370. When did I euer grant Campian so much I should certeinly doe the Fathers great iniury if I should adiudge them for Campian who are so farre different from him And for your kindred with them it is but as the Iewes were Abrahams children for if you were the children of the Fathers you would hold the faith of the Fathers For the Scribes and Pharisies were not the children of Moses because they sate in Moses chaire Neither are they the children of the Saints who hold the places of the Saints as Hierome Neither haue they the inheritance of Peter which haue not the faith of Peter as Ambrose neither ought faith to be tried by persons but persons by saith as Tertullian hath written We verily loue and duly reuerence the Fathers yet wee acknowledge but one Father in heauen and one teacher which is Christ And if you acknowledge them wholy your Fathers why doe you forsake many of their opinions therefore are these Fathers wholie on your side what is this else but dotage and to speake without witte or feare Some body said that Ambrose was bewitched by the diuell Ambrose whether any euer said it or no I neuer knew neither is it greatly materiall the best most righteous men may sometimes be so farre bewitched as they doe not in some things perceiue the truth and you doe too openly bewray your malice by labouring to raise an euill opinion of him and to make vs infamous for such speeches as may haue a good construction though at the first they seeme odious Certeinly I haue read many Papists and heard of some all passing shamelesse and malepere but more impudent then your selfe in all my life did I neuer know any There is no end of your lying you feare no mens censure there is neither faith nor truth in any thing you speake Euen now you set vpon Beza with a fresh lye He you say hath written that Hierome is as surely damned as the diuell because he was iniurious to the Apostles a blasphemous a wicked and an vngodly man That Beza affirmeth not these things I protest and aâ—ow let any man that will see the place if it be otherwise let me be accounted very infamous For as for those first words that Hierome was damned aswell aâ— the diuell either they are by malicious cauelling fetched out of some other place as all the rest are or altogether forged as the most In the place alledged there is no such thing Concerning that he saith of Iniury and Blasphemy I will set downe Beza his owne words that all men may know your impudency Euen Hierome Beza in annot noui Testam in Act. Apost cap. 23. saith Beza if it be true that Erasmus vpon this place saith of him is not only iniurious to the Apostle in that hee findeth want of moderation in this speech wherin rather appeareth his Diuine courage but also is openly blasphemous in that euen in Christ himselfe he hath found some signe of imperfection Thus far Beza the matter of his complaint is about S. Paules sharpe answere vnto the high Priest in which Hierome as Erasmus testifieth in his Dialogues against Pelagius findeth some want of moderatioÌ„ not only so but euen in Christ himself he looketh for some imperfection of piety which reports of Hierome if it be true as Erasmus affirmeth why might not Beza iustly esteeme him in the one iniurious to the Apostle in the other so blasphemous against Christ For what can bee deuised more vnworthy the Apostle then that in his answere to the high Priest he should shew too much spleene or what could be spoken more blasphemous against Christ theÌ„ that the grace wherewith he was indued was imperfect But Beza further reprehendeth Hieromes exceeding boldnes in wresting the Scriptures wherein he hath most iust cause of complaint for either Hierome wrested the Scriptures or they are so weake and easie of themselues as they may be any way turned And truly he must be very desperate that should defend Hieromes interpretations Gregorius Massonius esteemeth more of Caluin then of a thousand Augustines Luther is not moued though a thousand Austens Cyprians Churches be against him The answere is ready whosoeuer speaketh truth in that respect is more to be esteemed then a great multitude that could not discerne the truth They therfore that haue obserued the errors of the Fathers either those you haue named or the rest which heere also you recken vp Optatus Athanasius Hilarie Cyrill Epiphanius Basil Vincentius Fulgentius Lee and Gregory of Rome and haue admonished the Readers of them are so farre from malepertnes herein as that coÌ„trary they haue performed a work for the Church needfull profitable and acceptable to all good and godly men For as the true expositions of Scriptures are to bee expounded to the Churches so are the contrary to bee reiected Hierom. Paul August Hierome saith well it is the worst kind of teaching to depraue sentences of Scripture and to draw them perforce to serue our turnes Wherefore we professe with Augustine All writers and their sayings must bee i DVR That trial must not be made by Apostate Monks but by lawfull Pastors and doctors WHIT. pag. 372. And why not I pray you is it because they are Monkes I thinke not or because they haue departed froÌ„ you That is the matter as it none might touch reade examine the scriptures but those who haue plight their troth to you neuer to assent to the Scriptures though they directly coÌ„tradict popish doctrin we would willingly harkeÌ„ to lawfull Pastors examining interpreting the Scriptures such as you haue none Because with you examinatioÌ„s must not be made by the rule of the scriptures but after the wil of the Pope and all your Pastors haue tyed theÌ„selues to the iudgemeÌ„t of the Romish Antichrist that that which they see they wil not see if it displease the Pope by whose spirit they are guided iudged according to the holy Scriptures the authority wherof is more excellent then the whole nature of man is able to conceiue not that I disallow the opinions of the most worthy Fathers but I follow those that come nearest vnto the Scriptures and when the Scripture it selfe is manifest I embrace it before them all Whereas then we consider the sayings of the Fathers and examine them by the light of Scriptures we do here nothing vnwonted nothing boldly or arrogantly but you haue alwaies been fliers of the light of Scriptures as Tertullian speaketh Tertul. de Resurrect and therefore do so diligently prouide for lurking holes in the Fathers that you may alwaies haue some place of refuge For seeing Scriptures faile you what remaineth but that you seeke aide from any euen the meanest But you tell vs why we do so much anoid the Fathers I had rather you would tell vs why you doe so carefully auoide the Scriptures For say you they that cannot away with set times of Fasting must needs be
any do denie to be good and holy he may well be held blasphemous against the holy Ghost As for that you both faine that we speake these things and also expresse for what cause wee speake them you bewray your wonderfull wisedome which for those things that are not at all can set downe a reason wherefore they be But we doe willingly preach faith and doe easily permit it to bee contemned of you For you that defend nature against grace and doe trust rather to your owne power than to Christs mercie and doe make voide the promises by precepts cannot haue an honourable opinion of faith You neuer keepe your standing Of Sinne. Campian and you begin the battaile like a runnaway For you haue a wandring and vnstable wit as it seemeth You oppose Illyricus to vs againe in the same cause whose testimonie ought not to be of force against vs. For herein I professe my selfe no lesse an aduersarie to him than your selfe I had almost said than to your selfe For what an vniust and vnreasonable thing is it that you should taxe that opinion as defended by vs which your selfe knoweth to be condemned by our Churches Obiect our owne opinion to vs Campian if you can obiect any wee are not such as that we should thinke whatsoeuer Illyricus could as being a man erre in did any whit concerno vs. But either Illyricus must needes be drawne into this taxation or else this place was quite to be left voide by you For beside Illyricus I thinke you haue no man that thinkes so If you desire to know our opinion of this matter I confesse indeed that that defence of Illyricus did seeme euer very absurd to me For it both smels of the follie of the Manichies and it maketh two soules in a regenerate man and which is a greater matter it destroyes the soule That was alwaies the iudgemeÌ„t of the Catholike Church which I professe to be ours that the substance of the soule was not quite slaine by sinne but onely charged and infected with vitious qualities and that sinne is no inward substance of the soule but an r DVR The Catholike Church neuer beleeued that sinne was an accident or qualitie but only a priuation for if it were an accident God should be the cause and author of it WHIT. pag. 573. But this priuation is it not an accidentall thing vvhy then make you a scruple in vvords vvhen you vnderstand the sense An accident is commonly called that vvhich is in some substance but is no part of it vvhich may either be absent or present without the corruption of the subiect and such a thing euery man knovveth sinne is And though I confesse that the nature of sinne consisteth in a priuation yet it is not a bare priuation as you may learne ouâ— of your Thomas For. 1.2 quaest 82. art 1. he saith sinne is not a meere priuation but a corrupt habit like vnto a disease vvhereby not only health is taken avvay but bad humours are brought vpon the bodie And the Schoole men vvhen they make priuation of originall iustice to be the forme of originall sinne and the matter to be concupiscence or a corrupt inclination of the faculties of the soule vvhat doe they teach but that in sinne there is some positiue thing as Thomas vseth to call it But vvhy do I endeuour to refell you for vvhom Physike is fitter then a refuration As for your reason it hath no force for God is not to be accounted the author of all accidencies but indirectly and by accident Basil saith That the roote and cause of sinne is in our selues euen our freewill accident Å¿ DVR Basil saith not that sin is an accident or a quality but an affection coÌ„trary to vertue WHIT. pag. 575. Then must it be somevvhat for nothing cannot be contrarie to vertue Basill writeth truly in that hee denieth that sinne is any liuing substance or indued with a soule Basil iâ—ubâ—â—p hons 2. August de nuptijs lib. 1. cap. 25. but a qualitie contrarie to the vertue of the soule Augustine t DVR Augustine vvill accuse you for slandering him because he spake not of sin but of concupiscence vvhich he accounted to be no sinne WHIT. pag. 576. Doth Augustine account concupiscence no sinne vvhy then calleth he it an affection of an euill quality vvhy doth he compare it to a disease vvhy doth he demaund the question hovv concupiscence should remaine in the regenerate vvhose sinnes are all remitted if it vvere not a sinne his ansvvere proueth it yet more fully For he saith concupiscence is remitted in Baptisme not that it should be no sinne at all as you vvould haue it but that it should not be imputed for a sinne If it vvere no sinne hovv could it be imputed for a sinne Finally August cont â—ulian lib. 5 cap. 3. affirmeth that it is a sinne and a punishment of sin and a cause of sinne and that in the regenerate It is manifest in the place that he speaketh of that concupiscence against vvhich the spirit lusteth and vvhich in vvithout the consent of the vvill It at any time he denie it to be a sinne it iâ— not simplie but in opposition to actuall sinne for hovv should that be nothing vvhich is remitted in Baptisme vvhich Christ satisfied for by his blood or is God angry vvith vs for nothing It must therfore needs be sin Originall sinne saith he remaineth not substantially as it were some bodie or spirit but it is a certaine affection of an euill qualitie like a disease Finally Ambrose most plainly Ambros in Rom. 6. c. 7. u DVR Ambrose his vvords refell your error WHIT. pag. 577. Nay they refell your error For hee saith it is a straying from good Novv this straying is an action and not a meere priuation And you your selues earnestly defend that sin is an action If it be an action then an accident then no meere priuation theÌ„ not nothing How dwelleth sin in the flesh seeing it is no substance but a straying from good Therfore let vs if you please send away the suspition of this error imposed by you vpon vs to the author himselfe As for that you adde that it is a thing commonly held by this filthie sect that all sinnes be equall verily nothing could be spoken more impudently Pardon me Campian if I answere you somewhat sharpely for your vnmodest and intolerable impudencie wrung that terme from me Are you so far spent that you are not able to charge vs with any true crime but shamelessely to obiect those things against vs from which we of all others are farthest off For who did euer more vehemently disallow or more strongly confute this paradoxe of the Stoiks than our Diuines whom you now pursue All records of these times may be witnesses hereof our bookes Churches and Schooles be witnesses as also both the ciuill and Church Discipline may be a witnesse Did you thinke that you could creepe
remembred as the Patriarks Prophets and Apostles were to shew she was of the communion of Saints ibid. 306. nota 17 Prayer for the dead rose not from the scriptures but from the excessiue loue of the liuing to the dead ibid. 18 Augustine neuer prayed for his mother as thinking her to be in Purgatory ibid. 19 The auncient Fathers are to be iudged of not by one particular iudgement but by their constant opinion ibid. 20 The Monks of Popery much vnlike the Monks of auncient time 307 21 Satyrus challenged by Campian for this because he could swimme ibid. 22 The Schoolemen differ often in matter of faith 308. nota 23 Papists and the Iesuits liue as if there were no heauen ibi 24 The doctrine of Papists is such as whosoeuer holdeth it wholly cannot raigne with Christ 309 25 Antichrist of Rome hath inlarged hell more then all tyrants and heretikes ibid. 26 The cause why Christians resorted so much to Ierusalem after Christes death 310 27 Superstitious pilgrimages are contrary to the word and condemned by Gregory Nyssen and Bernard ibid. nota 28 The cause why the Iewes hate Christians is the Gospell not the spoiling of them of their priesthood and kingdome which was done by heathenish Tyrants ibid. nota 29 The Papists great friends to the Iewes allowing them toleration 311 30 Papists are not the ofspring of the Fathers 312 31 Lights were vsed by Christians only when they were forced to meete in the night and after without any ground of scripture custome brought them to be lighted at noone day 312. nota 32 The church of Rome was once poore when it had woodden Chalices and golden Priests But Vâ—bane the Pope made all the ministring dishes of siluer 313. nota 33 Constantine quieted the troubles of the church of Rome and since his time as sâ—e hath increased in wealth so she hath decreased in pietie ibid. 34 Constantine was not baptised by Syluester Bishop of Rome who was dead long before his baptisme 314 35 Constantine vsed the crosse in his armes and banners but neuer worshipped it ibid. 36 Constantine had not the lowest place in the Councell of Nice but the chiefest ibid. 37 The Turke neuer lesse preuailed theÌ„ since Luthers time 315 38 The Pope and his dealings did much enlarge the Turks by diuiding the Empire ibid. 39 The Turks are greater enemies to the Greeke Church then to the Latine 316 40 Symon Magus denied all freewill vnto men which Protestants do not neither did Caluine ibid. nota 41 Protestants are farre from that error of the Nouatians touching the repentance of those who are fallen ibid. 42 They are farre different from the Manichees in the matter of Baptisme 317 43 The church of Rome for along time was more excellent then the rest and so accounted yet for all that it neuer had neither in that respect ought to haue dominion ouer the rest 318. nota 44 Augustine and the Councell of Carthage forbad that the Bishop of the chiefe sea should not be called Prince of Priests ibid. And to it the Bishop of Rome submitted himselfe for a time 319. nota 45 The Greeke Church is opposite to the Romane Church and hath her bishoply succession ibid. 46 The Papists haue not ouerthrowne the idols of the heathen but filled the world full of their idols 321 47 The Iesuites haue diuided Christ and haue no proprietie in the name of Iesus ibid. nota 48 Luther preached the true Christ the papists neither haue him nor preach him 322 49 Britanie receiued tâ—e faith many ages before August the Monke came who brought more euil then good with him ibid. The end of the Contents TO THE MOST LEARNED VNIVERSITIE MEN FLORISHING BOTH AT OXFORD AND Cambridge Edmond Campian sendeth greeting WHen I returned most worthy men into this Iland a yeere agoe vpon commandement of my superiours according to the order of that Religion which I professe I found stormes farre more dangerous on the English coasts than those were which I had lately escaped on the Brittaine Ocean But when I had gone further into England I sawe nothing more vsuall then vnusuall punishments nothing more certaine than vncertaine daungers Then I plucks vp my heart as well as I could calling to mind the goodnes of my cause and not forgetting the troubles of these times And least peraduenture I should be caught before that any man heard what I had to say forthwith I writ downe my determination why I came what I sought for what manner of warre and against whom I purposed to proclaime it The first draught of my writing I kept still about me that if I were apprehended it might be found with me A copie thereof I left in keeping with a friend of mine which vnawares trulie to me was shewed to many other men and by them coppied out The Aduersaries tooke the schedule being published in ill part most spitefully reprehending both all the rest as also this that I alone in this matter of Religion had made the challenge to all Although in very deed I alone would not haue entred the list if with licence of her Maiestie and safe conduct these disputations had been granted Hanmer and Charke haue made answere to my challenge what I pray you though it were long before To no purpose at all for they shall giue no answere honestly but one which I feare they will neuer giue to wit We accept of your answere The Queenes Maiestie hath giuen her word that you shall come and goe safe make haste hitherwarde In the meane while they are full of their exclamations Fie vpon thy societie out vpon thy seditions art thou not ashamed of thine arrogancie thou art a Traitor doubtles thou art a Traitor foolishly said of them Why do those men not the vnaduisedst of all the rest so lauishlie loose their labour and cost of pen inke and paper But there is of late a little booke very plaine set forth for these two men to peruse the former of which for his pleasure and recreation took my said paper in hand to confute the same the other more maliciously hudleth vp the whole matter which so farre forth as was expedient entreates both of our society and of these mens iniuries and of the charge which I haue vndertaken There remaineth only for me for as I perceiue our Bishops prouide scourges and not Schooles that I might render an account of my said fact euidently to shew and as it were with my finger to point out vnto you the chiefe Chapters and fountaines of the things that breed in me such confidence And withall to exhort you who especially aboue all others haue to do herein that you will looke vnto this charge with such carefull diligence as Christ the Church the Common-wealth and the saluation of your owne soules do require at your hands If I vpon the affiance of my wit learning art reading or memorie haue thus challenged the best learned of the
the fatte would be in the fire Campian if you had not one fit of rayling at Luther for this is to shew your selfe a right Iesuite as indeed you are shamelessely and audaciously to breake out into rayling and specially to teare Luther with most bitter reproches This is your facultie and profession this you haue vndertaken to do whatsoeuer youâ— leaue vndone surely he is an happy man whom the Lord thus honoreth with the enmitie and hatred of such wicked men for he cannot chuse but be an excellent man whom wicked men do so deadly pursue But you obiect against Luther his Apostasie look to your selfe Campian if you may not bee more iustly accused of this crime for doubtlesse you are either an Apostata or you were a cunning hypocrite But if it be Apostasie to forsake Apostataes then was Luther such an Apostata For hee abandoned theeues heretikes Apostataes and separated himselfe from that Curch in which that daily Apostasie from religion 2. Thess 2.3 which the Apostle did foretell was now come to the height they then who would not be Apostataes must flie from the Apostasie of your Church But say you Luther spake not so reuerently of the Epistle of S. Iames as was fitting It is well all you can challenge him with is touching this Epistle only he neuer did by any one word impeach the Gospels of Matthew Marke Luke and Iohn neither the Epistles of Saint Paul or Saint Peter only a little he taxed the Epistle of Saint Iames. Is Luther alone in this crime hath all Antiquitie receiued this Epistle of S. Iames Luther only reiected it vndoubtedly no neither was Luther ignorant what censure the auncient Church gaue of this Epistle * Lib. 2. c. pa 23. Eusebius adueÌ„tured to write expresly of this Epistle thus b DVR But Eusebius onely saith that this Epistle vvas thought of diuers not to be vvritten by S. Iames and denies not the canonicall authoritie of it For after hee saith It was receiued of many Churches WHIT. Pag. 12. You wrest both the words and sence of Eusebius for he alleageth not other mens opinions but his owne direct iudgement But if wee admit that you say it must the rather bee counterfeit for if Saint Iames did not write it and yet hee calleth himselfe James the seruant of God and of our Lord Iesus Christ must it not bee forced â—aue the pen-men of the Scripture vsed to take other mens names vnto them If you deny it to bee written by Saint James you must needes confesse it to be Apocrypha and so after your sense Eusebius hath reiected this Epistle which thing to him that readeth Eusebius will manifestly appeare And that hee saith many Churches receiue it and not all must needs proue that he thought it was not Canonicall Be it knowne to all men that this Epistle which is fathered on Saint Iames is counterfeit what can be written more plainely it may be you will except against Eusebius But tell vs why therefore not to stand with you Hieronym in Catalogo will you heare what Hierome saith who as you well know was an Elder of the Church of Rome The Epistle of Iames is held to haue been published vnder his name by some other The one saith it is counterfeit the other writeth that it was thought to be published not by the Apostle but by some other Why then are you angrie with Luther whom you see not vnaduisedly and rashly to doubt of the authoritie of that Epistle but therein followeth the iudgement and censure of the auncient Church for from hence it is very cleare c DVR Doth hee therefore doubt of the authoritie of this booke what shall vve then say to Caluin vvho hath plainely denied that the Epistle to the Hebrues vvas vvritten by Saint Paul and if you had not been a deceiuer you vvould haue alleadged Hierome vvholy for it follovveth Though by little and little in succeeding ages it obtained authoritie WHIT. Pag. 16 He that saith It is thus held and neither dislikes nor refures such a suspition sheweth he not himself also doubtful of it Caluin had some reason because that Epistle was not published in the name of Saint Paul as this was of Saint Iames. What comparison is there in these two the Epistle of Saint Iames hath his name in the beginning of it as the author of it so hath not the other the name of Saint Paul so that hee that denies that to bee written by Saint Iames must needes make it counterfeit But no such thing here Therefore may this be held to be canonicall though it be denied to be written by Saint Paul If you had read but a few lines more you should finde that I vsed no deceite neither had you causâ— to be so bitter And these words of Hierome prooue directly that the authoritie of this Epistle was sometimes doubted of that the first age of the Church doubted somewhat of the credit and authoritie of this Epistle But you will say it was afterwards receiued and Hierome witnesseth as much I inquire not how iustly that might be receiued in a succeeding age which once was reiected that the credit and authoritie it had not in the beginning it might gaine in time by mens calmnesse in iudging neither will I contend about the authority of this Epistle Let it be as great as euer any booke had we verily receiue it and put it in the Canon of the Scriptures for whatsoeuer Luther or any other may conclude touching this Epistle or lessen the credit of it any way yet all our Churches willingly imbrace it and iudge it written by the Apostle or some Apostolike man and in it do vndoubtedly acknowledge the doctrine and spirit of an Apostle * Caluin in argument in Epist. Iacob I saith Caluin willingly and without controuersie receiue this Epistle because I see no iust cause to reiect it Therefore obiect no longer vnto vs other mens sharpe censures and hard speeches whereof we are no wayes guilty for what is it to vs what other men thinke of this Epistle who dispraise no part of it neither detract any thing from the authority thereof But where I pray you writ Luther any such thing which you make mention of let vs see the place that we may perceiue how faithfully you deale You tell vs of a Preface he writ vpon the Epistle of S. Iames such as I thinke few men know for it is no where to be found amongest Luthers workes yet by accident I light vpon that preface and read it from the beginning to the ending in which not any of those things is to be seene which you mention so that we may easily coniecture what we are like to find of you in the sequell when in the beginning you are not ashamed to lye so palpablie For Luther begins his preface thus The Epistle of S. Iames though reiected of Antiquitie I much commeÌ„d hold very fitting profitable And in
Dioscorus as for diuer other faults so especially for excommunstating the Pope vvas depriued of Episcopall authority Act. 3. Besides they writ thus to Pope Leo. He exteÌ„deth his madnes against him vnto whom the custody of the vineyard is committed by our Sauiour and against thee who labourest to vnite the body of the Church Againe they desire that their decrees should be confirmed of the same Pope And Paschasinus saith that the Pope of Rome vvhichus head of all the Churches depriued him because as Lucentius addeth hee presumed to call a Councell vvithout the authority of the Apostolike Sea WHIT. pag. 302. This councell is so far from confirming the Popes supremacy that it plainly ouerthroweth it for though Pope Leo with all earnestnes opposed against the honor and dignity of the Bishop of Constantinople yet he obteinâ—â— of the Councell that degree of honor which he desired which he could not haue done if the Councell had acknovvledged the Popes supremacy Concerning Dioscorus he was depriued for many notable crimes as murther blasphemy against the Trinity burglary adultery and excommunicating the Pope and you make this last a speciall cause of his depriuation as though it were a more heinous crime then murther adultery and blasphemy Therein aduauncing your Pope as your manner is aboue the blessed Trinity The committing of the vineyard to Peter maketh nothing for your Pope who is not Peter nor any thing like him Proue that it was committed to the Pope and you say something The confirmation of the decrees was not a thing proper to the Pope but also appertained to the other Patriarckes and Metropolitanes yea to the Emperors Paschasinus and Lucentius accusing Dioscorus say not a word of the Popes supremacy although they were the Popes Legates And whereas he calleth Rome the head of all the Churches his meaning was that it was the first greatest and most famous Church Chalcedon that thereby you may proue that the chiefe honour is to be ascribed vnto the Bishop of the chiefe sea that is vnto Peter I graunt Campian that this sea in time past was had in the chiefe place of honour and I know very well that the chiefe dignitie was attributed to the Bishop of this sea the reason whereof you may easilie perceiue out of the selfe same Councell For this was not done by any commaundement of Christ that the Church of Rome should excell in dignitie all other Churches of the world but the Fathers testifie that the cause why that Citie was inuested with greater priuiledge than others was this because it was the chiefe seate of the Empire You may finde the words themselues in the same acte which you cite Act. 16. But if as you say the Church of Rome ought to haue the preheminence aboue all other Churches in the world in diuine authoritie what then ment the Chalcedonian Fathers to affirme that there were some prerogatiues graunted vnto that Church for this cause alone in that Rome was the head of the Empire and therefore they thought that the Bishop of that Citie which was the Empresse of the world was worthie of some more honour than others And this honour to speake of was onely this that the Bishop of Rome should haue the preheminence of place in Councels the prioritie of speech in deliuering his opinion and the precedence in rancke and place And thus neither doe we our selues now much enuie this honour to the Romane Bishop but that if so it please him he may enioy it so that he doe not because he hath the chiefe place imperiouslie tyranize ouer his brethren as he hath done for many ages and perswadeth himselfe that he may doe it lawfully But seeing it pleaseth you to obiect vnto vs the CouÌ„cel of Chalcedon that you may challenge the chiefe honor as due to your Bishop of the chiefe Sea before I proceed further I would gladly you should resolue me in this question why the f DVR This was not the iudgement of the whole CouÌ„cell but of certeine men Neither did the Constantinopolitanes require that their Sea should be of equall authority with the Sea of Rome but that it should haue the like soueraignty in Ecclesiasticall matters and obtainâ— the next place to it WHIT. pag. 306. This was the iudgment of the whole Councell except the Popes owne Legates Paschasinus Bonefacius and Lucentius who in vaine opposed for the decree runneth thus These things we all say these things please vs all And contrary to your assertion these Fathers decreed that the Bishop of Constantinople should be matched in equall priuiledge with the Bishop of Rome which equality of priuiledges cannot stand with the vnequality of authority Neither did prioritie of place proue that the Bishop of Rome had any priority of authoritie sâ—â—ing this was only for orders sake otherwise by the same reason the Bishop of ConstaÌ„tinople should haue had the like authority ouer the Bishop of Alexandriâ— because he sate aboue him Fathers of this Councell made the Sea of Constantinople equall to the Sea of Rome for so they decree and diffinitiuely determine that seeing great priuiledges were graunted to the Church of Rome in respect of the Empire of the citie they thought it a matter of great equity that the new Rome that was now graced with the Empire and Senate should enioy the same priuiledges which old Rome had done And although the Bishop of Rome did most earnestly contend and labour that the Bishop of Constantinople might not be made his equall yet he could not by his best meanes effect his desire but that the decree of the Councell preuailed which had equalised the Bishop of Constantinople with the Bishop of Rome And therefore me thinkes you haue but ill defended the honor and dignity of your Bishop when you alleadge the decree of that Councell Moreouer the Councell of g DVR The filth Canon of the Councell of Constantinople ascribed greater honor to the Romane Sea then to any other WHIT. pag. 311. This honor was only of precedence and place and not of authority as plainly appeareth in the words of the Councell it selfâ— Chap. â—8 and in that the like prerogatiue was graunted in the next place to the Bishop of Constantinople and therefore by the like reason he might â—rrogâ—â—â— authority ouer the whole Church Constantinople which you also cite Canon 5. decreed no other thing for the Romane Sea then that the Bishop of Constantinople should haue the prerogatiue of honor next to the Bishop of Rome And this we also confesse that in times past the Prouinces were so distributed that Rome had the chiefe Constantinople the next and so euery one in their owne order But what maketh that to this cause which we haue now in hand For this is not the honor which the Bishop of Rome challengeth vnto himselfe this not the height of power and maiestie which he so often arrogateth Ephes Conc. in Epist ad Nestor The Councell also of h DVR
away Aeneas take Pius What shal I further recite Petrarch Mantuan and other Poets both learned and famous which feared not with Satiricall verses to inueigh against the Pope and Cardinals and the whole clergie all things were then so out of order that all sinnes might without controulâ—â—ent both be practised and openly blamed I need not to seeke farre remember what Cornelius Bishop of Bicontine not many yeares agoe at the Councell of Trent spake openly in the presence and audience of the whole Church whose witnes must needs be strong and effectuall against you though of it selfe it bee little worth Thus he saith Cornel. Bicontin in concil Crident Would to God they had not all with one consent turned from religion to superstition from faith to infidelity from Christ to Antichrist from God to Epicurisme Behold the Marks of your Church suâ—â—â—stition infidelity Antichrist Epicure for all this you are not ashamed to affirme that no Historie either yours or ours hath bewrayed or testified any such matter But Campian the more you defend the integrity of your Church the more you cause vs to manifest the corruptions of it Our aduersaries say you doe grant that the Romane Church was once a holy Church This we confesle and that then it was holy when Paul published those her worthie praise which you remember and yet those praises by you mentioned doe not belong to that Church alone but were giuen also to other Churches Rom. 1. â— For what if the faith of the Romanes were published in the whole world this was no proper or peculiar priuiledge of that Church Hath not the Apostle written asmuch of the Church of Thessalonica 1. Thess 1.8 Your faith to wards God is spread in all places What if hee made mention of the Romanes without ceasing Rom. 1.9 so did he also incessantly remember the Thessalonians 1. Thess 1.3 What though he doubted not but hee should come vnto the Romanes in abundance of the blessing of Christ Rom. 15.29 thinke you his comming into other Churches was lesse fruitfull Rom. 16.19 What if all Churches saluted the Romanes and their obedience was euery where spoken of know you not that all the Saints vsed to salute one another or suppose you that other Churches were not as obedient to the Apostles as this But we grant you that at this time it was holy what would you more Act. 28. Then also when Paul preached the Gospell there in his fauourable restraint This also wee grant what more 1. Pet. 5.13 And then also when Peter gathered and gouerned the Church there calling it Babylon We deny not this And though I can be well content that you call Rome Babylon for I doubt not but it is the same of which h DVR Saint Iohn speaketh of Rome vvhen it yet abhorred the saith of Christ aâ—d persecuted Christians WHIT. pag. 512. Nay S. Jâ—â—n described Rome as it was restored and reedified by Antichrist for when â—e wâ—â—teth Apoc 18. â— who seeth not that this cannot be vnderstood of auncient Rome but of Rome when it was the habitation of Saints rather then Diuels and the hold of the Spirit of God rather then foule spirits Iohn writes so much in the Reuelation the mother of whoredomes and abominations of the earth yet I cannot be so easily perswaded that i DVR Yet Oecumenius Hierome Eusebius Tertullian to say nothing of others do graunt it And to make question of Peters being at Rome is as if you should doubt whether euer Romulus Iulius Caeser or Pompeie was there For if Cyprian Eusebius Doâ—oâ—heus Epiphanius Optatus Hicrom and many others may not be beleeued vvhat shall euer be certeine in any History WHIT pag. 508. All these testimonies proue nothing that I haue either doubted of or denied for I desire authority of Scriptures not the opinions of men I desire euery man who desireth saluation to weigh this one thing well That whereas the whole gouernment Hierarchy of the Papacie hangeth on this soundation that S. Peter was Bishop of Rome yet they haue no word in the Scriptures to shew that he euer was so and so the whole Papacie is hanged vpon the coniectures of men as vpon a rotten threed for what if many Histories say he was there if the Scripture say no such thing what assurance can be of it for matter of faith the mind must needs bee suspicious and doubtfull it is true that the receiued opinion is that hee was there But who knoweth not that that which one deliuereth at the first may increase by fame and be by many reserued to posterity At the first an auncient writer mentioned S. Peters apposing of Symon Magus and saith it was at Rome and him haue many followed since and hence from the common rumors and suspiâ—ions of men sprung vp the Popes chairâ— And who shall then giue assurance of faith in this thing when there is no place of Scripture for it nay when many places are against it These specially Galat. 2.7.9 Now if S. Peter should be Bishop of Rome for so many yeares it vvas against both his order of life and his faith Act. 28.22.23 Novv they could not be so ignorant if that S. Peter for so many yeares before had gouerned that Church S. Paul abode in Rome tvvo yeares and thence writ many Epâ—stles and in them spake of many of the brethren but neuer once named S. Peter supole you hee vvould bee tvvo yeares from his Church Galat. 2.1.2 But he ought rather to haue been at Rome as a good Bishop ought to be vvith his flocke vnlesse you can proue he might substitute a Vicar Besides the Histories themselues are in such â—ariety of opinions that you can hardly tell vvhom to follovv some say he came â—o Rome in the first yeare of Claudâ—us the Emperour some in the second some in the fouâ—â—â— and some in the tenth yeare and it may be that none of these is true sure it is all cannot be true Peter meanes Rome in this place here Campian you are alwaies at a nonplus could yet neuer proâ—ue that Peter was at Rome But you take this for granted and as alreadie prooued which if any man once deny then like the Mathematicians you haue done and can goe no further But why may I not reasonably think that Peter meaneth that Babylon which once was the chiefe Citie of the Assiâ—ians in which Citie certeinly were many Iewes Galat. 2.9 vnto whom Peter was appointed Apostle peculiarly If I should set downe that which I could alleage in this cause I feare I should trie your patience too much In the meane time I allow well your confession that Rome is Babylon and hereafter at your leisure you may declare vpon what occasion the name of it was altered You may not now bee angrie with vs if following Peters example from hencefoorth wee also call Rome Babylon Now I hope at length you will rest and be
impossibilities that al men may perceiue they were ascribed to vs by you most falsly and most impudently I do craue not only of all men of our Vniuersities but also of all ChristiaÌ„s that haue care of true religion and of their owne saluation that they will not suffer themselues to be misled by any lies and impostures of the aduersarie from that holy doctrine which they haue learned Wherefore I will set vpon these your monsters Campian that after I haue stopt your mouth being ful of blasphemy both the glory of God which is in hand and our innocency which is oppugned may be preserued from your violence You say the disputation shall be if they please of God of Christ of Man of Sinne of Righteousnes of the Sacraments of Manners But we are readie to dispute with you not only about these but also about other points which are now in difference of the Scripture of the Church of the Bishop of Rome of Transubstantiation of Freewill of Indulgences of Purgatorie and of the rest of your doctrines Neuerthelesse either many are deceiued or else you do rather thinke of fighting then disputing And I hope that you shall once haue freedome granted you for that disputation which you so often desire But now let vs attend how you endeuour to make vs know these positions of our men God say you is the willing Of God suggesting efficient commaunding and working author and cause of sinne and such a one as therein gouerneth the impious counsels of the wicked It is an horrible thing and not to be vttred Campian that any one should make God the author of sinne such an one were worthy to be smitten instantly by the Lord with a thunderbolt into the deepest pit of hell If a DVR But if I do not shew that Caluin is the maintainer of this so horrible ablasphemy I refuse no punishment for so great a slaÌ„der thus he writeth Instit lib. 1. cap. 18. sect 1. Absolom defiling his fathers bed with incest committed a detestable crime yet God pronounceth that this was his worke WHIT pag. 525. I wonder that there is any maÌ„ found like to Campian who will â—uow that to be said and defended by our men which they haue euer most plainly condemned as Melanct. on Rom. 1. c. Pet. Mart on Iudg 9. and Caluin on Iam. 1. vers 13. Beza against Castellio of eternall predestination for touching these words which you obiect to Caluin what doth he affirme but that which the Scripture hath deliuered 2. Sam 12.11.12 vnlesse perhapâ— you will deny that to be Gods deed which God himselfe witnesseth to be his Neither will your sophisme follow hereupon ergo God is the author of sin for Caluin ascribeth not the sinne but the worke to God For if in that incest you can consider nothing but sinne it must bee imputed to your ignorance Caluin or Martyr or Philip or Luther or any of vs do affirme it I do not denie but we are all guilty of horrible blasphemie and impiety If I would largely prosecute this whole cause which you doe but touch I should make no end therfore I will declare in few words both what we teach and wherein you lie We professe not only that God is good but also goodnes it self yea good in himself in his owne esseÌ„ce in whom there is no euill from whom nothing but good can come who is so good that all his doings be very good and that not so much as any of his thoughts can be euil These things we speake these things we teach these things we beleeue with our harts and confesse with our mouthes Seeing therefore God is so perfectly good that all his things be in a certaine excellent manner good it hath been in times past inquired and most grauely disputed wheÌ„ce that euil sprung which had spread so far what might be the cause of this euill This question Augustine often handled because of the Mâ—nichies In 12. quest 79. art 1. 2. and therein also Thomas of Aquine imployed himselfe much and diligently Wee say that this euill was brought in by the b DVR But Caluin saith that when the Diuel moueth men to sinne hee is rather the instrument of God than thâ— author oâ— sinne Instit lib. 2. cap. 4. Ser. 5. WHIT pag. 528. This allegation is full of slander This is Caluins meaning that albeit the Diuell be rather an instrument than the author of the action yet hee is the supreme and chiefe of the sinne in the action Diuell who although hee were made good in the beginning by the Lord yet by his freewill he made defection from the Lord and sinned â—nd did perswade and was the author vnto man to commit sin from hence whatsoeuer is sin either in the diuels or in men did wholy flow and not any the least peece of it had being from God whom we do maintaine by infinite testimonies of Scripture to be the author of no c DVR But what is more often in the mouth of Caluin all Caluinists â—hen this that God doth not only permit but will sinne that he doth moue and thrust vs forward to sinne nay that be doth by the efficacie of his will impose a necessity of sinning vpon vs WHIT. pag. 529. God willeth sinne but not simplie and so farre forth as it is sinne but as it is a chastisement so 1. Pet. 4.19 and God doth stirre vp and moue that sinne which lieth hidde in vs yet he doth not frame or put sinne into vs as the Physitian is not the author of dâ—seases when he purgeth out the most corrupt humours And man not indued with the holy Ghost falleth of his ovvne accord into a necessity of sinning so as he sinneth not by any fault of God but by his ovvne fault sinne and so do teach it in our schooles and Churches Psal 44. Zach. 8.17 Gen. 18.25 1. Ioh. 1.5 For he hateth sin he loueth righteousnes he which is the Iudge of the whole earth it must needs be that he is euery way most iust God is light and there is no darknes in him And these are the things which wee teach the people concerning God that all may vnderstand hee is a most seuere reuenger of all sinnes Now then Campian with what face dare you seeing you know these to bee our doctrines impute vnto vs such a slaÌ„der not to be vttred in so much as you affirme that we speake and thinke things flat contrary But you say Caluin and Martyr haue taught this this thing Nay rather they are wholy bent vpoÌ„ this that they maintaine that can by no meanes bee It would be long to set down their words I do beseech the Reader to reade with an attentiue and peaceable mind these same very places which Campian hath abused vnto slander And if they doe not both deny most plainly that God is the author and cause of sin and also if they do not proue that they
some filthines About the most of which seeing that you haue had an answere made you by him whom you name Reuerend Charke I maruell that you haue returned them to vs heere againe There must needs be great lacke of true imputations seeing that you haue no varietie at all of false ones And seeing that my fellow souldier and companion in Christ William Charke did labour diligeÌ„tly in these things those things which are largely enough confuted by him shall bee run ouer now by mee briefely and shortly It shall bee therefore enough for mee to cut in sunder these your peeces which haue been before so broken in shiuers as that they might seeme able to hurt none Wherefore now spue out these your morsels of reproches And heare ye them If the wife will not or cannot let the maid come A filthie and vncleanely speech as it seemeth Luther wrote a little booke of marriage in the second part whereof hee remembers three causes whereby hee thinketh marriage may be dissolued The first is Impotencie another is Adultrie the third is Desertion Now hee expoundes that to be desertion when as the wilful and obstinate wise can by no meanes bee perswaded to performe the office of due benouelence to the husband for there are some such froward wiues found that although the husband doe fall ten times into whordome yet they regard it neuer a whit Wherefore Luther thinketh it fit for the husband to fray his wife with words and to threaten hir on this manner If you will not another will If the mistrisse will not let the maide come With whom if threats preuaile not let him conuent her before others and bring the matter to the Church But now if she be neither moued with priuate threatnings nor by the publike reproofes of the Church then saith Luther diuorce her and take Ester into Vashties place Only to propouÌ„d these things in this maÌ„ner is a very euident confutation of Campians reproch For who doth not marke what counsaile Luther gaue to the husband not that he should presently take his mayd but that he should propose threats of diuorce to his obstinate wife and breake her stomacke by that meane Now as for this opinion of Luther about this kind of diuorce though I doe not defend yet you cannot accuse it c DVR You are ignorant that vvith vs only adultery is the cause of diuorce WHIT. pag. 688. Nay you are ignorant of your owne Canons for to omit others see what the Tridentine Fathers decreed If any shall say that the Church doth erre vvheÌ„ shee decreeth that for many causes diuoâ—ce from bâ—dde and cobabitation may be had either for a certaine or vnlimited time let him be accursed Do not you now differ from your owne Councell as alâ—o from the Apostle For among you there be infinite causes of diuorce so as in so great liberty of diuorce it is maruaile that any marriage stood in force If Luther had at any time written any such thing as wee reade was written by Clement whom you brag to haue beene Pope of Rome what tragedies would yee haue raised Heare Campian I would haue you marke whereto this speech tendeth d DVR If you had seene some old copies or vvaighed the scope of the Epistle you might easilie haue seene that the place is corrupted WHIT. pag. 689. I can be content you should defend Clement for I easily thinke that Clement would neuer speake so dishonestly But when you father Epistles vpon auncient Bishops such as they neuer writ God would shew your perfidie by manifest demonstrations For copies we haue none whether old or new but from you and many I haue seene and they all haue it Yet remember that you here confesse the Popes decretall Epistles to bee corrupted why 〈◊〉 forged which other where you perempâ—orily deny The common vse of all things Clement Epist 5. that are in this world ought to be to all men But through mens naughtines one said that this was his and another that and so there is a diuision made betweene mortall men Finally one of the wise men of the Grecians knowing this to bee so saith that all things among frieÌ„ds ought to be common Now among al things without doubt are husbands and wiues You may think you heare some Plato discoursing of the communitie of things alleadge some like place of Luthers What theÌ„ followeth after in those patches of yours For because the carnall knowledge of the wife is as necessarie to euery one as meate and drinke and sleepe are e DVR Tertul de Monog Hieron lib. 1. contra Iouinian vnderstand it only of those vvho are married that they might lawfully keepe and haue their wiues still WHIT pag. 690. That which Tertullian writ for the heretike Montanus that you greatly approue of And hee that knoweth not Hierome to bee further carried in the contempt of marriages then the Scriptures do allow of he accounteth the authoritie of Hieromes writings more then of the Word of God But the Apostle reiecteth this interpretation for when he commandeth that euery man should haue his wife to auoid foâ—nication vvho seeth not that this law concerneth the vnmaâ—ried who are forbidden fornication as well as the married And after in the 9. vers he speaketh to the vnmarried If they cannot absteine let them marâ—â—â— for it is better to marrie then to burne Therefore hee doth not onliâ— commaund that they vvho haue vviues keepe them still but that they vvhâ—â— haue not should marrie if they found it necessarie for them to auoid incontiâ—â—â—cie The Apostle commandeth 1 Cor. 7.2.9 that euery one for the auâ—iding of fornication haue his wife and euery woman her owne husband and that they that cannot conteine should marrie They therefore who haue it not giuen to them by God as that they can alwaies be without wiues to such it is necessary that they marry wiues if they will bee honest and chaste For I confesse that marriage is not necessarie for them who may wallow without punishment in all manner of vncleannesse and lust But goe forward Marriage is much better than Virginitie and against this Christ and Saint Paul perswaded Christian men The same things doe not agree to all men and that which is most profitable to some one may be contrarie to the inclinations of others Virginitie is one of those indifferent things which are as they are vsed for it is not simply good for then it were vnlawfull at all to thinke of marriage but after a sort f DVR VVhat is this else but euen the same that Iouinian ansâ—vered vnto Hierome the rest of the auncient Fathers As Augustine shevveth De. Sancta Virginitate cap. 21.22.23.24 WHIT. pag. 691. Whosoeuer will be single for this only end that he may liue so much the more 〈◊〉 â—ase and in the more pleasure and not be troubled with the necessary cares of marriage do deserue to be blamed with Iouinian And this sort
also happily at thy commaund though not to be drawne with thy hand speaking to the Pope WHIT. pag. 747. Duraeus is ashamed of this sophisme buâ— yet he fathereth it vpon Bernard which also Iohannes a Capistrano of the Pope and Councels p 77. and others of them haue handled and Pope Boniniface girt himselfe with a sword in signe hereof but this place speaketh nothing at all for any such power Pope must beare both swords The seruant is not aboue his master therefore i DVR What Catholike euer taught or wrote thus howbeit the Fathers of the Sinuessan Councell said The chiefe seate is iudged of no man WHIT. pag. 749. Thus you will make the Pope no Catholike who saith Dist 40. si Pâ—pa The Pope may bee reproued of no mortall man though he leade with him innumerable people vnto hell And who knoweth not these two pillers of Popery the Church of Rome cannot erre whatsoeuer it teacheth and the Pope may not be accused whatsoeuer â—e doth The Bishops of the Sinuessan Synode spake to Marcellinus the Pope who had denied Christ and committed Idolatrie and might bee accused by the Popes owne lawes so that in citing that authoritie you contradict both your selfe and your lawes it is lawfull for no man to accuse or reproue the Pope Christ prayed that Peters faith should not faile him k DVR Christ made Peter his Vicar on earth and by his prayer obtained that his Vicars faith might not faile by force vvherof the Pope cannot erre as Augustine and Cyprian also perceiued WHIT pag. 750. It is not true that Christ made Peter his Vicar nor doth it follow Peters faith failed not therefore no Popes faith hath failed who are his successors for Popes haue done and may fall into heresies as you will confesse and may erre in faith saith Pope Boniface Dâ—st 40. Papa which he could not do it this argument of yours vvere true Further Christ prayed for all his Apostles and the whole Church shal we say Christs prayer was lesse effectuall for the rest then for Peter If it be not then none of their successors could erre no more then Peters which I suppose you will not affirme And Augustine and Cyprian neuer reasoned as you do you abuse their names therefore the Pope cannot erre The vulgar people commeth seldome and negligently to the Lords Supper l DVR If you beleeued the Prophet Malachie or the Masse you vvould confesse this argument to be good WHIT pag. 753. You can neuer proue your Masse by the Prophet Malachie who speaketh of the prayers of the godly as Tertullian Eusebius and Jerome expound him and if the Masse were a sacrifice indeed as you call it the peoples negligence is no sufficient cause to make it priuate and yet to profit the people yea though they be absent you may aswel abuse the Word it selfe so and say it is inough when it is in publike it the Priest handle it and heare it and beleeue it alone yet the people being absent and not dreaming of any such thing may be saued by it therefore the Priest may celebrate priuate Masse Christ admitted onlie his Apostles to Suppe therefore Priests alone must m DVR The people also receiue the vvhole Sacrament vnder one kind WHIT pag. 754. It is childish dotage to say so as though one part of a thing were the vvhole or as if Christ appointing both bread and wine ordained more then a whole Sacrament that Pope was wiser vvhich said of certaine heretikes that refrained from the Cup as you doâ— De concil dist 2. cap. Comperimus Let them either receiue the vvhole Sacrament or refuse all DVR Christs vvords Drinke yee all of this proue nâ—t that all Christians must doe so WHIT. pag. 755. They doe proue it as those vvords take eate doe proue that all must eate and you may as vvell keepe both the elements from the people as one contrarie to S. Paul 1. Cor. 11.23 DVR The Passeouer might be eaten vvithout vvine WHIT. pag. 756. It might because God had not commaunded vvine but Christ himselfe commaundeth it in his Supper 1. Cor. 11.45 DVR The common people are aâ—t bound to drinke of the Cap for S. Paul saith As oft as ye drinke it to signifie they were not commanded so to doe WHIT. So he saith of the bread also As of as yee eate 1. Cor. 11.26 so that by your argument neither is the bread commanded them receiue the Sacrament the people ought to bee contented only with one part The title which Pilate fastned vpon the Crosse was written in Hebrew Greeke Latine therfore n DVR No Catholike doth so reason we say that title had in it a mysterie and Augustine proueth by it that the vvord coessentâ—all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be vsed in the Creede WHIT. pag. 757. Papists often reason thus as all men knovve which read their writings though you bee ashamed of it Tell vs what mysterie you meane if it bee worth the labour as for Augustine hee speakes no word that makes here for your cause yet you blush not to quote him prayers must bee read in the Churches in no language but either Hebrew or Greeke or Latine Harding That which is holy must not be giuen to dogges o DVR VVe say not that all but that some of the people may not haue the Scriptures committed to them WHIT. pag. 758. Who doubteth but that vvisedome is to be vsed in teaching the people and that they vvhich shevv themselues dogges and hogges must be barred from the Scriptures but this is nothing to the present question vvhether this reason be good vvhich Papists sometimes vse and vvhich here you should haue spoken to and not thus vvander therfore the vulgar people must be forbidden to reade the Scriptures This is my bodie therefore the p DVR Christ said it vvay his bodie WHIT. pag. 759. Christ by an vsuall phrase of Scripture called the thing signifying by the name of the thing signified because of the sacramentall ioint receiuing of both to vvit of the bread vvith the mouth and of his bodie by faith Againe if that vvhich vvas in Christs hands vvere his reall body vvhen he said so then vvas transubstantiation before vvhich you deny and then he had tvvo bodies but if it vvere bread then is there a metonymie in his vvords as vvee truly say bread is turned into Christs bodie Fall downe before his footestoole q DVR Ambrose and Augustine reasoned so from this Scripture WHIT p. 761. That is false they teach onely that vve must vvorship Christ in the mysteries and Sacrament not the myâ—teries and Sacrament themselues therefore the Sacrament must be worshipped God is no respecter of persons Pighius r DVR That vvas Pighius his error but the iudgement of Catholike Vniuersities is that foreseeing of merits is no cause of Predestination WHIT. pag. 762. Thus you fall from your champion Pighius in vvords
orphanorum Tu leuamen oppressorum Medicamen infirmorum Omnibus es omnia That is to say Thou blessed Virgin Marie art the infallible l DVR Saint Paul calleth the Thessalonians his hope 1. Thess 2.19 WHIT. pag. 796. But hee neuer put his trust in nor called vpon them as you doe the Virgin Marie hee called them his hope because he receiued great hope and ioy by his labours in their conuersion You make the Virgin an instrument of our saluation and therefore you trust in her but the Scriptures teach euery where to trust in God and Christ only As Psal 71.3 Ier. 17.5.7 1. Tim. 1.1 and 1. Pet. 1.21 hope of such as are in miserie the true mother of Orphanes Thou art the consolation of such as be oppressed the medicine of such as bee diseased Thou art all m DVR The sentence of the Catholike Church hath no vvhere alloued this but if it had it might be conueniently defended WHIT pag. 797. Duraeus can conueniently expound that which most absurdly taketh the office of reâ—eÌ„ption froÌ„ Christ and giueth it to the Virgin Mary in all to all men or in all necessities and other such like abominable speeches and full of strange blasphemie If happily you thinke our reproouing of these things be but some fighting with a shadow then doe you no more respect the glorie of God than the shadow of an Asse The second error in disputation wherewith you charge vs Logomachia is that wee often vse Logomachia which is when the sense is neglected and men contend about the word I vnderstand it well but which bee those our faults committed in this kinde Can you finde vs say they the Masse or Purgatorie in the Scriptures And is not this our demaund reasonable For where should these be found rather than in the Scriptures There was nothing wont to be accounted more holy than the Masse and there could nothing be inuented more gainfull than Purgatorie that neither of these now at last should be found in the Scriptures certainly it may well seeme a very strange and vnreasonable thing Belike then say you Trinitas the Trinitie Homousios coessentiall Persona a person are no where in the Bible because these very termes are not to be found there Neither say we so Campian nor will it follow at all hereupon and these things be altogether vnequally compared For albeit these very termes are not in Scriptures Epiphan contra Semiarian l. 3 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet the matter it selfe and the sense as Epiphanius writeth commeth to hand in all places and is easily euery where to bee found But your n DVR Did you neuer reade these vvords of Christ in his last Supper this is my body WHIT. pag. 799. Yea but Christ ordeined then a SacrameÌ„t not a sacrifice he offered himselfe a sacrifice only once vpon the Crosse Heb 9 10. not in his last Supper except you will say he died then also vvhich he must haue done to make it a sacrifice but he was then aliue it were most absurd to say he was aliue and dead at one time which he needs must be both then and in al your Masses if there be any sacrifice in the Masse at all Againe externall sacrifices as you say your Masse is are subiect to the sight outward senses but no man euer saw Christ to be sacrificed either in the Supper or in the Masse Therefore there is none neither in the one nor in the other DVR Jt vvas a sacrifice for Christ vvas really conteined vnder those former of bread and vvine and so the Masse is novv an vnbloodie sacrifice WHIT. pag. 801. You cannot prooue him to be so present there as you teach by no Scripture and if he were yet that was not therefore a sacrifice except you will haue his reall being in the Virgins wombe also to be a sacrifice in which he was conteined As for your vnbloody propitiatorie sacrifice first it is absurd for to sacrifice killeth a bodie but your Transubstantiation maketh a bodie secondly it hath no word of God for it thirdly it is needlesse Christs sacrifice being perfect fourthly Christ ordained that supper in memorie of his sacrifice not to be it selfe a sacrifice WHIT. pag. â—03 DVR Many of the Fathers call the Eucharist by the name of sacrifice WHIT. pag 805. Not because it is that same which Christ offered as you teach but because it is a memoriall and Sacrament of it DVR Purgatorie is most plainely prooued by the fact of Iudas Machabaeus in the second booke and 12. chapter WHIT. pag. 806. Those bookes are not Canonicall Scripture neither doth that act prooue a Purgatorie by your owne doctrine who say those that die in deadly sinne as those did there mentioned goe to hell and not to Purgatorie Masse and Purgatorie are not in this manner in the Scriptures seeing neither the names nor the things themselues any where do appeare yea they are plainly against the Scriptures For what else is either the Masse than as * Bustum coenae Dominica an empty sepulchre where is onely the title of the Lords Supper or what is Purgatorie more than a shamelesse merchandise of soules and an intolerable contempt against the blood of Christ Wherefore this is not a trisling contention about words but a most waightie one about matters of moment except peraduenture you make account of the Masse and Purgatorie not to bee matters of moment but words of Arte only As for the name o DVR The office of a Presbyter or Elder in the Gospell is the same that the Priests office vvas in the Lavve WHIT. pag. 807. It is not so for if the office did remaine why should the name be changed for Elders are neuer called Priests in the new Testament And there be ruling Elders in the Church which labour not in the Ministerie of the word and Sacraments as the Priests did Presbyter and Sacrament it is appropriated from the common signification to some certaine and particular things as likewise many other names are to wit Ecclesia the Church Episcopus a Bishop Apostolus an Apostle Diaâ—onus a Deacon and these names wee willingly vse but so that wee carefully shunne their impertinent significations Neither was that indeede sufficient cause why you should register Matrimonie in the catalogue of Sacraments because S. Paul wrote thus Sacramentum hoc magnum Eph. 5. This is a great mysterie For in that place Sacramentum is vsed in a large signification for any mysterie not for that ceremony which may properly be called a Sacrament As for that counsell of Thomas Aquinas we doe very well approue it The third head Homonymia or kinde of deceitfull disputation which you say we vsually erre in is Homonymia equiuocation or a mistaking the sense of words whereof you propound two examples For say you we both confound the order of Priests because S. Iohn hath tearmed vs all Priests and also abolish choice of
but that he might vvith more liuely sense of his brethrens miserie humble himselfe to God as for John Baptists coÌ„tinuall diet it vvas locusts and vvild hony nothing like your fasting It is meere dorage and superstation to call abstinence only from some delicate meates fasting though other as delicate be eaten as you doe no Prophets nor auncient Christians in the Church euer fasted thus froÌ„ flesh may at his pleasure glut himselfe with all maner of dainties Or who can suppose that the Fridayes fast is holier then the Wednesdayes fast but he must too much sauour of Iudaisme If S. Paul reproued the Galathians Gal. 4.10 because they did obserue dayes and y DVR This is an auncient cauill of heretiks long since ansevered by Ierome and Augustine that vve obserue not the same dayes that Ievves and Gentiles did WHIT. pag. 824. The Church in thâ—ir time did not bind mens consciences to the obseruation of daies as you doe and as did the Galathians iudging it necessarie for Christians to fast at your set times which if it had done yet the authoritie of men must not preuaile more than Scripâ—ures moneths and times is it likely he would endure our Papists which erre more grossely and shamefully If he forewarned the Colossians that they would not be intangled with their superstition Colos 2.21 which thought that some certaine meates were not to be z DVR Saint Paul reprooueth there the practise of Ievvish ceremonies WHIT. pag. 8â—6 True and all other like them which are mans ordinances and doctrines as he saith plamely verse 22. of which sort yours are else shew vs Scripture for them touched not to be tasted not to be handled would he allow the papisticall choice of meates If he determined long since 1. Tim. 4.2.3 that it was diuelish and a DVR You sight against vs vvith the Manichees vveapoâ—s vvhom Augustine aâ—svvered against Faust lib. 30. cap. 5. That true Christians abstaine from certaine meates and fruites more or lesse as they please and are able to tame the bodie and humble the soule against sinne not as though thâ—se creatures vvere vncâ—â—â—e WHIT. pag. 817. Thus you make Saint Paul a Manichee but indeed he there condemneth them and all that forbid to cate meates vnder paine of damnation which you doe and that place of Augustine plainely sheweth how your fasts differ from the Christian fasts in his time first they were to tame and humble men yours doe not so secondly they thought no meates vncleane you say men are polluted by eating some forbidden thirdly they abstained from sith and fruites as from flesh in their fasts you doe not so fourthly they fasted as they thought good and could but you make generall lawes of fastings to binde men thereto hypocriticall to absteine from certaine meates if he were now liuing would he change his doctrine and command this abstinence to a Christian We truely for our parts do alwayes and very highly commend a true fast whether it be priuate or publike neither do we commend them only but also we vse them as this yeare last past may most plentifullie witnesse for vs during which publike fasts were most religiously obserued in very many places As for those fasts of Moses and Dauid Helias and Iohn Baptist and the Apostles wherein were they any whit like vnto yours for if fasting do consist in choyce of meates and in appointing set dayes as you resolutely iudge it doth informe me if you can that they either at any time b DVR The auncient obseruation of Lent of VVednesday and Fridates fast and of the Ember daies might haue informed you hereof WHIT. p. 828. 829. You play the Sophister here in graine for Moses Elias Dauid â—ohn Baptist and the Apostles nouerkept those fasts neither did they nor any of the auncient Fathers preferre fish before flesh in theirâ— fastings as you doe DVR Aeriuâ— vvas counted an heretike vvho taught the same doctrine of fasting vvhich you do Epiphan haerel 75. WHIT. pag. 829. 830. The auncient Church disliked Euslathius his eagernes against Aerius in this point as witnesseth Socrates l. 2. c. 43. Sozomen l. 3. c. 13. Aerius might be an Arrian and so an heretike but of fasting he taught the same with Augustine Epist. 86. that there were no certaine times of fasting appointed by the Apostles Tertullian contra Psychicoâ— witnesseth that in the auncient ChristiaÌ„ church meÌ„ vsed to fast voluÌ„tarily freely not by CanoÌ„ or precept Epiphanius defeÌ„ded Eustathius against the churches iudgmeÌ„t in this point touching Aerius preferred fish before flesh or vsed inioyned and yearely set fasts For Iohn Baptist vsed continually to fast in his manner and the others fasted as the times and present occasions required in which their fasts they absteined as well from fish as from flesh Therefore in one word to wipe away your imputation of Homonymie I denie that we vse any For in that that we require the spirituall fast we dislike not the externall 〈◊〉 Tim. 4.8 howsoeuer this outward fast be nothing profitable without the spirituall But this deceitfull argumentation if there were any such here is rather by inferring a weake consequeÌ„t then by Homonymie or equiuocation how beit what the truth is we haue sufficiently ciscussed You haste forward and ioyne vnto these a fourth manner of deceiptfull disputation Circulatio named Circulation which is when one after a few words to no purpose returneth againe to the same and beggeth the question I acknowledge it to be a grosse and vnsauorie kind of sophistry so to do but shew me an example of our so doing You propound one example namely about the true notes of the Church for heere you say we alwayes make circuits and rounds and vse that very same thing for an argument wherein the question lieth But how prooue you that forsooth because we say the notes of the Church be the word of God and the Sacraments And so we say truly for they who haue these haue a Church of Christ but they who altogether want these are vtterly without both the Church and Christ Let vs contend about these notes that it may be discerned whether you or we haue them Tell me in what Court shall we try this title before what Commissioner before what Iudge shall we commence our plea I suppose the word of God must be consulted with But you say you haue alreadie consulted with it and you now fauour our cause lesse then you did before But I say Campian we rest vpon the word of God and not on your iudgement Yea but say you prooue vnto me that this is the word of God nay it were more meete that you should proue it is not And I also require of you that you will do the same thing which you commaund me to do namely that you will proue your word and Sacraments to be the very same which Christ hath commended vnto his Church Wherefore this
iudgement for he writeth directly and flatly contrarie to that Inslit lib. 1. cap. 15. sect 4. that you bring him in speaking q DVR But Caluin saith that the Saints haue nothing within but contagion and corruption For if there be in the Saints no true iustice but all their vvorkes are sinnes vvhat can be in them besides corruption and contagion WHIT. pag. 572. Doe you neither feare God nor reuerence man Shew vâ— any such words of Caluin if you can if you cannot why doe you repeate that which Campian most falsely obiected at the first There are in the Saints and the regenerate many excellent vertues and graces of the holy Ghost as faith loue hope patience c. who euer said that these vvere nothing but corruption and contagion fie away vvith you and your slander As for your argument it is marue lous slender for though the Saints haue no iustice of their ovvne vvhich doth perfectly satisfie the Lavv of God yet they are indued vvith many excellent vertues and ornaments of the holy Ghost If I should reason because there is no sound learning in you at all therefore there is nothing but meere ignorance in you I should conclude the one as truly as you the other As for your last slander that all the vvorkes of the Saints are sinnes vve say no that they are sinnes but that by reason of the inherent corruption they are tainted vvith some spot of sin and haue not that perfection vvhich the law and iustice of God requireth Wil you say that he vvho is lightly touched vvith some disease is nothing else but the disease you should certainly stand in need of Physitions and much Physicke if you should thus speake That the image of God was not quite blotted out in man But this is your fashion that when you cannot reprooue those things which we doe say then you faine those things to be said by vs which may easily be reprooued We teach that man was created and formed so in the beginning that hee was answerable to the image of God in all things Now that image was a most perfect entirenes of all parts heaped vp with all good graces and vertues which could bee incident to the pure nature of man Whatsoeuer he did imagine desire will thinke or vnderstand was holie and right and agreeable to Gods will yea euen to the rule of that law Thou shalt loue God with all thy heart with all thy soule with all thy strength and thy neighbour as thy selfe But after that Adam had slid backe from God we say that this image was pitifully corrupted and deformed that neither the vnderstanding did retaine that ancient light nor the will did loue God nay the whole will was turned from him neither did there remaine entire any facultie either of bodie or soule Although therefore we denie not that some reliques of that most noble image do remaine still yet we hold that all that which may reconcile and make vs acceptable vnto God and bee sufficient for vs to saluation is blotted out and extinguished All reason and iudgement and vnderstanding which was some little peece of that image is not vtterly lost there is not no will at all left in vs but yet the fall of Adam did inflict such a blow vpon all these faculties which yet remaine in vs that neither can our will of it selfe will any thing which God may like of nor our minde thinke vnderstand or iudge right and true things without error Therefore Iohn saith that the light shineth in the darkenes Joh. 1.5 but yet the darkenes comprehendeth it not But now those greater things faith righteousnesse holinesse and perfect vertue which may leade vs vnto euerlasting felicitie these did not onely receiue a wound to become weaker but they did quite perish and became none vntill that they bee renewed in vs by the holy Ghost and the grace of regeneration Wherefore thus doth the Lord speake touching man whom hee had fashioned after his owne image whom also he knew throughly Gen. 6.5 The wickednes of man was great in the earth and all the imagination of the thoughes of his hart was onely euill continually And that we might vnderstand that these things were pronounced of mankind as it is in it selfe and not onely of those wicked men who liued before the flood the Lord doth againe repeate these things after the flood what time Noah onely with his familie were left aliue vpon the earth Gen. 8.21 Hereafter saith he I will not curse the earth any more for mans sake for the frame of mans heart is euill from his youth Can you Campian iudge better and righter of the image of man than the Lord himselfe could If all the thoughts of mans heart bee both alwaies and onely euill and the very frame and beginning fountaine as it were of al his thoughts most corrupt what now is left of that image which was sometime so excellent which may helpe any whit to attaine happines Hitherto belongeth that which Christ saith That which is borne of the flesh Ioh. 3.6 is flesh and that which is borne of the spirit is spirit If the whole man be flesh certainly the whole is vncleane And Paul saith we were the children of wrath Eph. 2 3â— But the Lord doth not hate his owne image nay wheresoeuer he beholds it hee loueth it entirely And Paul pronounceth that the whole man euery whit is the child of wrath wherefore that image which may make vs acceptable to God can neuer now be found in vs. For he saith not onely that wee are so hurt and wounded as that yet some hope of life remaineth but that we wholy such as wee are in our selues are obnoxious and subiect to euerlasting death as if nature had framed vs thereunto What should I heape vp more testimonies of the Scriptures which are so plentiful through the whole Scripture that nothing is oftner repeated than the losse of this image wherfore we iudge so of man after sin before restitution euen as Augustine writeth whom the very Schoole-men themselues durst not reprooue Naturall gifts were corrupted in man by sinne and the supernaturall extinguished But of man regenerate wee doe not say those things which you affirme that nothing is found in him but meere corruption and contagion For he is indued with the spirit of Christ he possesseth Christ dwelling in him he is indued with faith hope and charitie But he who hath nothing in him but corruption it is certaine that he is no whit regenerate For the new man which is created according to God Eph. 4.14 must bee reformed after righteousnes and true holines Indeed that which the regenerate man hath of his owne and proper to himselfe is vitious For so the Apostle saw another law in his members rebelling against the law of his minde Rom. 7.23 but those things which he receiued from God are contrarie to this corruption and contagion which if