hell, more at one tyme then at another.38

This kind of argument occurs throughout the work, but it was not Carlile's only technique. At times he was prepared simply to rely on weight of evidence. His opponent, Richard

Smith, had attempted to argue that the inclusion of the article in. the Creed was sufficient to require the acceptance of it:

Smithe: If nothinge can preuayle with you, that I haue set downe or alleadged, notwithstanding, it is ynough that it is in our Crede. Carlil: I denye that it is in our Crede ... Of this fable they /^he Apostles, Paul and Peter/ make no mention, it is excluded as impertinent, omitted as not expediente, neglegted as an inconuenience, and contempned as an absurditie.39 He continued that Rufinus, Chrysostom and several early Church

Creeds all left it out, and finally listed sixty-five Creeds and Church Councils which had excluded it, thereby suggesting that the weight of evidence was on his side.

Useful though these arguments were to Carlile, his main thrust was not simply to deny the authenticity of the article relying on others' denial of it; rather it was to pursue another of the problems which Erasmus had raised, namely the issue of translation. Carlile had been a Hebrew scholar at

Cambridge, and his work displays a marked concern with the importance of true translation from original texts. This concern provided a foundation for his concern with the article, and he denounced many of the reasons given for the descent by showing that they were based on mis-translations.

For example, he denounced the Catholic interpretation that

Christ descended to loose the sorrows of hell, objecting that:

A false principle bryngeth forth many absurdityes: an untrue translation deceueth the reader: Not to searche the fountaine and Greeke text causeth erroure. The blinde eateth many a flye. It is not in Greke, that Christ loused the sorowes of hell but that the father euen God himselfe loused the sorrowes of deathe.^0

Carlile examined the views and translations of Erasmus, Bucer,

Beza, and Castellio, to name but a few. He was in better agreement with Beza than with anyone else, because Beza usually supported biblical translations that were acceptable to Carlile.41

However, while translation was Carlile's main preoccupation and provided the authority for most of his - 43 - views, it could create as many problems as it solved. In particular, passages referring to Christ's soul in hell were awkward. Even if the word "hell" was translated as "grave"

(as it had been in the Geneva Bible) the translation remained unacceptable to Carlile because it was impious to suggest that Christ's soul was ever buried. The only solution was to translate the word "soul" as "body", and this Carlile advocated:

What a translation is this to say that the Soule is enclosed in the graue, and buried with the bodye, whiche is an impietye to Imagine? For the soule dyethe not, it liuethe alwaye nether is it buried, for that is the body: ... Wherefore of necessity they should haue translated Nephes the bodye, which dyeth, and is buried.42

This was not the end of the problem because, as others we-re to point out later, this translation had the disadvantage of making some biblical passages seem repetitive. Acts 2: 27 and

31, and Psalm 16: 9 became particularly controversial. They were all passages which related that "his /Christ's7 soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption," although the exact wording varied in places. The alternative

"his body was not left in the grave-, neither his flesh did see corruption" was rejected by some because the two clauses 43 were saying the same thing. In this way disagreement

developed rather than diminished through the examination of

original texts.

One participant who was familiar with Carlile's work

and views on translations was Adam Hill; and he was at great - 44 - pains to reject Carlile's conclusions. He denied the validity of Carlile's other arguments as well. For example, concerning

Carlile's argument that some of the Church Fathers and ancient creeds had omitted the article and hence it should not be accepted as an article of faith, Hill retorted that, true though this was,

So Athanasius creed lacketh the buriall. Hieroms ad Damas. lacketh it also, Tertullian leaueth out in his Creede the catholique Church, the resurrection of the flesh, and life euerlasting.... It is no good reasoning from the authority of man negatiuely.44

Thus, in the disagreement over the authenticity of the article, Hill argued that it should be included in the Creed.

He denied that the "soul" should be translated as "body" and

"hell" as the "grave" in the biblical passages concerned, but some of his reasons for maintaining this position are note• worthy. He played on both suspicion and perceived antipathy between the Judaic and Christian faiths when he wrote that

some Diuines there are louing ouermuch Jewish fables, doo embrace this translation (of Sheol into a graue) and by their own foolishnes confirme the dreames of the Jewes & encrease their error, and doo make the article of descending into hell suspected to the unskilfull and weaker sort of people. J

Carlile's interpretations had resulted from studying Hebrew and Greek, and so did those of another protagonist, Hugh

Broughton, whose views will be examined later. Hill attempted to undermine the translations by linking them with Judaism and with the notion of a Jewish conspiracy to undermine

Christianity. These anti-Semitic references persist through• out his work. Since one of the key articles of Christian - 45 - belief was coming into disrepute because its meaning was increasingly unclear, the rallying cry of "Jewish conspiracy" was employed, presumably to galvanize support behind the article.

An expression of the confusion and concern surrounding the article by this time was provided in Hill's dedicatory epistle to Archbishop Whitgift:

I see diuers Ministers whome for their learning and life, I do honor, very often preach against the true interprutation of this branche of our Creed, wherby the Papist reioyceth, the Atheist is hardned: and the common sort of people deuiding themselues as they affection. The Preachers do vpon this occasion striue more bitterly one against another, then either of both do against our common aduersarye.^6

This passage provides the key to Hill's position. No longer was a "Protestant" position being defended against the popish view, with the denunciation of Limbus Patrum being an important part of the work, as had been the case with both

Northbrooke and Carlile; here, one Protestant interpretation had to be defended in opposition to others. Hill's view was what might be called a "traditional" one: soul was soul, hell was hell (of the damned), Christ descended there after his death, he descended in his soul, but he did not suffer in this descent. The purpose of the descent was the vanquishing of hell, to prove Christ's power over devils, to "upbraide them that are in hell, that euery knee may be bowed unto him both in heauen, earth, and in hel.... to triumph ouer the diuell, to strike perpetuall terrors into them and to deliuer 47 us from the feare of their tyranny." - 46 -

Clearly then, the interpretation of Calvin and the translations of Bucer and Beza were being rejected, and so it is significant that Hill took every available opportunity to emphasize the Protestant authority for his viewpoint, to avoid accusations of popery. Hill's "traditional" interpret• ation bore a close resemblance to the popish explanation of 48

Christ's descent as being to vanquish hell, and so he needed to show that other reformers had followed this interpretation as well. Hence, for example, he claimed that

"Pomeranus, Westmerus, Lucas Lossius ... Vrbanus Rhegius ... all which were singuler learned Ministers in the Churches of 49 Germany" agreed with him concerning translations;•that Mollerus "a learned Minister of Germany" and Musculus and Hemingius agreed with him that Christ descended for victory • 50 over devils; and that Aepnius, Luther, Pomeranus and Peter Martyr all agreed that the article rightfully belonged in 51 the Creed. Hill even tried to use Calvin to support him at one point concerning the literal descent of Christ's soul to hell, but where their opinions differed he immediately denounced Calvin as following a Jewish interpretation! Hill wrote that Calvin's wordes be these: I confesse (saith Caluin) that the olde Interpreters both Greek and Latin haue drawen those woordes to another meaning: that the soule of Christ was brought from hell, but it is better to tarry in the naturall simplicity of the wordes, that we be not mocked of the Jewes. For as much then as Caluin can not deny that all the olde Interpreters both Greek and Latin haue consented in this pointe of doctrine, I meruaile that M.Caluin would draw it to a Jewish interpretation.5 Hill, therefore, was claiming to follow an authoritative,.

Protestant viewpoint in opposition to others who he thought preached a "negatiue doctrine" which had created a situation in which "diuers others now liuing among us ... will not 53 repete this branch of the creed."

Hill's opponent, the Scottish schoolmaster Alexander

Hume, flatly denied that any of "his side" would not repeat the article: You /Hill7say, you know manie that will not repeat this article, by meanes of the negatiue on our side. I thinke it is like true, that you know anie such, and that we holde this article negatiuelie. ^ This (that they held the article negatively) he went on to disprove. In order to do this, Hume claimed that he was follow• ing an authoritative Protestant viewpoint, just as Hill had done. Thus he postulated a cohesion amongst other... reformers by referring to a unified "we". The men whom he cited may have agreed over other issues, but concerning Christ's descent into hell their verdict was by no means unanimous.

Even in an introductory analysis of the "State of the

Question", Hume was obliged to admit two different interpret• ations : We say, that seing euery article of our faith must haue an undoubted sense confirmed by the Scriptures, it /Christ's descent^ must needs signifie the hellish torments that he suffered for our redemption, or the darkness of death, which swallowed him the three dales that he was in the graue.55

Hume named a sizeable group of theologians opposed to Hill's viewpoint, including Calvin, Beza, Perkins, Rogers, Willet - 48 - and Reginald Pecock; However, these men's interpretations of the article differed widely. Of the two positions outlined by Hume in the above quotation, Calvin supported the former and Perkins the latter; Beza, Rogers and Willet all held slightly different views, and Pe^c'oeicv (who had been concerned with the problem a century and a half before) was a fore• runner of Carlile in believing that the article did not belong

56 in the Creed at all.

At one point, Hume even tried to defend Carlile, claiming Carlile's learning to be of superior quality t.a; v\

Hill's. This was in response to Hill's accusation that Carlile and Servetus had denied the article. Hume quoted Hill as having written that "onelie some possessed ... with Divels, as the Iewes, Servetus and Carlill denie it." Hume responded that Carlill, (excepting his fault) was a man for judgement and learning, manie degrees before yourself: He made a slip, indeede, as who hath not? Though you throwe the first stone at him, you are not cleare yourself.57 Thus, in order to build unity and authority into his position,

Hume was praising men 'with very different opinions than his own. Hume's personal choice of interpretation favoured

Calvin's view, rather than the interpretation that the

"darkness of death" swallowed Christ for three days. Hume's own belief was in line with Calvin's in two important

respects: the timing of t'he descent, and in its importance in

the redemptive process. However, Hume was one of those who

completely overlooked some of the limitations and restrictions - 49 - which Calvin had placed on Christ's soul suffering. For Hume,

Christ actually suffered the torments of hell itself while he was on the cross. In addition, Christ's soul suffering had become of more importance in the redemptive process than his bodily sacrifice:

wee are perswaded, that there can be no surer argument, neither of Hel, nor of the certaintie of our redemption; then that he suffered all the tormentes of Hell vpon the crosse, and made a full satisfaction for all our offences: it is as sure (as what is most sure) that vpon the tree, that is, vpon the crosse, hee descended into the lowermost Hell: that is, into the heauiest torments that Hell could yeeld:'and this, except you confesse, you must grant that the Symboll (as we call it) of the Apostles, and doe so reuerentlie embrace, is vnperfect. For seeing the greatest part of our redemption con- sisteth in Christs suffering in soule, for our soules: it was more needfull in that symbol to make mention of them, then of the deth-"of his body ... 58

Hume went on to reiterate that because the soul suffering of

Christ was such an important part of the redemptive process, it must be what "he descended into hell" meant; otherwise the

Creed would be imperfect. Thus, Hume had deviated from c;- \ - . •.,

Calvin's position, adding to the variety of arguments about the article.

The debate was also expanding in terms of the biblical references used and the proofs required. A crucial issue between Hill and Hume was the strength of scriptural proof for an advocated interpretation. In the absence of a direct biblical statement of how, why, or even if Christ descended into hell, the meaning of passages taken to refer to the descent could always be questioned. Even when scriptural

"proofs" were provided, an opponent could show them to be - 50 -

"doubtfull, the words, driftes, and circumstances, offering other senses both plainer, and better fitting the places, and 59 agreeable to the rest of the Scriptures."

An example of how scriptural proofs operated can be seen in the role of Luke, 23:43 and 46 within the argument. These two verses had been cited in support of Calvin's interpret• ation because both referred to Christ's soul or spirit going to places other than hell on his death. Verse 43 was

Christ's comment to the penitent thief on the cross next to him that "Today shalt thou be with me in paradise", and verse 46 contained Christ's dying words, "Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit". To Hume, these verses were clear statements that Christ's soul could not have descended to hell, but was rather in heaven. The "traditional" interpret• ers employed two arguments against this: that there was nothing incongruous in Christ recommending his soul to God's care even though he was about to descend to hell, so that verse 46 was like a plea for safe passage through hell; and secondly, that when talking about the thief being with him in paradise, Christ was referring to his Godhead rather than to his soul. This Godhead was omnipresent, and so its being in paradise did not exclude it from also being with the body in the grave and with the soul which was free to descend to hell. Hume's retort to these arguments was that the first went against "the true and common use of these words vsed by

Stephen, Act 7 and all other godlie men, that craue to be in heauen," and that the second was "contrarie to the nature of the pronoune (me) which doeth alwaies note the whole person that speaketh."60

A parallel problem was emerging with the use of the

Church Fathers as authorities. If Calvin and Beza disagreed with Augustine and Jerome, then one group had to possess more authority than the other. Hill considered that the

Church Fathers should command respect, not least for the antiquity and tradition of their authority. Hume retorted that

I see no cause why you should thinke better of Augustine and Ierome, then of Beza and Caluine, for they were all but men, and they which now are old, were sometimes new.6

Hill was able to point out that Hume was simply making his own argument in reverse, but he realized that appealing to the Church Fathers was not proving successful in adding authority to his position. Therefore he backed away from the issue, suggesting that "because men are vaine, and the time 6 2 corrupt, we must beleeue no man." He stressed that belief should be only in the word of Cod. which simply returned the debate to the scriptural arena.

The confrontation between Hill and Hume is important in that it illustrates several features which dominated the development of the debate: the central importance of scriptural authority and yet the inadequacy of this authority in cases of disagreement; the like problem with the authority of the Church Fathers; the attempt to rely on custom and tradition to enforce the meaning of a passage (as in Hume's response that the "true and common use" of a passage should be adhered to); the demand for strict internal logical coherence among biblical passages: for example, if Christ was in one place (paradise) he could not be in another (hell); and lastly, that grammar and semantics were frequently resorted to (to try to settle disagreements), as in discuss• ion of the pronoun "me" in the passage "Today shalt thou be with me in paradise".

Related to these developments in the nature of the debate came the written expression of a different interpret• ation of the descent itself. Perkins's An Exposition of the

Symbdle or Creed of the Apostles, first printed in 1595, is noteworthy because it provided some new responses to issues previously raised by others, and also because it contained support for a view similar to the second interpretation outlined by Hume, that the descent meant that Christ was held captive in the grave and lay in bondage under death for the space of three days.63 Perkins's support for this interpret• ation is particularly significant given his usual label as a 64 true devoted "Calvinist". He saw himself in this light, wishing to "clear the truth, that is (as they call it) the

Calvinists' doctrine", and making reference to"Master Calvin 65 of blessed memory." Kendall, in his Calvin and English

Calvinism to 1649, casts some doubt on this interpretation of

Perkins's theology, suggesting that on some issues there was - 53 - a greater affinity between Perkins and Beza, than between .

Perkins and Calvin. Kendall's view is that Perkins failed to recognize the differences in theology between the two Swiss reformers and so saw himself as a true Calvinist even when expressing the theology of Beza. The influence of Calvin is clear in Perkins's treatment of Christ's descent but his final verdict on the article was neither Calvin's nor

Beza's.

Perkins was obliged to give reasons for rejecting the

"traditional" interpretation of the descent (that Christ descended in soul after his death to vanquish hell). He followed the same line of argument which Carlile had used, that it was impossible for Christ to have descended given that his body was in the grave, his soul was in paradise, and 6 8 his Godhead was omni-present. Perkins then added-two other denunciations of this interpretation which employed the authority of scripture and of the early Church. He took the

Evangelists' omission of the article to mean that a literal descent could not have happened. Since they provided an exact narration of the life and death of Christ, "no doubt they woulde not haue omitted Christes locall descent into 6 9 the place of the damned, if there had bene any such thing."

Likewise, the omission by some of the early Church councils showed that they did not acknowledge any reall descent, and that the true meaning of these words, he descended, was sufficiently included in some of the former articles, & - 54 -

that may appeare because when they set downe it, they omit some of the former: as Athanasius in his creed setting downe these words, he descended, etc., omits the buriall, putting them both for one.70

This passage not only used an argument similar to Carlile's, 71 but it got round Hill's objection to Carlile's position.

Perkins went on to examine three other possible meanings of the article: that it meant Christ's burial in the grave, against which he used Calvin's arguments that it made the Creed repetitious and that an explanatory phrase should 72 clarify rather than confuse the original statement; Calvin's interpretation he described as "an vsuall exposition receiued of the Church, ... This exposition is good and true, 73 and whosoeuer will may receiue it." However, he went on to express doubts about it on the grounds that the meaning did not fit with the order of the articles in the Creed. He did not want to deny that Christ's soul suffered hellish torments on the cross, but only to question whether this was what the creedal article meant. So convinced was he that the death of

Christ was terrible and must have contained the hellish torment,of Christ's soul, that he thought the torment was naturally included in the crucifixion and death of Christ: For these words, was crucified, dead and buried, must not be vnderstood of any ordinarie death, but of a cursed death in which Christ suffered the full wrath of God, euen the pangs of hell both in soule and bodie: seeing then this exposition is contained in the former words, it cannot fitly stand with the order of this short Creede, vnlesse there should be a distinct article of things repeated before. Thus Calvin's soul suffering on the cross was fully accepted - 55 - as something which took place, but Perkins doubted that this was the meaning of the article in the Creed. He preferred to think that it meant the third of the'interpretations which he considered, namely that when Christ was dead and buried,

"he was held captiue in the graue, and lay j;n>bondage vnder 75 death for the space of three daies." His reasons for this were "gathered from Scripture", but also he considered that the three degrees of Christ's humiliation would then correspond with the three degrees of his exaltation: in other words, "he died" was the contrary of "he rose again the third day": "he was buried" was the contrary of "he ascended into heaven": and "he descended into hell" was the contrary of

"he sitteth at the right hand of Cod".

According to H.C.Porter, in his Reformation and

Reaction in Tudor Cambridge, this belief in God's use of contraries was a favorite argument of Perkins, and one that he took from Calvin. Porter goes so far as to claim that "If one point alone were to be made about Calvin and Perkins it would be this: they both of them believed that 'all the works of God are done in contrary means'." In this case, then, Perkins was employing Calvin's approach to support an interpretation other than Calvin's, and was introducing new arguments concerning the article in the process. He claimed that Calvin's meaning was "commonly receiued" as was his own, "and we may indifferently make choice of either: but the last (as I take it) is most agreeable to the order and words of the Creede." Hence, it is important to be aware that in calling Perkins, and others like him, a

"Calvinist". regarding Christ's descent into hell, the term is employed very loosely."Calvinist" covers both those who believed Calvin's own interpretation, and those who believed this other interpretation which had nothing to do with Calvin but which his followers accepted as a legitimate alternative to Calvin's own interpretation. Therefore the distinction will be made, in the analysis to follow, between those who followed Calvin's interpretation and those who were "Calvin- ists" in that they accepted one of these two alternatives.

Only one work was written in direct opposition to

Perkins. This was John Higgin's An Answere to Master William

Perkins, Concerning Christs Descension into Hell (1602). It provided another clear defence of the traditional interpret• ation of the descent: Christ's human soul descended liter• ally after his. death to the hell of the damned; the purpose of the descent was the vanquishing of the devil, for if he

(Christ) had not descended in his soul, "the Devil and the damned might haue bragged of the force of that their 7 8 kingdome." The main point of interest about this work is that it provides illustrations of the stretching and twisting of the meaning of biblical passages which the debate was necessitating. This was done in the hope of "proving" a point of view. For example, Higgins dealt with Christ's words to the thief about paradise (Luke 23:43), claiming - 57 - that these words were spoken by Christ "as God, who only

hath power to giue Paradise, and whose to daie as Augustine 79

saith is eternity." Thus, "today" in this context was not

to be understood literally because it meant simply "in the

future". By using this interpretation, the problem that

Christ descended into hell when he had implied that he would be in paradise could be circumvented.

Those involved in the debate were obliged to insist upon strict, literal meanings of biblical passages when those passages supported their interpretation, and to allow more

symbolic, allegorical or non-literal meanings for those passages which conflicted with their understandings.

(iii) The Threat of "Reason"

Bishop Bilson's works provide a reaction against the extremes to which the allegorical, non-literal meanings were being taken. By the time of his writing, he was having to contend with suggestions that even the fires of hell were allegorical. Because Calvin's interpretation of the descent

suggested that the word "hell" really meant the "hellish pains" which Christ suffered on the cross, some suggested

that this internal torment was the true nature of hell

itself. Bilson was obliged to retaliate that - 58 -

Hell fire, which the damned and deuils do and shall suffer, is a true and eternall fire prepared by the mightie hand of God to punish aswell spirits as bodies; and this errour, That the fire of hell was only an internall or spirituall fire in the soules and consciences of men, was long since condemned in Origen by the Church of Christ.80

Bilson returned to the same topic later in his work, and warned his readers about a fundamental problem which was

seriously adding to the scope and to the implications of the debate:

it is a matter of no small moment both to Christian religion and true godlinesse, whether it shall be lawfull for euery vnstable wit, at his pleasure to allegorize whatso euer liketh not his humour in the sacred Scriptures. For if the finall and eternall Iudgement of God against the wicked be allegorical; then surely the reward of the faithfull from the same Iudge at the same time must likewise be allegoricall. And if we once bring all that is threatened and promised in the world to come to be figures and ^ allegories, we endanger the power, and iustice of God.-

The random allegorization of Scripture threatened not only the meaning of Christ's descent into hell, but the existence of hell and heaven and the very nature of God. In the light of Bilson's objection to this allegorization, it comes as no

surprise to find that he supported the "traditional"

interpretation of the article of the Creed:

I retaine in expounding this Article, three things; DISTINCTION of matter; CONSEQVENCE of order; & PROPRIETY of words;- and those three considered, the sense of the Article maie and must be, that Christ,

after his BODY was BURIED, in SOVLE DESCENDED VNTO Q2 that place, v/hich the scripture properly calleth HEL. c

For Bilson, the meaning of the article had to fit the words

as they were written. He went on to explain that the purpose

of Christ's descent was to spoil or destroy hell. Thus he - 59 - adhered to the traditional interpretation which claimed to interpret the article as it stood in the Creed, avoiding all the difficulties of the order of the articles or repetition of phrases which arose from the other interpretations.

However, there was a problem inherent in Bilson's position. If authority lay in the literal acceptance of the

Word, then the lack of a clear biblical statement about

Christ's descent made the interpretation of the article some• what less than certain. As a result, there is a caution and a leniency to be found in Bilson's work. This caution may be illustrated by his position regarding those who believed that the descent was really Christ enduring the state of the dead. Bilson thought that many learned men clung to this interpretation "because they would auoyde Limbus Patrum; disliking by all meanes that the soules of the righteous and faithfull before Christes suffering shoulde be kept in a region or part of hell; and thence deliuered by his descent'8"*

To assess the validity of this argument, Bilson again turned to Scripture, examining the passages in which the controversial Hebrew word "sheol" was found, and he concluded that

if anie man thinke good in some such places, as these are to interpret the SOVLE for LIFE, ... and SHEOL for the GRAVE, where life endeth; I will not utterlie condemne his exposition, so long as he leaueth a different power of Sheol ouer the iust and uniust, ... and do not make the soules of the righteous DESCEND TO SHEOL after death.84

In like manner, Bilson did not totally reject the notion that Christ suffered the pains of hell on the cross.

He was prepared to accept that the torment Christ endured was severe and therefore might be called the "paines of hell" in a metaphorical sense. However, he would not accept that this was the meaning of the article of the Creed because it 8 5 conflicted with the order of the articles as written. A final example of the way in which Bilson tried to rely on the

Word for his interpretation of Christ's descent may be seen in his attitude to his own interpretation of the article.

When Scripture could enforce the interpretation it was to be believed, when it could not, then he would presse not with the like vehemencie, because it hath not like certaintie. So long as we confesse (which the Scriptures do confirme) that Christs humane nature after his extreame humiliation on the Crosse, & before his resurrection, conquered & spoyled not death only, but hell & Satan also, of al their power & right ouer the faithful, with the precise maner and hower I will not burden anie mans conscience, that cannot be perswaded by reading the latter part of this treatise. Thus, Bilson's leniency was related to the lack of clarity of the Word on the issue of Christ's descent.

On a different issue which Bilson considered, there wa no room for leniency at all. There was a shift in the centre of the controversy in Bilson's works. No longer was the article of the Creed the main focus; the nature of the redemptive process was now at stake. Bilson's main concern was to denounce Calvin's belief that the descent into hell

(which for Calvin meant the soul suffering of Christ on the cross) was a necessary part of the redemptive process. There - 61 -

was unequivocal scriptural authority which stated that the blood of Christ was the price paid for human redemption. The

suffering of Christ's soul, and hence the descent into hell,

however it was understood, was not involved. In outlining

the cause of his concern over this issue, Bilson provided an

illuminating demonstration of the ways in which Calvin's

original statement had been expanded, developed and distorted

to produce alarming results:

At the first, men contented themselues to thinke Christ suffered the paines of hel ....Some others affirme, that Christ, in sustaining the wrath of God due to us, wrastled with the verie powers of hell that sought to fasten on him, and howsoeuer beholding the terror of Gods vengeance prouoked by our sinnes, he did sometimes tremble, yet by firme faith alwaies fixed on God, he repelled and repressed those assaults of Satan, and so saued not himselfe onely, but us also. This might be induced if men could stay here; & it were to be wished, that in matters of so great weight and danger, we would rather try where we are, then hasten to go onward. But as water breaking her bankes still runneth and neuer stayeth; so some lighting on other mens inuentions neuer leaue adding till they marre all. In the case which we haue in hand, the name of hell paines being once admitted into the worke of our redemption, some in our daies will no nay, but that Christ on the crosse suffered the selfe same paines in soule, which the damned do in hell, and endured euen the death of the soule; yea others auouch that hee sustained farre greater torments then anie are in hell, to wit, as much paine in 15 houres, as all the faithfull should haue suffered euerlastinglie, and that as well in body as in soule. To these dangerous deuises are some men slipt in our time. And because I knowe not when or where they will make an ende, I thinke it needfull for discharge of my dutie, and direction of your faith, as well to set downe certaine limits beyond which you may not go, as also to reiect such extremities as by no meanes may be closed in the crosse of Christ, without apparant impietie.87

Bilson had to deny that soul suffering was any part

of the redemptive process because of the impious and heretical beliefs that were arising from it. Men had been

applying a strict "tit-for-tat" philosophy to Calvin's

statement. Hence they suggested that if the redemption of the bodies of men had required the bodily death of Christ, then

the redemption of soules must have required the death of 8 8

Christ's soul. This was blasphemy. In the same vein, it had been suggested that if Christ's soul suffering was in place

of the suffering which human souls should have undergone, then it would have been of quite ferocious severity: a God of

justice would have demanded this. The counter argument was that a God of love could not and would not inflict such

torment on his only son. And so the arguments spread from analysis of the nature of Christ's sacrifice, to seemingly

irreverent and (more important) insoluble analysis of the nature of God himself. Bilson did attempt to get around this 89 problem in his second work, but the main damage was already done. There was no such thing as a solution which could be proven against those who held a contrary opinion.

Being aware of this, Bilson even hinted that to hold a personalized, non-conforming opinion to oneself was better

than the overt undermining of accepted belief: if any man to mainteine his deuice, would inuent a new hell, and another death of the soule then either Scriptures or Fathers euer heard, or spake of, they should keepe their inuentions to themselues: it sufficed me to beleeue what I read, and consequently, not to beleeue what I did not reade in the Word of God. which is and ought to be the foundation of our faith.^ According to Bilson, the attack on the nature of the - 63 - redemptive process jeopardized belief because it undermined belief in Scripture. Scripture was the corner-stone of faith, and

if we suffer the mayne foundation of our faith and hope in Christ to be wrenched neuer so little awrie; the whole building is more endangered than wee are ware of. In Gods causes, let Gods booke teach vs what to beleeue, and what to profess. If thouthinke it thy dutie in matters of faith to beware of vnwritten verities, in the greatest point of all, which is our redemption by Christ; take heede thou easily admit not vnwritten absurdities. As when we runne downe hill we can hardly staie; so in matters of religion when we fal to inuenting beyond the scriptures we quickly misse and seldome recouer the truth.91

Bilson realized that the allegorization of Scripture entailed more than just a rejection of the Church's authority in interpreting the Word. It entailed a threat to the nature of belief itself. If Scripture (as interpreted by the Church of England) was not accepted as a literal authority, then belief or faith had to be "justified" in some other way. If belief was placed in a defensive position where its

"justification" vis a. vis other beliefs was demanded, then the nature of belief itself was lost. Belief required acceptance; attempts to justify belief introduced the language of "proofs" and "reasons" which was antithetical to acceptance. Bilson's works express an overwhelming concern with the fragmentation and disintegration of belief which this kind of challenge was precipitating.

The two works of Henry Jacob display exactly the kind of attitude towards scriptural authority, and the authority of the Church Fathers, which Bilson had been denouncing. - 64 -

Jacob was spurred into writing by Bilson's sermons at St.

Paul's Cross; consequently, it is ironic that Bilson's attempt to denounce this form of argument actually precipitated some of the clearest written examples of it.

Jacob claimed repeatedly that reasons could prove interpret• ations: also, he altered the meanings of words to suit the interpretation required. An example of this can be seen in

Jacob's coverage of the words "flesh" and "soul". The biblical passages which referred to Christ's suffering under

Pilate and on the cross described his suffering as being in., the flesh, or body. If these passages were to be used to support Christ's soul suffering on the cross (as Jacob wanted to do), then the flesh or body had to be understood to include the soul as well. Jacob insisted that

These places of scripture are not proper and literal, but figurative in deede: they doe note but the parte for the whole, sometimes Christes body, sometimes his flesh, sometimes his blood, when the whole man Christ is plainlie vnderstoode consisting both of a body hauinge flesh and blood, and also of a soule.^2

Jacob went on to provide the "reason" why it must be correct to include the soul in the word flesh:

The reason wherof, especially in Christs suffring, doth seeme to be this, because the wounds of his body & sheading forth of his blood, are most aparant & euident to sense: and therefore are they so commonly named in stead of the whole sufferinges, the rest whereof were not open to our senses.

The language of Jacob's works was dominated by the need to "reason" and to "prove". Examples of this are legion: there was a "Generall Reason ... euident by the Scripture, - 65 -

That Christ suffered properly & immediatly in his soule", followed by "more Speciall Reasons proouing that Christ suffered for vs the Wrath of God." That Christ suffered 94 hellish sorrows "we proue by many reasons." Elsewhere, Jacob concluded that "the Scriptures haue bene examined, and nothing in them is found to proue Christs Soules going 95 to Hell." Reasons could prove, and so could the Bible, and the Bible could show "a reason which can neuer be refuted by 96 the witt of man." Sequences of reasoning were followed and then reinforced by biblical quotations, all of which "proved" the interpretation which Jacob had forwarded. An example of this process was Jacob's discussion of the "reason" why

Christ had a human soul: Now he /Christj assumed (all men know) our humane soule aswell as our flesh, and he saued our soule aswell as our flesh, ergo he suffered both in soule and in. flesh: ... This reason is better concluded thus: If he assumed our whole humane nature to this very end & purpose that he might suffer in it, and by suffering in it, saue it: Then he also suffred both in body and in soule. But this is true, Hee assumed our whole humane nature to this verie end and purpose that he might suffer in it, and by suffering in it, saue it, Ergo this is true also, that hee suffered both in soule and fleshe. Heere onely the assumption can be doubted. It conteyneth in it three points. 1. He assumed our whole nature. 2. That which he assumed he did assume to this very end & purpose; that he might suffer in it. 3. That by suffring in it, he might saue it. These three pointes being proued, the whole Assumption before is euident and firme. But they are all prooued in these verses ... 97 Jacob went on to cite the biblical passages which "proved" his "assumption", but suffice it to show the dominance of the language of "reason" and "proof" within his work. The - 66 - arguments of others were dismissed because they had "no reason" in them.

For Bilson, all of this added up to no more than an

"example what it is for a man in matters of faith to despise both authoritie and antiquity, and trust onely to his own 98 fancie." Bilson objected to Jacob's propensity for figurative interpretations; once admitted, there was no end to them. On the subject of Christ's soul suffering on the cross, Jacob had remarked: why might not the Crosse conteyne his Soules suffer- inges, yea al the Suffrings of Christs whole life? What letteth but his Soule might be sayd to be Crucified, & not the Flesh only? Any bitter anguish & sharp affliction is commonly called, a Crosse. And though Christs Crosse properly & strictly taken was sensible & outward in deed, yet who seeth not but it is most familiarly & often vsed in a larger meaning, to conteyne all Christes grieuous Sufferinges what so euer, when so euer, & how so euer.99 Therefore, not only might the soul have been crucified, but the cross itself could have a figurative meaning. Such propositions were alarming to the "traditionally" and

"literally" inclined Bilson. Jacob's suggestions disregarded

all accepted authority at will. Where it suited his argument, he insisted equally vehemently that passages must be taken

literally,100 but the decision over the literal or non-

literal nature of a passage of the Bible was entirely his

own, for "Wee haue learned Christ Iesus otherwise, then to

stay our holy faith on the credit of any man, or men."101

This meant that Jacob rejected any appeal which Bilson

made to the authority of the Church Fathers. Bilson had - 67 - accused Jacob of "mistaking or perverting" his (Bilson's) arguments, and Bilson had defended himself by claiming that his arguments were those of the Fathers. Jacob's response was derisory:

I marveyle then why he troubleth him selfe and vs with them /the arguments/ if they be not his; specially if he propound them not to be receaved? Why laboureth hee so to distract vs with such varieties? And then to tell vs they are not his, but other mens. Yet such mens he telleth vs they are, as that it must not be for our Credit to refuse them. Thus the poore people are strangely taught: thus the world shalbe filled full of ambiguities, doubtfulnes, variety of opinion in matters of Religion: and withall forbidden to rest vpon any certaine and particular reason.^02

In this way, Jacob dismissed the Church Fathers, regarding them as a source of ambiguity rather than of authority. At one point he not only overthrew the authority of the Fathers but actively reprimanded them for introducing errors:

It is a thing too rife with the Fathers, yea with some of the ancientest of them to alter and chaunge the authentike vse of words, whereby consequently it is ^ easie for errours and grosse mistakings to creepe in.

Another example of the way in which Jacob disregarded tradition and the authority of Scripture can be seen in his discussion of hell. He was one of those whom Bilson had denounced for questioning the real, material existence of fire in hell. The scriptural passages which had always been used to support belief in the literal fire of hell also

referred to brimstone, worms, chains and wood. Jacob was

able to turn this into a reason for rejecting these scriptural

authorities:

your Scriptures ... vtterly prove nothing at all: for they shew no more any corporall, or materiall, or true fire to be now in Hell, then a «corporall worme, materiall brimston, and much wood, & true chaines. V/hich you say is a sleeveles objection, but neither yourselfe, nor Austin whom you cite against it, doth any where answer it.... For my parte I see no reason to believe that now there is corporall fire in Hell.

Whether there would be such literal fire in the future was

another matter, but to have rejected the authority of

Scripture and the Church Fathers, and to have cast doubt upon

the literal flames of hell was innovation enough!

Even where he. accepted traditional interpretations,

Jacob sometimes sowed seeds of doubt about them. From his work it is easy to see how the range of dogma affected by the debate was expanding rapidly. An illustration of this was

Jacob's discussion of the origin:vof the soul. Since he was

claiming that Christ's soul suffered to save human souls, then

Christ must have had a true "human" soul in which to suffer.

This led Jacob on to discuss the origin of human souls. These

had always been believed to have come from God, and hence

Jacob built his arguments "graunting that mens soules are not deriued by propagation from their parentes"; but then,

the doubt was raised because he declared that'if anyone

claimed that human souls were derived from their parents and

not from God "there could follow no impietie nor absurditie: 105 neither reason nor religion can well ouerthrowe it." Jacob

went so far as to highlight the problems inherent in the

traditional interpretation that the soul came from God. Sin

was a quality of the soul, for "where there is no liuing soule, there neuer was nor can be any sinne or disobedience 106 at all." But it was accepted dogma that all sin came from

Adam, and was propagated from generation to generation.

Therefore, Jacob drew attention to the difficulty of sin being propogated into a soul which came not from man, but from God.

Having raised the problem, Jacob immediately backed away from it, stating his allegiance to the traditional belief, and adding, "Lett vs not bee curious in this harde point, which 107 needeth more Philosophie then Diuinitie to declare it."

If attention is turned to the theological content of

Jacob's argument, one position is clear. Jacob was supporting

Calvin's proposition that the sufferings of Christ in his soul during the agony were a necessary part of the redemptive process. This Bilson denied emphatically. However, unlike

Calvin, Jacob did not consider that this soul suffering was 108 the "descent into hell" of the Creed. Jacob began by stating his "vnfained" support for the article of faith: Here then, let all men knowe, we denie not this Article of our Creede, but wee embrace it vnfainedly, and doe hold it to haue bene profitably added, when it was firste put into the Creede.-*-0 But this acceptance was soon qualified. Jacob believed that

Christ's descent into hell really meant that he descended to the state of the dead. He considered that the Greek word

"Hades" had been mistranslated as "Hell" and that it properly meant "the dead". Other "Calvinists" in the debate had supported this alternative before, or at least outlined it as a possible interpretation (Hume and Perkins), but Jacob - 70 - wanted to push it a step further. He did not really accept the article as it stood in the English Creed. If it meant that Christ descended to the state of the dead, then it should say so:

But now it will be obiected, how then should wee translate the Hebrue and the Greeke Sheol & Hades, to fit those words in our language.... this is euident, that which is commonly vsed & namely in our vulgare Creedes, Hell, is a word to partiall, to vnfitt, yea corrupt, and starke nought. It is suteable to the largenes of the Hebrue and Greeke meaning, ... to say in English, the Dead. As in the Creede, He went vnto the Dead: or Hee descended among the Dead.11'-'

Thus Jacob did not accept the wording of the Creed as it stood. The interpretation of the article which he followed had an inherent complication which he explored. Christ was without sin; therefore if he "descended to the state of the dead", then his soul would go to the place of good souls. This was heaven. Jacob accepted that Christ went to heaven,11"'" but if this was the case, surely Christ should have ascended, not descended. Jacob dismissed this complication by explaining that

this worde Descending or Going downe, is nothing els in this matter, but a •-'decaying, a falling downe, or a coming to an ende in this life.-H2

Jacob's final word on how the article should be understood took this complication into account because he suggested that 113

Christ "went vnto the Dead": he no longer descended.

Jacob attacked Bilson's argument that Christ had made a literal descent in his soul to vanquish hell: Our treatise I hope before grounded wholy on Gods word, hath sufficiently cleered this point /the literal descent/ to be but a deuise of men, a'meer forgery, & no truth in Religion at al: yea and so much the more hatefull, as that it is vrged to be taken as one of the Articles of faith. In which our deniall neither want we the consent of men.114

But although Bilson and Jacob did not agree on the interpret• ation of the article, this was not the main point of the dispute between them. Calvin's argument that Christ's soul suffering was part of the redemptive process was more important.

Bilson had conceeded a certain lack of clarity in Scripture concerning Christ's descent, but there was none concerning the redemption through the blood of Christ. Therefore Bilson's main concern was the disintegration of belief which holding different interpretations entailed. Jacob's techniques were seen as a threat which undermined unity of belief, and hence belief itself.

Bilson was not alone in his fear over the threat in• volved in arguments like Jacob's. Richard Parkes was aware of

Jacob and his works, and he saw a very real threat in the airing of opinions such as Jacob's. In his dispute with

Andrew Willet over the meaning of Christ's descent into hell,

Parkes was concerned that it was no longer just one article of faith that was in jeopardy, but the Church, and belief itself. Even allowing for rather expansive use of language, and the possible exaggeration of conditions, Parkes describes a more fundamental attack than those who had written before. - 72 -

The address to the Christian Reader in Parkes's first work states:

What disputes & contentions the denial /of the article7 hath tared of late years, & dayly nourisheth even in ~ the bosome of our Church, no man (I thinke) is ignoraunt; being so notorious that they cannot be suppressed and so vehement, or rather virulent that they will not be pacified in so much that the strong in faith are thereby weakened, the weake greatly scandalized, the current of the Gospell hindered, and the building vp of Gods house neglected by wrangling about the foundation.... for as vnity is the band of peace and perfection in the Church: so contrarywise is dissention the bane of discipline & doctrine therein.... Atheisme can sprout and spreade abroade fast inough of it selfe, (as lamentable experience dayly teacheth,) though it haue no favorites or abettors to promote and propagate it; & therefore either to plante by writing, or to water by speaking the cursed rootes and seedes therof, is neither the part of a Paule, nor of an Apollo.115

The tone of the dedicatory address in Parkes's second work was even more vehement and fearful of the effects of the debate:

my purpose is to speake chiefly of dissention, and namely,... concerning Christes descension into hell, which hath bred, and daily nourisheth great trouble and disquietnesse, throughout this whole Church of England. Wherein, not only their fact, which do impugne it, is prophane, and irreligious, in denying an article of Christian faith: but the effect therof also heathenish, and pernitious, in making way for Atheisme and Infid• elity.

For as the end of Schisme, is heresie, so is the end of heresie, Atheisme: whereunto these contentions are no small preparatiues.

if Sectaries, and Schismatickes should be suffered.to coine & recoine what they list, in the Forge of their owne fancies without restraint of Ecclesiastical censure ... not only faction would deuide, but infection also deuoure the whole Church.116

Parkes was convinced that Willet was one who had such - 73 -

"factious motiues" and that Willet was a "speciall instrument" 117 in the promoting of schism and dissent. It is not at all clear that such a label was justified. Willet expressed exactly the same concern as Parkes had over the setting forth of "strange and uncouth doctrines, exorbitant from the current doctrine among Protestants" and made a plea for "one uniform- 118 ity of doctrine." Willet was a supporter of Calvin's interpretation and had produced written statements to that 119 effect as early as 1594 in his Synopsis Papismi. However, as the title of this work suggests, Willet's intention was to defend the "Protestant" faith against the Catholic one, and hence he was more interested in presenting a unified

Protestant front against Catholicism .than he was in discriminating between Protestant interpretations of the descent. As a result, his description of the meaning of the article provides "umbrella-like" coverage of Protestant interpretations, including the vanquishing of hell, the hellish torments upon the cross, and the entry of Christ into the state of the dead: That Christ our Sauiour by vertue of his death, did ouercome hel and the diuel, we do verilie beleeue, which may be called a descent into hel: that he also suffered the torments of hel vpon the crosse, and so descended 'into hell for vs, to abide that bitter paine which we had deserued to suffer eternally, we doe also hold and teach:... Furthermore, if descending into hell be taken according to the Hebrue Phrase, For entring into the state of the dead: so we graunt, that Christ descended into hell ... But for the descending of Christ into hell, after your /Catholic7 sense, to

deliuer the Patriarches from thence, when you can 12Q proue it out of Scripture, we will yeeld vnto you. - 74 -

Although Willet admitted the vanquishing of hell as a function of Christ's descent, it should be noticed that he was describing a figurative action, and thus admitting this interpretation did not conflict with his preference for

Calvin's interpretation. Willet's concern with the "popish" threat continued into his later works. Although Limbomastix contained a reply to Parkes's work, it took the form of the refutation of the arguments of Bellarmine concerning Limbus

Patrum. The passages of Scripture which Bellarmine had used to support the Roman interpretation were precisely the same three v/hich Parkes used as the framework for his argument.

Thus, in Willet's opinion, Parkes was surreptitiously advocating the popish interpretation, just as in Parkes's opinion Willet was surreptitiously trying to advocatetfehe 121 views of Jacob, Brownists, Familists, and schismatics.

Since Calvin's interpretation was seen as the source of arguments like Jacob's (because of the figurative interpret• ation of the descent leading to figurative interpretations of other parts of the Bible) there was a firm link between the two in Parkes's mind. That Willet saw himself as supporting such views seems unlikely. He made a firm plea for unity among Protestants: seeing we all hold the foundation, The article of . Christs descension, we should not raise any contention, or mooue questions about the manner, nor breake the peace of the Church, seeing there are most reuerend learned men of both opinions.... They which hold not the locall descent of Christs soule to hell, should not condemne the other as Popish or superstitious men, that are so perswaded: They which affirme it, ought not account them as enemies or aduersaries of the truth that dissent from them therin; they both holding the foundation.122

Whatever Willet's stated intentions or motivations, the reality was that unity and accord could not be established when different pictures existed of the form which the unity should take. Hence, although he claimed simply to refute

Bellarmine, Willet did so by advocating Calvin's interpret- 123 ation and by denouncing Parkes's "traditional" view.

The cause of Parkes's concern about Willet can be seen in the extremes to which Willet was prepared to go to support his argument. For example, Willet was prepared to allow figurative interpretations of biblical passages. Concerning the translations of the words "hell" and "soul", Willet took the view that in many biblical passages, the words "grave" and "life" were preferable:

But if it were admitted, that these words properly should not be so taken here for the life and the graue, as yet it is prooued before, and confessed by the Answerer /Parkes7: yet in regard of the manifold inconueniences, that would ensue vpon the^other sense, a figuratiue speech should be admitted.

The "manifold inconuenience that would ensue vpon the other sense" was that if the translations of "hell" and "soul" were used, the passages in question could be used effect• ively by the Papists as biblical support for Limbus Patrum.

This Willet wished to avoid at all costs. Another cause for

Parkes's anxiety over Willet can be seen in the latter's discussion of a topic which Jacob had broached. Willet - 76 -

•followed an argument similar to Jacob's concerning the divine or human origin of the soul. He supported the orthodox belief that the soul came from God, but at the same time, 125 discussed the possibility that the soul came from man.

Willet's second work specifically on Christ's descent supported the same interpretation as his first, but it was more overt in its opposition to Parkes. Loidoromastix, published in 1607, bore a subtitle which made this clear; it was "A- scourge for a rayler; Containing a full and sufficient Answer vnto the Vnchristian raylings ... vented of late by one Richard Parkes ... against the author of Limbo• mastix." The state of the impasse is quite clear from this work. Willet reasserted his belief in Calvin's interpretation and considered that the descent into hell was "no small 126 force to the effect of our Redemption." He was prepared to believe "whatsoeuer can be prooued out of Scripture, and truly collected from thence," but at the same time he asserted that "the locall descension of Christs soule to hell, cannot necessarily be concluded"from biblical 127 sources. Again Willet claimed to be in search of unity, but his attack upon Parkes was overt. He intended to correct the more than three hundred errors in Parkes's work: his /Parkes's7 errors beeing more than the leaues, and almost equall to the pages of his booke: if hee had had the like aduantage against me, he would not haue doubted to vse that sentence of Hierom against me ... "I will propound the aduersaries sentence, and out of his darke bookes I will drawe the serpents, as out of their holes; neither will I suffer his venemous - 77 -

head to lie lurking within the windes of his speckled body.128

Thus, even though the original adversary had been Rome, there was no doubt that by 1607 it had become those within the

Church of England who held an opposing view to Calvin's

interpretation of the descent into hell.

One last participant in the debate deserves attention,

this being Hugh Broughton. Broughton was propounding his 129 views about the article from 1579 onwards, although his first work on the subject was not published until 1599.

Broughton's treatment of the article was different from any outlined previously, although there is a strong link between his view and the view which claimed that Christ had descended

to the dead. Broughton was a scholar of Hebrew and Greek,

and his studies had':..led him to believe that ''Hades" should be understood as the place of the dead, and not as hell.

However, he took this interpretation even further than Jacob had. The place of the dead, or "world of soules" as Broughton

called it, could be either the state of heaven or hell

depending on the deserts of the person concerned. Even

though it contained both heaven and hell, Broughton described

and explained Hades as being all one place, which raised the problem of its location: soules in Hades holie and contrarie know all the others case, as men here that.haue but a great ditch betwixt them: and they are much- deceaved who thinke Hell to be in this world, lowe in' the earth. Before Gods throne the wicked are tormented for euer and euer. So both sides know one the others case: that without coming to them, they see what is done.

Thus Broughton solved the problem of the location of Hades in a way which completely disregarded previous beliefs about the location of hell. Likewise, his conclusions concerning the Creed entailed a total rejection of previous beliefs. If

"Hades the general, by difference of the person, is Heauen, and in the wicked Hell", obviously for Christ, who was without sin, it must have been heaven; and so, in accordance with the "Zurick Confession" Broughton advocated that

"descending must be graunted to be Ascending, and Hell to be 131

Paradise." The article of the Creed needed to be reworded accordingly: Here standeth the Article: Our Lord being in body crucified, dead and buried, had a soul imrnortall, as all men, which went hence to God: & being in Hades, holy, had not hell but heauen.132 Broughton even claimed that in its accepted form, the

Creed contained a heresy. In a published letter To all the nobility of England he suggested that "All may well here consider .., whether one heresy in the Creed be tolerable for the goodnes of the rest or rather corrupteth the dignity of the whole: as one dead fly marreth an whole box of 133 precious oinctment." All who believed and taught the Creed as it stood could be, and were, labelled heretics by him, and what was more, their teachings tended towards and result• ed in atheism. Thus, Broughton ended up in the incongruous 134 position of calling Archbishop Bancroft a heretic. The most significant point about Broughton's interpretation was that it provided authoritative arguments against both the Catholic and Calvin's interpretation. If the whole notion of Christ descending to hell was a fallacy- based upon a misunderstanding of ancient Greek, then debate over the timing, purpose and method of that descent was superfluous and misguided. Broughton provided a full description of the way in which his interpretation undermined

Limbus Patrum, purgatory, and"Geneua", in his Positions of ^/v, 135 the word Hades, published in 1605. Broughton clearly thought he had the answer to the whole problem and his tracts display vehement resentment at those in authority who persistently ignored his solution.

But as this analysis of the tracts written on Christ's descent into hell has demonstrated, Broughton's interpret• ation was one among many. The failure to establish one

Protestant interpretation of the article, and the resultant expression of divergent opinions over its meaning, placed all interpretations in a defensive position. The validity of one interpretation had to be justified over others.

The sources consulted in an effort to settle the issue made matters worse rather than better: Greek and Hebrew, the

Church Fathers and Scripture itself only served to raise more possibilities rather than to provide answers. Since thesg authorities conflicted, their claims to adherence were undermined. The authority of some of the Church Fathers could be preferred over others; likewise some reformers - 80 - could' be more authoritative than others. Some biblical passages carried more weight than others; some were to be taken literally, some figuratively. As different biblical passages were drawn into the debate, so other issues became involved and were open to figurative, and eventually personalized interpretations.

If the debate had begun with the need to establish a

Protestant interpretation of the article against the

Catholic one which involved Limbus Patrum and purgatory, it became the subject of deep division amongst Protestants: those who supported the "traditional" interpretation, wanting as strict adherence as possible to the words as written; those who supported a "Calvinist" interpretation-, either that of Calvin himself (that the descent was Christ's soul suffering during the agony), or the other interpretation which was accepted as "Calvinist" (that it meant Christ's going to the state of the dead); and those supporting other interpretations, or employing methods of argument which both the "traditionalists" and the "Cal.vinists" rejected. Jacob was one of this last group. He was an extremist from the point of view of both the "traditionalists" and the

"Calvinists" in the debate over Christes descent. Therefore

M.M.Knappen is not justified in calling his theology "the beginnings" of the theology of "Puritanism". Jacob and his followers would not become part of either of the "two great 136 parties of English Protestants"; they would remain - 81 - outsiders forming a small, semi-separatist church in

LondonT ^ . 137

The authority of the Word had not provided an unequivocal answer. But what of the authority of the Church of England? After all, it had produced articles in 1563 138

"for the auoydyng of the diversities of opinions." It is revealing to examine the response of the Church when fa.ced with diversity rather than the desired unity. - 82 -

CHAPTER THREE

AUTHORITY CURTAILED: AN INSOLUBLE PROBLEM

The authority of the Church of England fared no better than that of the Word. An examination of the attempts of authorities to stem or solve this controversial issue offers interesting insights into the beliefs of some of those involved, and also into the growing inability of the Church to exert authority over the content of belief in this article.

Attempts at establishing the meaning of the article were hampered by the coverage it had been given in the all important Thirty-Nine Articles of 1563. Carlile's conclusion that Christ's descent into hell did not belong in the Creed could be denounced with authority since the third of the

Thirty-Nine Articles stated that "it is to be beleued that he /Christ7 went downe into hell."1 But the same third article offered no purpose or meaning for the descent and consequently could not be invoked to settle disagreement over these issues. Both those following the "traditional" interpretation and those following Calvin's interpretation insisted that they were maintaining the true, accepted and prescribed meaning and that their opponents were the

innovators. Those following Calvin's interpretation could

insist that as early as 1562 an edition of Calvin's The - 83 -

Institvtion of Christian Religion (which contained a full

exposition of Calvin's interpretation of the article) was

translated from Latin into English and then published as

"Seen and allowed according to the order appointed in the 2

Queenes Maiesties iniunctions." They could emphasize that

Calvin's view was fully accepted by the Church of England by

referring their opponents to Thomas Rogers' Exposition of 3

The English Creed. This work was published in two parts, the

first in 1579 and the second in 1585. A second edition, also

in two parts, was published in 1585 (part I) and 1587 (part 4 II). The first edition seems to be lost, but the second 5

edition was definitely "Allowed by Auctoritie." The work

endorsed Calvin's interpretation of Christ's descent,

claiming that /the7 word Hell in this Article, as we take it, signifieth: not the place of everlasting torments ... In which place Christ as man was not, forasmuch as (1) His body lay in the grave ...; (2) His soul was commended into the hands of God the Father^ ... /and was7 in Paradise ... and not in Hell ... /But it signifies7 The terrors and torments of the body and soul which Christ suffered.6 . Thus authority had allowed that the descent to hell was not

to literal hell, but that it was Christ's agony.

On the other hand, those supporting the traditional

interpretation were not without officially accepted state•

ments of their view. The 1563 Book of Homilies contained a

homily for Good Friday which covered Christ's passion and

death. In it the redemptive role of Christ's crucifixion

was examined: - 84 -

there is none other thing that can be named under heauen to saue our soules,* but this onely worke of Christs precious offering of his body* upon the altar of the crosse.7

(* signifies my italics)

This passage denied Calvin's proposition that Christ's soul had to suffer to save human souls; in this homily human salvation was simply through Christ's bodily sacrifice.

Although the descent into hell was not covered directly, the next homily for Easter Sunday contained a heavy emphasis upon the way in which Christ's death "destroyed hell, with all the damnation thereof;" hell was "spoyled for euer" by the- •• g victory of Christ. Such comments were fully in tune with the traditional interpretation of Christ's descent to vanquish hell, and therefore the Book of Homilies could be, and was, taken as supporting the traditional interpretation 9 of the article. The weight of authority which this work carried was considerable, given that it was set out by the authority of the Queen and was "to be read in euery Parish

Church agreeablie. "1(^

More direct support for the traditional interpretation was to be found in Nowell's Catechism. There were many editions of this work (two in 1570, reprints in 1571, 1574,

1576 and perhaps in other intermediate years)11 and it carried authority: we learn from the various injunctions, &c. put forth at that time by public authorities, that no Catechisms were allowed to be used by clergymen and schoolmasters except one.or other of Nowell's.12 - 85 -

The interpretation given to the article in this Catechism was traditional in the extreme in that, in order to satisfy all the biblical passages which referred to Christ's descent into hell, Nowell allowed a purpose for Christ's descent which was reminiscent of the taking up of the ancient fathers from Limbus Patrum:

as Christ in his body descended into the bowels of the earth, so, in his soul severed from the body, he descended into hell: and that therewith also the virtue and efficacy of his death, so pierced through to the dead, and to very hell itself, that both the souls of the unbelieving felt their most painful and just damnation for infidelity, and Satan himself, the prince of hell, felt that all the power of his tyranny and darkness was weakened, vanquished, and fallen to ruin. On the other side, the dead, which while they lived, believed in Christ, understood that the work of their redemption was now finished, and understood and perceived the effect and strength thereof with most sweet and assured comfort.13

Thus, within the first twenty-five years of Elizabeth's reign, authority had been given to both the traditional, and to Calvin's interpretation, and the actual sentiments of those in authority remain obscure.

It is difficult to unscramble this situation. In the introduction to the Parker Society edition of Rogers'

Exposition, J.J.S.Perowne has suggested that "Calvin's view had indeed been very generally received, more perhaps from deference to his authority, than from any careful 14 investigation of the subject." This comment hints at an explanation. Calvin's Institvtion of Christian Religion and

Catechism were accepted out of deference to his authority, without thorough examination of his position on Christ's - 86 - descent into hell. The circulation and study of these works would mean that by the 1580's there was established support for his interpretation of Christ's descent. On the other hand, the carefully considered statement of Nowell's

Catechism (which was the product of the 1563 Convocation) as well as the injunctions enforcing the use of this

Catechism, indicate that the sentiments of the Church authorities on this subject were very traditional indeed.

This suggestion is supported by the Bishop of Exeter's view of the article. He had appealed to the 1563 Convocation 15 for settlement of the meaning of Christ's descent, but He personally argued for the views of 'all the fathers ... both of the Greeks and the Latins' against those of 'Erasmus and the Germans, ... Mr. Calvin and Mr. Bullinger.16

Archbishop Whitgift dispelled any obscurity about his own opinion in 1586 when he commented during the examin• ation of John Udal that "The human soul of Christ after his death, descended into the place of the damned; and whosoever 17 believeth not this, but denieth it, is an heretic."

Whitgift was insisting upon a literal descent after Christ's death and it is clear that he supported the literal, traditional interpretation rather than the metaphorical one of Calvin. It' is worth pointing out that in this interchange with Udal Whitgift also expressed opposition to the interpretation that Christ's soul descended to the grave exclaiming "How can the soul go into the grave?-What an - 87 - absurd thing is that."18 Neither was Whitgift alone in his opposition to these interpretations. Other members of the

High Commission (the Bishop of Winchester and Mr. Hartwell) supported his position.

In his Life of Whitgift, Strype confirms that Whitgift still held this "anti-Geneva" position in 1597,•,and that he was not alone in his opinions. On the other hand, Strype indicates that there was also widespread support for

Calvin's position:

the opinion of Geneva took place with a great many here, (as did the other doctrines of that city,) namely, that Christ suffered in his soul the pains of hell. Which was a doctrine also that our Archbishop and the learnedest Divines of the Church would by no means admit. For the opinion of the Church of England now was, that Christ's descent into hell was, that after his death he triumphed over the devils. Bishop Bilson, preaching at St. Paul's this Lent, thought fit to discourse on this subject. But first communicated his purpose to our Archbishop; who allowed and encouraged him thereunto.19

Not only was Whitgift behind the Church of England's interpretation, but he was supporting Bilson in the latter's preaching on the subject.

Any claim that Whitgift was consistent in adhering to the traditional interpretation is complicated by a contra• dictory suggestion that Whitgift and Bilson were won over by Broughton's interpretation of the article (that Christ went to Hades, which for good souls and hence for Christ 20 meant paradise). Strype recounts that he found Broughton

"writing about this time /1597/ or not much after; reckoning - 88 -

that Bishop above mentioned /Bilson7, and the Archbishop, to 21

have been now of his opinion in that article." The veracity

of this claim is not easily ascertained. The only suggestions

that Whitgift changed his position come from Broughton himself. Historians have described Broughton as "eccentric" 22 and "choleric", and his contemporaries also had very mixed feelings about him. For example, Scaliger found him

"furiosus et maledicus" and "fort verse dans la langue 23

Hebraique, mais un peu fou." If such a low opinion is justified, then his claims of converting V/hitgift and Bilson could be dismissed. However, there are indications that this picture of Broughton is one-sided. In The Apocalyptic

Tradition in Reformation Britain, 1530-1645, Katharine Firth has suggested that Hugh Broughton may not have been an easy man to get along with, but the antipathy he stirred up against himself in Oxford and Cambridge owes something to the threat his position posed to resident classical scholars.24 The frequency of the encounters or communications between

Whitgift and Broughton which Strype describes bears out

Firth's suggestion that even if Broughton was eccentric, he 25 certainly was not insignificant. Whitgift presided as umpire over a debate between Broughton and Reynolds (the 2 6 powerful Oxford theologian) and the divines of Geneva 27 also debated with Broughton. The picture given by Strype of the relationship between Broughton and V/hitgift is

complicated and often inconsistent concerning the opinions - 89 - which they held of each other. Their relationship cannot be assessed without detailed examination. However, an explanation of Broughton's claim can be found elsewhere. In

The effect of certaine Sermons Tovching the Fvll Redemption of mankind, Bilson had been prepared to conceed that

Christ's descent to the state of the dead was an explanation 2 8

to which "a number of learned men incline." He was more

lenient towards this interpretation than towards Calvin's.

Since the descent to the state of the dead was the foundation of Broughton's interpretation, it is quite conceivable that

Broughton took leniency towards this interpretation to be acceptance of his whole interpretation. Thus Broughton

claimed support for his interpretation when toleration of only its premise had been suggested.

However, an important conclusion can be drawn even if

the truth of Broughton1s claim cannot be firmly established.

Whitgift did not support Calvin's interpretation of the article. He had not in 1586, and he still did not in 1597.

The creedal article did not mean what Calvin had said that

it did. Both the traditional interpretation and Broughton's were "anti-Geneva". As Broughton had commented: Geneva saying: To descend to Hell is to haue the torments of Hell: would be rediculous to three thousand yeares Greek: none euer tooke it so. Therein they do themselves exceeding great iniury: shewing that they misse in weighty matter: against the Perpetuall vse of speach. In addition, Whitgift's support for Bilson's work shows that

Whitgift did not accept Calvin's view that Christ's soul - 90 -

suffering was part of the redemptive process.

Whitgift's stance against Calvin on these issues is particularly interesting in view of some modern debate concerning the nature of Whitgift's theology. Controversy has arisen over the significance of some disputes in

Cambridge in the 1590's. These disputes concerned the issues of predestination, assurance of salvation, and reprobation.

Whitgift became involved in the-disputes but historians

.have 'failed to agree over the nature of and the intentions behind his involvement.

In his Reformation and Reaction in Tudor Cambridge,

H.C.Porter has suggested that Whitgift's concerns in the 30 dispute were moral, doctrinal and constitutional. Porter considers that Whitgift's theology was at variance with that of a group of staunch Calvinists in the University. This group had expected Whitgift's doctrinal support, but 31 according to Porter, "They were wrong" to do so. Porter does not consider Whitgift's stance to have been "anti-

Calvinist" per se, but points out that Whitgift considered

Calvin's judgements should be used "as ... the judgements of 32 other learned men:" with respect, but not as infallible.

Therefore, Porter advocates that there were genuine theolog•

ical differences between Whitgift and the Cambridge

Calvinists and that Whitgift desired that the settlement 33 scriptural" than that which the Calvinists had proposed. of these issues should be "less uncompromising and more - 91 -

Peter Lake has expressed different opinions in Moderate

Puritans and the Elizabethan Church. He disagrees with Porter on two points: Whitgift's motives, and his theology. Lake considers that the conflict between Whitgift and the

Calvinists was not essentially of a doctrinal nature. For

Lake, Whitgift was far more concerned with establishing authority than he was with theology. Whitgift needed to prevent the "implicit assimilation of the doctrinal position 34 of the English church to the opinions of foreign divines," and also to assert his own personal authority over this group of Calvinists. Thus, for Lake, Whitgift was manufacturing a theological difference of opinion between himself and this group of men in order to establish his own primacy and that of the Church of England. Lake suggests that these men believed "Whitgift was doctrinally on their side," and that 35

"In the event that was how it proved." Therefore Lake sees Whitgift's motives as more manipulative than theological and Whitgift's theology as solidly and "recognizably Calvin• ist", rather than Porter's conclusion that Whitgift was 36 trying to maintain a theological "middle path."

Whitgift's stance concerning the interpretation of

Christ's descent into hell adds weight to Porter's analysis of the disputes of the 1590'sWhitgift rejected . , •

Calvin's interpretation of Christ's descent, and his support for Bilson's tracts shows that there was genuine concern over the theological implications of Calvin's interpretation. - 92 -

However, the difference between the analyses of Porter and Lake stretches beyond the limited scope of Cambridge in the mid 1590's. They do not agree about the theological tone of the period. Lake suggests that Whitgift's settlement with the Cambridge Calvinists was "a tribute to the strength of his /Whitgift1s7 assumption that the broad Calvinist 37 consensus of the 1560's and 1570's was still intact." Porter, on the other hand, stresses that

it is important to emphasize that the story of the theology of the Elizabethan Church of England was that of a debate, and not of an unchallenged Calvinist oration.... The "veins of doctrine' ran side by side;... The Calvinists did not win the day in the Cambridge of 1595, nor did they do so in the English Church. The moderation of Archbishop Whitgift prevented their demanding or achieving unconditional surrender.38

The tone of the Elizabethan Church was either one of broad

Calvinist consensus, or one of challenge and debate. It would be ill-advised to draw any conclusions about the tone of the Elizabethan Church from the study of one controversy about Christ's descent into hell, but this debate certainly helps to reinforce Porter's views rather than Lake's. In addition, an obvious conclusion can be made: the theology of the period needs to be scrutinized before judgements about its nature are passed. And yet this process is often over• looked. No such scrutiny is to be found in Patrick Collinson's

The Religion of Protestants. This might not be of concern if the book did not draw conclusions concerning theology: but it does.

A main theme of Collinson's book is that there was a - 93 - solid Calvinist consensus in the Jacobean Church:

'Orthodox' meant Calvinist. Calvinism can be regarded as the theological cement of the Jacobean Church, in Tyacke's phrase 'a common and ameliorating bond' uniting conformists and moderate puritans.39

A second important theme in Collinson's work is that through• out Elizabeth's reign, the educational standard of the

English clergy was improving:

between 1559 and 1625 ... the ministry of the Church of England became what'it would remain until far into the twentieth century: a graduate ministry, recruited from the colleges of Oxford and Cambridge. 0

If the universities were the suppliers of ministers, then they would play a large role in the establishment of the theological tone of the Church. Hence, it is incongruous to find that Collinson provides no analysis at all of the theology in the universities, nor of the disputes of the mid

1590's which are simply dismissed as "the coercion of anti- 41

Calvinists by Calvinists ... in Cambridge in the 1590's."

Such a failure to examine the theological disagreements undermines the credibility of Collinson's conclusion that by James's reign the "common and ameliorating bond" of

Calvinism was creating a unified, stable Church.

This suggestion is further undermined by the Church's stance over the meaning of Christ's descent into hell in the early years of James's reign. As a result of the confusion and arguments in the 1590's, and the impossibility of

"proving" one interpretation or another to be the true meaning of this article of faith, the authority of the Church of - 94 -

England was backing away from trying to establish how the article should be understood. Bilson had already expressed 42 a certain hesitancy about it, and this grew under Archbishop

Bancroft. A new and revised edition of Rogers': Exposition was published in 1607, bearing the title The Catholic

Doctrine of The Church of England, an Exposition of the

Thirty-Nine Articles, by Thomas Rogers, Chaplain to Arch• bishop Bancroft. The work was "perused, and by the lawful 43 authority of the Church of England, allowed to be public."

As J.J.S.Perowne indicates in the introduction to the Parker

Society edition, "the chief difference between the two editions /1585 and 16077 lies in the altered exposition of 44 the Third Article." The change is dramatic. From Calvin's 45 interpretation in 1585, a complete change is made to the

"mentioning /otj different views that had been entertained of the doctrine" while the work "does not strongly advocate „46 any. " The Third Article in the 1607 edition provides a summary of the texts from Scripture which support Christ's descent as an article of faith: then it covers three different beliefs concerning the meaning of the descent. Various aspects of the descent are considered: when and how Christ descended, whether on the cross, after death} whether to the grave, or to literal hell) or whether the descent was metaphorical; whether Christ descended in his Godhead, his manhood, his body or his-soul; and yet, no indication is - 95 - given regarding which of these interpretations is to be 47 believed. The conclusion of the article is particularly significant: But till we know* the native and undoubted sense of this article, and mystery of religion, persist we adversaries unto them which say:...48

(•^signifies my italics)

Then follows a list of views which were still considered heretical, including Carlile's, Hume's, and beliefs connected with Limbus Patrum; but the Church was no longer claiming to know what the article meant. There was no "common and ameliorating bond" of Calvinism regarding this article of faith; instead there was only uncertainty and insecurity.

Both Rogers' description of the interpretations allowed, and of the heresies rejected, indicate that the opinions held concerning Christ's descent were even more diverse than those expressed in the written tracts. Where they had originally hoped for unity, the authorities of the Church of England were confronted with quite overwhelming diversity.

Thus, in 1607, the Church curtailed its own authority by failing to provide an interpretation of this article. The

Word had not established an answer, neither did the Church of

England. The nature of belief in Christ's descent into hell was allowed to be a matter between the believer and his God. - 96 -

NOTES

CHAPTER ONE

1. The Two Liturgies with other Documents set forth by- Authority in the reign of King Edward the Sixth, Parker Society (Cambridge, 1844), p.224; Liturgies and occasional forms of Prayer set forth in the Reign of - Queen Elizabeth, Parker Society (Cambridge, 1847), p.61. 2. Liturgies, Edward, p.231; Liturgies, Elizabeth, p.68. 3. Edward Cardwell, Synodalia. A Collection of Articles of Religion, Canons, and Proceedings of Convocations, 2 vols. (Oxford, 1842), I, 19. 4. Cardwell, Synodalia, I, 18. 5. Ibid., I, 53. 6. Ibid., I, 55. 7. Christopher Carlile, A Discovrse Concerning two diuine Positions (London, 1582), Sig. Aviir. 8. John Strype, The Life of the Learned Sir John Cheke, Kt. (Oxford, 1821), p.91. 9. Carlile, Discovrse, Sig. Avr. 10. Ibid., Sig. Aviir. 11. The commencement is covered by Strype, Cheke, pp.89-90, but no mention is made of the outcome, or of Cheke's own views on the subject. Anthony a Wood, Athenae Qxonienses, 2 vols. (London, 1691), I, col.Ill, states that Carlile was "opposed" in disputation by Sir John Cheke. 12. Richard Smith, Refutatio luculentae, crassae, & exitiosae, haeresis loannis Calvini, & Christophori Carlili, Angli, qua astruunt Christum non descendisse ad inferos alios, quam ad infernum infimum, qui est locus damnatorum perpetuus, aut ad sepulchrum /printed abroad/, 1562, as cited in Peter Milward, Religious Controversies of the Elizabethan Age (London, 1977), p. 67. 13. John Strype, Annals of the Reformation, 4 vols. (Oxford, 1824) I, p't.l, 519. 14. Ibid. - 97 -

15. John Strype, The Life and Acts of John V/hitgift, D.D._, 3 vols. (Oxford, 1822), I, 25. 16. A Catechism written in Latin by Alexander Nowell together with the same Catechism translated into English by Thomas Norton, Parker Society (Cambridge, 1853), p.iv. 17. Nowell, Catechism, pp.v-vi. See also Strype, Annals, I, pt.l, 525-9. 18. When finally published the Catechism did not claim synodal authority, but later injunctions show the high estimation in which the Catechism was held. See Nowell, Catechism, pp.v-vii. That the Catechism was viewed as authoritative at the time is demonstrated by Adam Hill, The defence of the Article: Christ descended into Hell (London, 1592), fol.24r, and by Henry Jacob, A Defence of a Treatise Tovching the Svfferings and victorie of Christ in the worke of ovr Redemption (Middelburg,

1600)^ p.142.

19. Nowell, Catechism, pp.160-1. 20. Dictionary of National Biography /D . N. B/J , . s. v. William Hughes. 21. Strype, Whitgift, I, 24. 22. Ibid. 23. Ibid. 24. Ibid. 25. D.N.B., s.v. William Hughes. 26. This measure was probably taken by Cecil on Parker's recommendation. A letter from "Sir William Cecil to Archbishop Parker," dated 12 Sept., 1567 commences "It may please your Grace to receive my humble thanks for your care taken in the discreet advice given to me concerning the appeasing of the unprofitable rash controversy newly raised, upon the article of the descent of Christ to hell." Correspondence of Matthew Parker P.P. Archbishop of Canterbury, Parker Society (Cambridge, 1853), p.305. 27. Strype, Whitgift, I, 25. 28. John Northbrooke, Spiritvs est ... A Briefe and Pithie Summe of the Christian Faith (London, 1571), as cited in Milward, Elizabethan Controversies, p.164. 29. There is doubt about the date of one of these editions; see A Short-Title Catalogue of Books Printed in England ... 1475-1640 /S.T.C.7, s.v. John Northbrooke. - 98 -

30. Benjamin Brook, The Lives of the Puritans, 3 vols. (London, 1813), II, 1. 31. Brook, Puritans, II, 4. 32. Ibid. II, 5. 33. Hill, Defence of the Article, Sig. Aiiir_v. 34. Alexander Hume, A Reioynder to Doctor Hil concerning . the Descense of Christ into Hell (Edinburgh, 1593). 35. Hume, A Reioynder, Sig. Biir. 36. Ibid., Sig. Bir-V. 37. Ibid., Sig.Bii . 38. Ibid., p.150. 39. Ibid., Sig. Biiir_V. 40. Hill, Defence of the Article, fol.33v. 41. John Higgins, An Answere to Master William Perkins, Concerning Christs Descensjon into Hell (Oxford, 1602). 42. See D.N.B. s.v. John Higgins, and M.M.Knappen, Tudor Puritanism (Chicago, 1939), p.371; cf. S.T.C. s.v. John Higgins, and Milward, Elizabethan Controversies, p.67. 43. William Perkins, An Exposition of the Symbole or Creed of the Apostles (Cambridge, 1595). 44. Thomas Rogers, The Catholic Doctrine of The Church of England, An Exposition of the Thirty-Nine Articles, Parker Society (Cambridge, 1854), p.xiii. 45. Strype, Whitgift, II, 220, 46. Ibid. II, 366. •p 47. For example, see Hume, A Reioynder, Sig. Aiv where he refers to "M. D.Reynoldes, (the load starre of Oxenford); and Richard Parkes, An Apologie: of Three Testimonies of holy Scripture (Oxford, 1607), the first book of which provided an "Answer to certain Obiections": those "Objections and Reasons" had been the title of Reynold's tract. 48. Hume, A Reioynder, Sig. AivV. 49. Strype, Whitgift, II, 221. 50. Ibid., II, 360. 51. Ibid., II, 359. 52. Ibid., II, 361. 53. Ibid. - 99 -

54. Ibid., II, 364. 55. Ibid., II, 365. 56. Thomas Bilson, The effect of certaine Sermons Tovching the Fvll Redemption of mankind (London, 1599), Sig. Aivr. 57. Ibid., Sig. AivV. 58. Henry Jacob, A Treatise of the Svfferings and Victory of Christ (Middelburg, 1598). 59. Wood, Athenae Qxonjenses, I, col.344. 60. Ibid. 61. Thomas Bilson, The Svrvey of Christs Svfferings for Mans redemption (London, 1604). 62. Henry Jacob, A Defence of a Treatise Tovching the Svfferings and victorie of Christ in the worke of ovr Redemption (Middelburg, 1600). 63. Wood, Athenae Oxonienses, I, col.394. 64. See above, pp.15-6. 65. Richard Parkes, A Briefe Answere vnto Certaine obiections and Reasons against the descension of Christ into hell (Oxford, 1604). 66. Andrew Willet, Synopsis Papismi (London, 1594). 67. Andrew Willet, Limbomastix (London, 1604). 68. Andrew Willet, Loidoromastix (Cambridge, 1607). Richard Parkes, An Apologie (Oxford, 1607). 69. Parkes, An Apologie, Sig. ^viir. 70. Willet, Loidoromastix, Sig. ^ivV. 71. H.C.Porter, Reformation and Reaction in Tudor Cambridge (Cambridge, 1958). 72. James Bass Mullinger, The University of Cambridge from the Royal Injunctions of 1535 to the Accession of Charles the First (Cambridge, 1884).

73. Philip.;vHughes, The Reformation in England, 3 vols. (London, 1954). 74. Peter Lake, Moderate puritans and the Elizabethan church (Cambridge, 1982). 75. John F.H.New, Anglican and Puritan: The Basis of their Opposition 1558-1640 (Stanford, 1964). 76. Patrick Collinson, The Religion of Protestants (Oxford, 1982). - 100 -

77. R.T.Kendall, Calvin and English Calvinism to 1649 (Oxford, 1979^ 78. D.P.Walker, The Decline of Hell: Seventeenth-Century Discussions of Eternal Torment (Chicago, 1964). 79. See below, pp.90-4. 80. M.M.Knappen, Tudor Puritanism (Chicago, 1939). 81. Knappen, Tudor Puritanism, p.371.

CHAPTER TWO

1. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theological III, Iii, 2, 4-6, 8, as cited in John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. John T.McNeill (Philadelphia, 1960) p.515, n.23. 2. Robert Bellarmine, An Ample Declaration of the Christian Doctrine, trans. Richard Hadock (Douai, 1604), pp.40-4. 3. Bellarmine, An Ample Declaration, p.43-4. 4. Aquinas had allowed four compartments; Summa Theologica, III, suplementum lxix, 4-7, as cited in Calvin, Institutes, ed. John T.McNeill, p.514, n.20. Bellar• mine also allowed four; An Ample Declaration, pp.40-1; but the Catechism of the Council of Trent only allowed three: Dicti'onnaire de Theologie Catholique ,-,/D . T. C/J , eds. A.Vacant & E.Mangenot. s.v. "Descente de Jesus aux Enfers," pp.584-5. 5. Bellarmine, An Ample Declaration 6. D.T.C. , p.5;35 . 7. Bellarmine, An Ample Declaration 8. Ibid., p.42 ; D.T.C . , p.585. 9. Bellarmine, An Ample Declaration , pp.42-3. 10. Ibid. 11. John Calvin, The Institution of Christian Religion, trans. T.N. (London, 1562), fol.163v-4r. 12. Erasmus, "An Examination Concerning Faith," The Colloquies of Erasmus, trans. C.R.Thompson (Chicago, 1965); Erasmus, A Playne and Godly exposition or ... Symbolum Apostolorum /place of publication unknown/, 1533. : - 101 -

13. Erasmus, Colloquies, p.184. 14. Erasmus, Symbolum, fol.81V-2r. 15. Ibid., fol.82r. 16. Ibid., fol.82v-3r. 17. Others had suggested Christ's soul suffering before Erasmus: see Calvin, Institutes, ed. John T.McNeill, p.515, n.23, and the references cited there. 18. Calvin, The Institution, fol,163r. 19. Ibid., fol.l63r_v. 20. Erasmus, Symbolum, fol.82V: "Yf the vniuersall churche hath now receiued it: it is not lawful for the not to beleue it. It is sufficiente for the to professe that Christe dyd so descende as inferos: as the scripture and the churche dothe thynke and meane." 21. Calvin, The Institution, fol.l63v. 22. Ibid. 23. Ibid. 24. Ibid. fol.l64r. 25. Ibid. 26. Ibid. fol.l64V-5r. 27. John Calvin, The Catechisme ... to teache Children the christian religion (London, 1563) , sig.Bvv-vi1'. 28. Northbrooke, Spiritvs Est, 1571 edition, as cited in Milward, Elizabethan Controversies, p.164. 29. Milward, Elizabethan Controversies, p.164. 30. Northbrooke, Spiritvs Est (London, 1582), sig. AiiiV- ivr. 31. Ibid., fol.llV. 32. Ibid., fol.l2r-14r. 33. Ibid., fol.16V. 34. See above, pp.33-4. 35. Northbrooke, Spiritvs Est, fol.9V-12r. 36. Ibid., fol.16V. r 37. Carlile, Discovrse, sig. Ai . 38. Ibid., fol.27r_v; for other examples of this form of argument, see fols. 37v-38r and 86v-87r. 39. Ibid., fol.76V-7r. 40. Ibid., fol.45r. - 102 -

41. For example, differences of opinion arose over the words Hades (Greek) and Sheol (Hebrew), the possible translations being either "hell" or "the grave". Examples of Carlile's respect for Beza: fols. 68v-9r and 138v-9r. 42. Ibid., fol. 118r. 43. For example, Hill, Defence of the Article, fol. 15, and Parkes, A Briefe Answere, pp.12-3. 44. Hill, Defence of the Article, fol.22V-3r. 45. Ibid., fol.3V. 46. Ibid., sig. Aii.iV. 47. Ibid., fol.8V-9r. 48. See above, pp.27 and 29. 49. Hill, Defence of the Article, fol.3r. 50. Ibid., fol.9r. 51. Ibid., fol.23r-V. 52. Ibid., fol.4V. 53. Hill as quoted in Hume, A Reioynder, p.139. 54. Hume, A Reioynder, p.140. 55. Ibid., .sig. BviiV. 56. Carlile was aware of Pecock's rejection of the article; see Carlile, Discovrse, sig. Aviiv. For Pecock's rejection of the article see Reginald Pecock, The Donet, ed. Elsie Vaughan Hitchcock (London, 1921), p.103; also p.220 where Pecock's Book of Faith is quoted, providing his reasons for omitting the article. 57. Hume, A Reioynder, p.142. 58. Ibid., p.138. v r 59. Ibid., sig.Bvii -viii . r 60. Ibid., sig.Bviii . 61. Hume as quoted in Hill, Defence of the Article, fol.33v-4^. 62. Ibid., fol.34r. 63. Perkins, An Exposition, p.302. 64. For example, Brook, Puritans, II, 134-5. 65. Perkins, Treatise of Predestination, Works, 11,605 and 616, as quoted in Porter, Reformation and Reaction, pp-. 289 and 311. -.103 -

66. Kendall, Calvin and English Calvinism, Chaps. 4 and 5, especially pp.55 , 60-6, 69-71, 74-6. 67. There is some confusion surrounding Beza's interpret• ation of the article, but no suggestion that he advocated Perkins '_, view. The English protagonists did not agree about Beza's opinion of the article; see, for example, William Fulke, A Defence of the Sincere and True Translations of the Holy Scriptures, Parker S;ociety (Cambridge, 1848), pp. 278-9. Carlile referred to a tract by Beza "entituled that Christe neuer came in Hell, written in Laten upon the first of Peter 3 Chap, and 19 verse," Carlile, Discovrse, fol.68v; but in 1561, Beza produced An Oration made by Master Theodore de Beze (Edinburgh, 1561), in which he claimed: "we confesse his Natiuitie, his lyfe, his death, his burying, his going downe into hell ...."(sig.biiir). The clearest indication of Beza's view at the time of Perkins1s writing comes from the Propositions and Principles of Divinitie propounded and Disputed in the Vniuersitie of Geneva by certaine students of Divinitie under M.Theod. Beza and M.Anthonie Faius, trans. John Penry /Edinburgh/, 1595, which provides the Genevan verdict on the article. Pp.174-8 describe an interpretation in line with Calvin's. 68. Perkins, An Exposition, p.297. 69. Ibid. 70. Ibid., p.298. 71. See above, p.44. 72. Perkins, An Exposition, pp.300-1; cf. Calvin's state• ment, see above, pp.33-4. 73. Perkins, An Exposition ,?.p . 301. 74. Ibid., p.301-2. 75. Ibid., p.302. 76. Porter, Reformation and Reaction, p.311, quoting from Perkins, Grain of mustard seed, Works, I, 644. 77. Perkins, An Exposition, p.302. 78. Higgins, Answere to William Perkins, p.9. 79. Ibid., pp.11-2. 80. Bilson, Svrvey of Christs Svfferings, sig. AiiiV. 81. Ibid.,pp.39-40. 82. Bilson, The effect of certaine Sermons, p.154. 83. Ibid.I p.146. - 104 -

84. Ibid., p.151-2. 85. Ibid., p.139. 86. Ibid., sig. Bir-V. 87. Ibid., pp.8-9. 88. Such arguments completely ignored the precautions which Calvin himself had placed on the extent of Christ's soul suffering; see above, p.36. 89. Bilson. Svrvev of Christs Svfferings; see, for example, sig. Aivr where Bilson suggests that "The soul is punished in this life by her vnderstanding, will, affections, and senses, according as their obiects, directed and strengthened by God, make violent and vehement impressions; the torment of hell-fire being the iudgement of another world. Neither is God the tormenter of souls in hell with his immediate hand, but by his wisdome and power hath ordained euerlasting fire, as an externall Agent aboue nature, to take vengeance of damned men and deuils according to their deserts." 90. Ibid., p.2. r—v 91. Bilson, The effect of certaine Sermons, sig. Bii 92. Jacob, A Treatise, p.8. 'S3. Ibid. , pp . 9-10. 94. Ibid., p.33. 95. Ibid., p.148. 96. Ibid., pp.45-6. 97. Ibid., p.16. 98. Bilson, The effect of certaine Sermons, sig. Biir. 99. Jacob, A Treatise, pp.31-2. Another example of Jacob's use of the figurative can be found in his discussion of the meaning of the Jewish sacrifices of a "slaine & a Scapegoat." See Jacob, Defence of a Treatise, pp.37-8. 100. Jacob, A Treatise, p.67. 101. Ibid., p.170. 102. Jacob, Defence of a Treatise, pp.34-5. 103. Jacob, A Treatise, pp.95-6. 104. Jacob, Defence of a Treatise, p.146. 105. Jacob, A Treatise, p.20. 106. Ibid., p.21. - 105 -

107. Ibid. 108. Ibid., pp.132-3. 109, Ibid., pp.94-5. 110. Ibid., pp.124-5. 111. Ibid., p.130. 112. Ibid., p.129. 113. Ibid., p.130. 114. Ibid., p.171. 115. Parkes, A Briefe Answere, sig. Aiir_V. 116. Parkes, r—v r

An Apologie, sig.^V iii and v . 117. Ibid. Bk.2, gig. Aaiii . 118. Willet, r Limbomastix, sig. Aiv . 119. Willet, Synopsis Papismi, pp.1034-40, especially p. 1035 for Willet's acceptance of Calvin's interpretation. 120. Ibid., p.1039. 121. Parkes, An Apologie, Bk.1, sig.n'ivv and Bk.2, sig.Aa m . 122. Willet, Limbomastix, p.5.

II 123. For Willet's denunciation of "the harrowing of hell > see Limbomastix , p. 38. 124. Ibid., p.8-9. 125. Ibid., pp. 27-8.

r 126 . Willet, Loidoromastix, sig. ^Hii . 127. Ibid. r 128. Ibid., sig. iii . 129. Rogers, Exposition, p.xi. 130. Hugh Broughton, Declaration of generall corruption of Religion (Middelburg, 1603). 131. Hugh Broughton, Two little workes defensiue of our Redemption (Middelburg, 1604), in "A lye resumed of D.Bilson". 132. Ibid., "To the Reader". 133. Hugh Broughton, An Explication of the Article of our Lordes soules going from his body to Paradise (Middelburg, 1605), p.46. 134. Hugh Broughton, A Petition to the Lords, to examine the religion and cariage of D.Ban/croft/ Archb. /place of publication unknown/ 1608, p'.*9. - 106 -

135. Hugh Broughton, Positions of the word Hades /place of publication unknown/, 1605, pp.10-4. 136. Knappen, Tudor Puritanism, p.371. 137. M.Tolmie, The Triumph of the Saints (Cambridge, 1977), Chapter I, "The Jacob Church". 138. Cardwell, Synodalia, I, 53.

CHAPTER THREE

1. Cardwell, Synodalia, I, 55. 2. Calvin, The Institution, :iTitle Page. 3. .Thomas Rogers, The Catholic Doctrine of the Church of England, An Exposition of the Thirty-Mine Articles, Parker Society (Cambridge, 1854). 4. Rogers, Exposition, p.x. 5. Ibid., p.xi. 6. Ibid., p.xiii. 7. Certaine Sermons or Homilies, A Facsimilie Reproduction of the Edition of 1623, intro. by Mary Ellen Rickey and Thomas B.Stroup (Gainsville, Florida, 1968), p.177. 8. Certaine Sermons or Homilies, p.191. 9. See Bilson, Svrvey of Christs Svfferings, Preface to the Kings most Excellent Majesty, sig. ^ ivr. 10. Certaine Sermons or Homilies, The Second Tome, Title page. 11. Nowell, Catechism, p.vii. 12. Ibid., p.vii; see references t'o Cardwell, Synodalia, I, 128; and Grindall's Remains, Parker Society (Cambridge, 1853), pp.142, 152. 13. Nowell, Catechism, pp.160-1. 14. Rogers, Exposition, p.xiii. 15. See above, p.4. 16. William P.Haugaard, Elizabeth and the English Reform• ation (Cambridge, 1968), p.252. 17. Brook, Puritans, II,'5. - 107 -

18. Ibid. 19. Strype, Whitgift, II, 361. 20. See above, pp.77-9. 21. Strype, Whitgift, II, 366. 22. Knappen, Tudor Puritanism, p.371; Milward, Elizabethan Controversies, p.167; Claire Cross, The Puritan Earl: The Life of Henry Hastings, third Earl of Huntingdon, 1536-1595 (London, 1966), p.261. 23. Katharine R.Firth, The Apocalyptic Tradition in Reformation Britain 1530-1645 (Oxford, 1979), p.156, citing Scaligerana (Cologne, 169S). 24. Firth, Apocalyptic Tradition, p.155. 25. See, for example, Strype, Whitgift, II, 220-5, 320-7, 355-367, 388-393, 406-415. 26. Ibid., II, 112-8. 27. Ibid., II, 322-7. 28. Bilson, The effect of certaine Sermons, p.146. 29. Broughton, Positions of the word Hades, pp.11-2. 30. Porter, Reformation and Reaction, p.356. 31. Ibid., p.350. 32. Ibid., p.351. 33. Ibid., p.367. 34. Lake, Moderate Puritans, p.210.' 35. Ibid., p.214. 36. Porter, Reformation and Reaction, p.413. 37. Lake, Moderate Puritans, p.226. 38. Porter, Reformation and Reaction, p.287. 39. Collinson, The Religion of Protestants, p.82. 40. Ibid., p.94. 41. Ibid., p.81. 42. See above, pp.59-61. 43. Rogers, Exposition, p.2. 44. Ibid., p.xii. 45. See above, p.83. 46. Rogers, Exposition, p.xiii. 47. Ibid., pp.59-61. 48. Ibid., p.61. - 108 -

BIBLIOGRAPHY

PRIMARY SOURCES

Bellarmine, Robert, An Ample Declaration of the Christian Doctrine, trans. Richard Hadock, Douai, 1604.

Beza, Theodore, An Oration made by Master Theodore de Beze, Edinburgh, 1561.

Propositions and Principles of divinitie, propounded and Disputed in the Vniuersitie of Geneva by certaine students of Divinitie under M.Theod. Beza and M. Anthonie Faiu"s"j trans. John Penry, /Edinburgh/, 1,595.

Bilson, Thomas, The effect of certaine Sermons Tovching the Fvll Redemption of mankind by the death and bloud of Christ Jesvs, London, 1599.

Bilson, Thomas, The Svrvey of Christs Svfferings for Mans redemption: and of His Descent to Hades or Hel for our deliuerance, London, 1,604.

Brook, Benjamin, The Lives of the Puritans: containing A biographical Account of those Divines who Distinguished themselves in the cause of Religious Liberty, from the Reformation under Queen Elizabeth, to the Act of Uniformity, in 1662, 3 vols., London, 1813.

Broughton, Hugh, Master Broughtons Letters, Especially his last Pamphlet to and against the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, about Sheol and Hades, for the descent into Hell, answered in their kind, London, 1599.

Broughton, Hugh, Declaration of generall corruption of Religion, Scripture and all learning; wrought by D. Bilson. While he breedeth a new opinion, that our Lord went from Paradise to Gehenna, to triumph over the Devills, Middelburg, 1603.

Broughton, Hugh, Two little workes defensiue of our Redemption That our Lord went through the veile of his flesh into Heaven, to appeare before God for vs, Middelburg, 1604. - 109 -

Broughton, Hugh, An Explication of the Article of our Lordes soules going from his body to Paradise; touched by the Greek, The world of Soules; termed Hel by the old Saxon, & by all our translations, /Middelburg?/, 1605.

Broughton, Hugh, A Replie upon the r.R.F.Th.Winton for heads of his divinity in his Sermon and Survey: How he taught a perfect truth, that our Lord went hence to Paradise: But adding that he went thence to Hades, & striving to prove that, he inurieth all learning & Christianitie, Amsterdam, 1605.

Broughton, Hugh, Positions of the Word Hades: That it is the generall place of Soules: and holdeth as well the Godly which are in Paradise, as the wicked_that are in Tartarus, /place of publication unknown/, 1605.

Broughton, Hugh, A Petition to the Lords, to examine the religion and cariage of D.Ban. Archb., /place of pub1ication unknown/, 1608.

Buisson, Ferdinand, Sebastien Castellion sa vie et son Oeuvre (1515-1563) . Etude sur Les Qrigines du Protestantisme Liberal Frangais, 2 vols., Paris, 1892.

Calvin, John, The Institvtion of Christian Religion, trans. T.N., London, 1562.

Calvin, John, Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. John T.McNeill, Philadelphia, 1960.

Calvin, John, The Catechisme or maner to teache Children the christian religion, London, 1563.

Cardwell, Edward, Synodalia. A Collection of Articles of Religion, Canons, and Proceedings of Convocations in the Province of Canterbury, from the year 1547 to the year 1717, 2 vols., Oxford, 1842.

Cardwell, Edward, Documentary Annals of the Reformed Church of England; being a Collection of Injunctions, Declarations, Orders, Articles of Inquiry, &c. from the year 1546 to the year 1716, 2 vols., Oxford, 1844.

Cardwell, Edward, A History of Conferences and other Proceedings connected with the revision or tTTe Book of Common Prayer; from the year 1558 to the year 1690,- Oxford, 1849. - 110 -

Carlile, Christopher, A Discovrse Concerning two diuine Positions. The first effectually concluding, that the soules of the faithfull fathers, deceased before Christ, went immediately to heaven. The second sufficientlye setting foo.rth unto us Christians, what we are to conceive, touching the descension of our Saviour Christ into Hell, London, 1582.

Certaine Sermons or Homilies Appointed to be Read in Churches in the Time of Queen Elizabeth I (1547-1571). A facsimilie reproduction of the Edition of 1623, intro. Mary Ellen Rickey and Thomas B.Stroup, 2 vols, in one, Gainsville, Florida, 1968.

Erasmus, A playne and Godly exposytion or declaration of the comune Crede (which in the Latin tonge is called Symbolum Apostolorum) and of the X commaundementes of goddes law, London, 1533.

Erasmus, The Colloquies of Erasmus, trans. Craig R.Thompson, Chicago, 1965.

Fulke, William, A Defence of the Sincere and true Translations of the Holy Scriptures into the English Tongue, against the cavils of Gregory Martin, ed. Parker Society, Cambridge, 1843.

Grindal, Edmund, The Remains of Edmund Grindal, ed. Parker Society, Cambridge, 1853.

Hill, Adam, The Defence of the Article: Christ descended into Hell. V/ith Arguments objected against the truth of the same doctrine:: of one Alexander Humes.All which reasons are confuted, and the same doctrine cleerely defended, London, 1592.

Higgins, John, An Answere to Master William Perkins, Concern• ing Christs Descension into Hell, Oxford, 1602.

Hume, Alexander, A Reioynder to Doctor Hil concerning the Descense of Christ into Hell. Wherein the Answere to his sermon is justlie defended, and the roust of his reply scraped from those arguments as cleanlie, as if they had neuer bene touched with that canker, Edinburgh, 1593.

Jacob, Henry, A Treatise of the Svfferings and victory of Christ, Tn the work of our redemption: Declaring by the Scripurs these two questions: That Christ suffered for us the wrath of God, which we may well terme the paynes of Hell, or Hellish sorrowes. That Christ after his death on the crosse, went not into Hell in his - Ill -

Soule. Contrarie to- certaine errours in these publiklie preached in London: Anno 1597, Middelburg, 1598.

Jacob, Henry, A Defence of a Treatise Tovching the Svfferings and victorie of Christ in the worke of ovr Redemption. Wherein is confirmed, 1. That Christ suffered for us, not only Bodily griefe, but also in his Soule an impression of the proper wrath of Qod, which may be . called the paines of Hell. 2. That after his death on the Crosse he went not downe into Hell, Middelburg, 1600-

The Two Liturgies, A.D. 1549 and A.D. 1552: with other Documents set forth by Authority in the Reign of King Edward VI, ed. Parker Society, Cambridge, 1844.

Liturgical Services. Liturgies and Occasional Forms of Prayer set forth in the Reign of Queen Elizabeth, ed. Parker Society, Cambridge, 1847.

Northbrooke, John, Spiritvs Est Vicarius Christi in terra. A breefe and pithie summe of the Christian faith, made in forme of a Confession, with a confutation of the Papists obiections and arguments in sundry pointes of Religion, repugnant to the Christian faith, London, 1582.

Nowell, Alexander, A Catechism written in Latin by Alexander Nowel.l, together with the same Catechism translated into English by Thomas Norton, ed. Parker Society, Cambridge, 1853.

Parker, Matthew, Correspondence of Matthew Parker, P.P. Archbishop of Canterbury, comprising letters written by and to him, from A.P.1535, to his death, A.P.1575, ed. Parker Society, Cambridge, 1853.

Parkes, Richard, A Briefe Answere vnto Certaine obiections and Reasons against the descension of Christ into hell, lately set in writing unto a Gentleman in the Countrey, Oxford, 1604.

Parkes, Richard, An Apologie: of Three Testimonies of holy Scripture, concerning the Article of our Creed, "/He Pescended into Hell/. First impugned by certaine Obiections sent in writing by a Minister vnto a Gentleman in the Countrie: and lately seconded by a Printed Pamphlet, masking vnder the name of Limbo- Mastixl London, 1607.

Pecock, Reginald, The Ponet, ed. Elsie Vaughan Hitchcock, London, 1921. - 112 -

Perkins, William, An Exposition of the Symbole or Creed of the Apostles, According to the Tenovr of the Scriptures, and the consent of Orthodoxe Fathers of the Church, Cambridge, 1595.

Rogers, Thomas, The Catholic Doctrine of The Church of England, An Exposition of the Thirty-Nine Articles, ed. Parker Society, Cambridge, 1854.

Smith, Richard, Refutatio luculentae, crassae, & exitiosae Ioannis Calvini, & Christophori Carljli, Angli, qua astruunt Christum non descendisse ad inferos alios, quam ad infernum infimum, qui est locus damnatorum perpetuus, aut ad sepulchrum,/printed abroad/, 1562.

Strype, John, Annals of the Reformation and Establishment of Religion, and other various occurrences in the Church of England during Queen Elizabeth's Happy Reign, 4 vols., Oxford, 1824.

Strype, John, Ecclesiastical Memorials, Relating Chiefly to Religion, and the Reformation of it, and the Emergencies of the Church of England, under King Henry VIII, King Edward VI and Queen Mary, 3 vols., Oxford, 1822.

Strype, John, The Life of the Learned_Sir John Cheke, Kt. First instructor, afterwards Secretary of State, to King Edward VI, Oxford, 1821.

Strype, John, The Life and Acts of John Whitgift, P.P. the third and Last Lord Archbishop of Canterbury in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, 3 vols., Oxford, 1822.

Whitaker, William, A Pisputation on Holy Scripture, Against the Papists, especially Bellarmine and Stapleton, ed. Parker Society, Cambridge, 1849.

Whitgift, John, The Works of John Whitgift, P.P., 3 vols., ed. Parker Society, Cambridge, 1851.

Willet, Andrew, Synopsis Papismi, that is, A Generall viewe of Papistrie: wherein the whole mysterie of iniquitie, and summe of Antichristian doctrine is set downe, v/hich is maintained this day by the Synagogue of Rome, against the Church of Christ, London, 1594.

Willet, Andrew, Limbomastix: That is, A Canuise of Limbus Patrum, shewing by euident places of Scripture inuincible reasons, and pregnant testimonies of some - 113 -

ancient writers, that Christ descended not in soule to Hell, to deliuer the Fathers from thence, London, 1604.

Willet, Andrew, Loidoromastix: That is, A scovrge for a Rayler; containing a fvll and svfficient Answer vnto the Vnchristian raylings, slaunders, vntruths, and other- injurious Imputations, uented of late by one Richard Parkes, master of Arts, against the author of Limbomastix, Cambridge, 1607.

Wood, Anthony a, Athenae Qxonienses. An Exact History of all the writers and Bishops who have had their Educat• ion in the most ancient and famous University of Oxford from the Fifteenth Year of King Henry the Seventh, Pom. 1500, to the end of the Year 1690, 2 vols., London, 1691.

SECONDARY SOURCES

Badcock, F.J., The History of the Creeds, second ed., New York, 1938.

Beckingsale, B.W., Burghley, Tudor Statesman 1520-1598, London, 1967.

Booty, John E., David Siegenthaler, John N.Wall, The Godly Kingdom of Tudor England, Great Books of the English Reformation, ed. John E. Booty, NewKHaven^Connecticut, 1981. Collinson, Patrick, The Elizabethan Puritan Movement, London, 1967.

Collinson, Patrick, Archbishop Grindal, 1519-83: the struggle for-.a,;.reformed.'Church, London, 1979.

Collinson, Patrick, The Religion of Protestants: the Church in English Society 1559-1625, Oxford, 1982.

Cross, Claire, The Puritan Earl: The Life of Henry Hastings, third Earl of Huntingdon, 1536-1595, London, 1966. - 114 -

Curtis, William A., A History of Creeds and Confessions of Faith in Christendom and Beyond, Edinburgh, 1911.

Dawley, Powel M., John Whitgift and the English Reformation, New York, 1954.

Dictionnaire de Theologie Catholique contenant L1 Expose des Doctrines de la Theologie Catholique, Leurs Preuves et Leur Histoire. Commence sous la Direction de A. Vacant et E. Mangenot. Continue sous c e 11 e •• d& E.Amann. Paris, 1930.

The Dictionary of National Biography, eds. Sir Leslie Stephen and Sir Sidney Lee, Oxford, since 1917.

Dietelmeier, John Augustin, Historia Dogmatis de Descensu Christi ad inferos Literaria, Altorfii, 1762.

Firth, Katharine R., The Apocalyptic Tradition in Reformation Britain 1530-1645, Oxford, 1979.

Gee, Henry, The Elizabethan Prayer Book and Ornaments, London, 1902.

Gibson, Edgar C.S., The Three Creeds, London, 1912.

Haugaard, William P., Elizabeth and the English Reformation: the struggle for a stable settlement of religion, London, 1968.

Hughes, Philip, The Reformation in England, 3 vols., London, 1954.

Hurstfield, Joel/"Church and State, 1558-1612: The Task of the Cecils,"in Studies in Church History,V.II, ed. G.J.Cuming, London, 1965.

Jordan, W.K. , The Development of Religious Toleration in England from the Accession of James I to the Convention of the Long Parliament (1603-1640), London,1936.

Kendall, R.T., Calvin and English Calvinism to 1649, Oxford, 1979.

Knappen, M.M., Tudor Puritanism: A Chapter in the History of Idealism, Chicago, 1939.

Lake, Peter, Moderate puritans and the Elizabethan church, Cambridge, 1982.

LeCler, Joseph, Toleration and the Reformation, 2 vols., London, 1960. - 115 -

McConica, James Kelsey, English Humanists and Reformation Politics under Henry VIII and Edward VI, Oxford, 1965.

Makower, Felix, The Constitutional History and Constitution of the Church of England, London, 1895.

Manning, Roger.B.,"The Crisis of Episcopal Authority During the Reign of Elizabeth I," in "The Journal of British Studies, vol.XI, Nov.1971.

Milward, Peter, Religious Controversies of the Elizabethan Age; a Survey of Printed Sources, London, 1977.

Milward, Peter, Religious Controversies of the Jacobean Age, A Survey of Printed Sources, London, 1978.

Mullinger, James Bass, The University of Cambridge from the Royal Injunctions of 1535 to the Accession of Charles the First, Cambridge, 1884.

Neale, J.E., Elizabeth I and her Parliaments 1584-1601, New York, 1958.

New, John F.H., Anglican & Puritan; The Basis of their Opposition 1558-1640, Stanford, California, 1964.

Porter, H.C., Reformation and Reaction in Tudor Cambridge, Cambridge, 1958.

Read, Conyers, Mr.Secretary Cecil and Queen Elizabeth, New York, 1955. Read, Conyers, Lord Burghley and Queen Elizabeth, New York, 1960.

Schaff, Philip, The Creeds of Christendom, with a History and critical notes, 3 vols., London, 1919.

A Short-Title Catalogue of Books Printed in England, Scotland, and Ireland and of English Books Printed Abroad 1475- 1640. First compiled by A.W.Pollard and G.R.Redgrave, second edition, London, 1976.

Tolmie, M., The Triumph of the Saints. The Separate Churches of London, 1616-1649, Cambridge, 1977.

Usher, Roland G., The Rise and Fall of the High Commission, Oxford, 1968.

Walker, D.P., The Decline of Hell. Seventeenth Century Discussions of•Eternal Torment, Chicago, 1964. - 116 -

Williamson, George, Seventeenth Century Contexts, revised edition, Chicago, 1969.