Answer to Campian the Jesuit, Reasons · Answer 8
WILLIAM WHITAKERS. The anſwere to the ninth Reaſon, which is the Aduerſaries Sophiſmes.
IT is a goodly thing that Sophiſters complaine of fallacies, and that you, who your ſelues are altogether compact of fraud, lies, and impoſtures, do vpbraid vsus with Sophiſtrie. All your Diuinitie, which ought to be honeſt and ſincere without deceipt and fraud, hath of late degenerated into a ſubtle fleight of diſputing like Schoole-boyes and Sophiſters: for after that you had abandoned true Diuinitie out of the Churches, and as it were exiled the light from mens eyes, then you began at laſt to put forth curious queſtions in the Schooles; and ſo, as pore blind men, to be admired of thoſe who ſaw nothing. Hence aroſe that innumerable army of Sophiſters, who confounded themſelues with their refined idle diſputes, as with mutuall wounds, in ſo much as who ſo could beſt skill of counterfet and captious trifling concluſions, he ſhould be reputed as ſome King or petie God ouer thoſe blind and ſquint-eyed ſmatterers in Diuinitie. And this hope of domineering amongſt ſo many blind ones hath egged on you Ieſuites thus diligently to dwell vponupon this craft, and to put downe all the ancient Sophiſters for deceipt and fraude, your ſelues being yet but vpſtarts: For if there were euer any kingdome of pore-blind men ouer the ſtarck blind, queſtionleſſe it is now wholly deſcended vntounto you, to whom the ancienter orders of Monks and Friers do willingly yeeld the garland, becauſe they thinke▪ you ſee ſomething. Play your prizes now you noble Sophiſters, and execute with all diligence the Sophiſticall dominion which you hauehave gotten, leſt ſome hereafter happily ſleely diſpoſſeſſe you of this honor: for ſhortly ſome one or other new family and ſect of Sophiſters will gather ſtrength, which (if you looke not well about you) will at laſt ſhoulder and ſhuffle you violently out of place, and enter vponupon this ſoueraigntie ouer the ſchoole of Sophiſtrie, which now for ſome yeares you hauehave poſſeſſed. For out of doubt, kingdomes themſelues entitled vponupon pety ſleights and deceiptfull conueiances of words, cannot long continue. Seeing therefore this your whole ſhew of new learning conſiſts in furbuſhing vp of vntruths, and refining the former Sophiſtrie, verily I make no queſtion, but as it is of yeſterdayes building, ſo it will ſhortly fall to ruine.
But for as much as you mention certain Sophiſmes as ours, and perſwade your fauorites that we vſe very much ſophiſtrie; before I anſwere to theſe your falſhoods which you lay to our charge, I will giuegive the reader a taſt of your owne moſt notorious falſe-groundedaDVR. Our Aunceſtors, otherwiſe most wiſe men, hauing not alvvaies to deale with wilfull ſpirits, did not ſtrictly ſtand vponupon exact forme of teaching. WHIT. pag. 734. The cauſe is the more deſperate whē ſuch wiſe mē could find no better arguments to maintaine it, but ſuch as euen your ſelf confeſſe to be but weake: and both their hearers were then too credulous to beleeue, and you are now ridiculous to defend ſuch looſe arguments. diſputations, and deceiptfull Elenches; that ſo,Pvralogiſmis & Elenchis. whether you or we be more truly to be tearmed Sophiſters, the Schoole and Vniuerſitie it ſelfe may determine betwixt vsus, where you deſire rather theſe things ſhould be diſcuſſed, then amongſt the vulgar. I for my part do appeale vntounto this ſchoole of Philoſophers, and Vniuerſitie of Diuines; and I earneſtly beſeech all men who hauehave vnderſtanding in the principles either of Diuinitie or Logick, and as many as euer taſted of any Schoole-learning, that they will heedfully obſerue how current theſe your concluſions be, and examine them by the rules of right and true diſputation.
And indeed to chuſe, I will there begin, where you your ſelfe hauehave made an entrance. We mainteine, that it is lawfull for Miniſters of the Goſpell, and for Deacons, to be maried. You skorne the arguments whereby we make it good. Wherefore let vsus conſider what goodly ſtuffe is brought on your ſide for the contrarie.
Pope Innocent, the ſecond of that name,Diſtinct. 82 Propoſuiſti. Rom. 8.8. thus concludeth (you muſt ſuppoſe) by diuine inſpiration againſt theſe mariages: They which are inbDVR. Pope Innocent ſpake of Prieſts, who had vowed ſingle life of their ovvne accord, but aftervvard yeelded to lust. WHIT. pag. 735. Nay he ſpake that of all Deacons and Prieſts, for hee ſaith further (Distinct. 82. cap. propoſuisti) It is not lawfull to admit them to holy offices, which vſe carnall companie …ith their wiues, becauſe it is written, …e yee holy, for … the Lord your God am holy: for then hee eſteemed marriage duty to bee an vnholie thing in it ſelfe; not in reſpect of their vow, of which he ſpeaketh not a word. the fleſh cannot pleaſe God:Tit. 1.15. VntoUnto the pure, al things are pure, but vntounto them that are defiled and vnbeleeuing, is nothing pure. Be yee holy, becauſe I the Lord your God am holy. And becauſe S. Paul permitteth married people (by conſent) to ſleepe apart for a ſeaſon, to the end they may more conueniently giuegive themſelues to faſting & praier;Diſtinct. 31. Tenere. here hēce the Pope gathereth, that this is much morecDVR. This argument is good and can hauehave no ſhew of error. For, aboue all men, a Priest muſt be chaste, ſaith Origen, Homil. 6 4. in Leuit. Alſo Ierome and Ambroſe, and Epiphanius taught the ſame WHIT. pag. 736. Yea you er…e and miſtake S. Paul in theree things: 1. What he wrote to all Chriſtians, you expound of Lay-men only. 2. He ſpeaketh only of extraordinarie faſts & prayer, but you applie it vntounto all ſorts thereof. That the Apoſtle ſpeaketh of extraordinarie, appeares, 1. Becauſe he hath ioyned faſting with them, 1. Cor. 7.5.2. Becauſe Chriſt and his Apoſtle hauehave commanded all to pray continually, and ſo all ought to l…ue a ſingle life. 3. From a ſhort abſtinence of Lay-men, you childiſhly would proue a perpetuall ſingle life to be neceſſary for Miniſters. You abuſe alſo Origens words, (& play the heretike) as if chaſtitie were contrary to matrimony; whereas the Fathers of the Nicene Councell, conſented to Paphnutius, who ſaid openly, that ſociety with a lavvfull wi…e, is chaſtitie: Socrates lib. 1. cap. 11. Jerome indeed diſputed too ſophiſtically againſt matrimony, ſeeking victory more then verity, as himſelf confeſſed. Ambr…ſe and Epiphanius diſſwaded Miniſters only from ſecond m…riages, allowing their fi…ſt. to be done of Prieſts, whoſe office is to pray alwaies, & to offer that daily ſacrifice.Diſtinct. 28 Decernimus Laſt of al, ſeeing they muſt be a tēple of the Lord, and an oratory of the ſpirit,dDVR. Tertullian vſed this ſame argument againſt ſecond marriage. WHIT. pag. 739. Tertullian therein erred with Montanus, (as all the learned know) condemning ſecond marriages, of vncleannes, not only in Miniſters, but in all Chriſtians: yet he himſelfe being a Prieſt, was married, and liued with his wife, continuing his Miniſtery: ſo that he neither iudged marriage to be vncleanenes, nor vnlavvfull in Miniſters, ſimplie; but only ſecond marriages. they ought not to abaſe themſelues with bed-pleaſures & vncleanneſſes. Now out of all theſe he cōcludeth that which he propounded, that Deacons and Prieſts are flatlie forbidden to marry.Harding and Dorman and others. If theſe things be abſurdly diſputed, let vsus heare others. Seuerall Paſtors hauehave rule ouer ſeuerall flockes:cDVR. The Pope challengeth no Lordſhip ouer the Churches, but profeſſeth himſelfe the ſeueruant of Gods ſeruants. WHIT. pag. 740. But his dee…s bewray his tyranny: for he preſcribeth, commandeth, threatneth, puniſheth, and doth whatſoeuer any Lord can do. DVR. You can dispro…e this conſequent by no argument. WHIT. pag. 741. It is an abſurd argument, like theſe; EueryEvery ſeuerall man hath one head; therefore all men muſt hauehave one head: EueryEvery ſeuerall flocke hath his ſhepheard; therefore all flockes muſt hauehave one to rule them. Againe: no one man can poſſiblie teach and feed the whole Church with the Word and Sacrament as a faithfull Paſtor ſhould, and may doe in a particular Church Chriſt only can thus feed al particular Churches, which can neuer be made one viſible body, and therefore can hauehave none but Chriſt the generall head and Paſtor ouer them. DVR. Ierome, Cyprian, and Ireneus, hauehave written the ſame we doe. WHIT. pag 742. Not one of them. Firſt, Ierome defendeth the ſuperiority of one Paſtor in the Church, not as a matter of acceſsitie, but of conueniency, to preuent ſchiſmes: and ſaith, that the Church is founded vponupon all the Apoſtles alike, and that eueryevery one equally hath receiued the keies of the kingdome of heauen; euen in that place where you quote him: (againſt Iouinian, lib. 1.) Secondly, Cyprian cōcludeth only, that there ſhould be but one Paſtor in one Church and neuer thought vponupon the Popes primacie; but ſaith plainly, that eueryevery particular Biſhop hath all whatſoeuer any one hath by right; in the ſame booke which you alleadge, of the Churches vnity. Laſtly, Ireneus called the Romane, the chiefe Church, not for any ſuperiority, but becauſe ſhe excelled all others in conſtancie, largenes, fame, and ſoundnes of faith. therefore the Pope ought to hauehave dominion ouer all Churches. Chriſt ſaid to Peter feed my ſheepe;fDVR. Jt is manifest by this place, that Christ gaue greater authoritie of feeding to Peter, than to the other Apostles, and ſo made him head of all his Church. WHIT. p. 744. It will not follow vponupon this place, that Peter had greater authority to feed, or that he only muſt feede all: for he ſaid to them all alike, Matth. 28.19. Goe yee, teach all nations: and Iob. 20 21. As the Father ſent me, ſo I ſend you: Therefore he ſpake ſo often then to Peter, to confirme him after his grieuous fall, that he might not doubt of his Apoſtolicall calling, as ſaith Augustines treatiſe on Iohn 123. ſo that it no whit concerneth the Pope. therefore Peter is the chiefe & principall Paſtor of the Church. The Lord made two great lights, the Sunne,gDVR. The Pope vſeth this as a ſimilitude to amplifie, not as an argument to prooue by authoritie. WHIT. pag. 746. This is an idle ſhift; a ſimilitude is an argument, and Johannes Andraeas would prooue hereby, that the Pope excelleth the Emperor in dignitie, ſeuentie times ſeuen degrees. & the Moone: therfore the Pope excelleth the Emperour in honour and greatnes. Heere are two ſwords; therfore thehDVR. VVe gather nothing hence, but vvhat Bernard did: ſaying, This ſword (of temporall povver) is thine 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, bu… yet he fathereth it vponupon Bernard, which alſo Iohannes a Capiſtrano (of the Pope and Councels, p 77.) and others of them hauehave 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: thereforeiDVR. 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 P…pa) The Pope may bee reproued of no mortall man, though he leade with him innumerable people vntounto 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 …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:kDVR. 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 hauehave done, and may fall into hereſies, as you will confeſſe; and may erre in faith, ſaith Pope Boniface (D…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:lDVR. 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 muſtmDVR. The people alſo receiue the vvhole Sacrament, vnderunder 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, vvhichwhich ſaid of certaine heretikes that refrained from the Cup, as you do…, (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 n…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 a…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 vponupon the Croſſe, was written in Hebrew, Greeke, & Latine: therforenDVR. No Catholike doth ſo reaſon; we ſay, that title had in it a myſterie: and Auguſtine proueth by it, that the vvord, coeſſent…all, foreign, 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 vsus 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:oDVR. VVe ſay not, that all, but that ſome of the people may not hauehave the Scriptures committed to them. WHIT. pag. 758. Who doubteth but that vviſedome is to be vſed in teaching the people; and that they vvhichwhich ſhevv themſelues dogges, and hogges, muſt be barred from the Scriptures: but this is nothing to the preſent queſtion; vvhether this reaſon be good, vvhichwhich Papiſts ſometimes vſe: and vvhichwhich here you ſhould hauehave ſpoken to, and not thus vvander. therfore the vulgar people muſt be forbidden to reade the Scriptures. This is my bodie: therefore thepDVR. 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 vvhichwhich vvas in Chriſts hands vvere his reall body, vvhen he ſaid ſo, then vvas tranſubſtantiation before (vvhichwhich 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:qDVR. Ambroſe and Auguſtine reaſoned ſo from this Scripture. WHIT p. 761. That is falſe: they teach onelyonly, that vve muſt vvorſhip Chriſt in the myſteries and Sacrament; not the my…teries and Sacrament themſelues. therefore the Sacrament muſt be worſhipped. God is no reſpecter of perſons:Pighius. rDVR. 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, but indeed many of your Schooles defend him: ſaying, the kingdome of heauen is prepared for them vvhichwhich hauehave merited it by their good works.therefore hee chuſeth no man to life eternall, but with reſpect of merits. S. Iames commaundeth that ſicke perſons ſhould be anointed:ſDVR. The ſicke vvant health novv as vvell as then, and therefore must novv hauehave the ſame helping remedie. WHIT. pag. 763. Anointing was a ſigne of healing in thoſe times of extraordinarie giftes in the Church; your anointing healeth nothing that wanteth health; and ſo is friuolous. therefore we muſt now euer and anon anoint the ſicke. This is a great myſterie:tDVR. The Apostle ſpeaketh that properly of Matrimonte. WHIT. pag. 764. Nay, he himſelfe expoundes it of the myſticall vnion betweene Chriſt and the Church. therefore Matrimonie is a Sacrament. Elias and Iohn Baptiſt liued in the wilderneſſe:uDVR. Theſe men left a famous example of Monkiſh life. WHIT. pag. 765. The Monkes life is not proued by their examples: for Elias was commaunded to goe into the deſert during perill; they doe that without both precept and perill: John Baptiſt indeede liued in the deſert, but wherein men did dwell, to whom alſo he preached; and there were many cities and townes in that deſert, Joſh. 15.61. what is this to idle Monkiſh life? therefore they inuented the manner of life and diſcipline of Monkes. There are ſeuen deadly ſinnes:xDVR. Name him that thus diſputeth. WHIT. pag. 766. It is Iohn L…d…vvicke, in a booke intituled. The golden vvorke of true contrition, leafe 128. Where are abunuen ſorts of men in the Church, &c. therefore there are iuſt ſeuen Sacraments. God made man after his image:yDVR. Pope Adrian proueth not the vſe of images by this place, but ſaith it vvas ſignified by it. WHIT. pag. 767. Then you confeſſe he alleageth that Scripture to proue the vſe of images was ſignified by it, and who but a ſuperſtitious doctor, would hauehave done ſo? therefore images muſt be ſet vp in Churches. The chiefeſt of theſe is charitie:zDVR. The chiefest gift must come from the chiefest vertue. WHIT. pag. 768. S. Paul 1. Cor. 13. doth not in all things preferre charitie before faith, but onelyonly becauſe it indureth in the life to come, when wee ſhall not neede faith, as Chryſoſtome expoundes it: now faith onelyonly apprehends Chriſt our righteouſneſſe, and therein excelleth charitie. Laſtly, you erre groſſely in effect, aſcribing our iuſt…fication to the merit of vertue in vsus; vvhichwhich onelyonly is merited by Ieſus Chriſt. therefore we are iuſtified more by charitie than by faith. I will goe,Oſea. 5.15. ſaith the Lord, to my place, vntill they ponder in their heart, and ſeeke my face: (which indeede he ſpakeaDVR. Do you thinke that God calleth men to repentace ironically. WHIT. pag. 799. No; but when men will not ſe…k God, being called thereto by his bountie; no maruaile though hee withdraw it from them, and (as it were) laugh at their madnes: of which ironies there be many examples in Scriptures. ironically, and after the manner of men) therefore men may be conuerted vntounto the Lord, by their owne meere will and diſpoſition. The Lord commaundeth vsus to doe many things:bDVR. Auguſtine denieth that God hath commanded impoſſible thin…s. WHIT. pag. 770. Hee expoundeth his owne meaning, that Adam before his fall could, and that we in heauen ſhal be able to keepe all Gods commandements; but he often ſaith, that no man in this life can fulfill the Law of God. DVR. Men vſe not to make lavves impoſſible to be kept. WHIT. We muſt not meaſure Gods doing by mans: Againe, when theſe lawes were firſt giuen, man could performe them, and vvee muſt not looke that God ſhould alter them to fit our corruption. DVR▪ God could not iustly puniſh lavvbreakers, if they could not keepe it. WHIT. pag. 771. Anſwere then Euſebius, (Euangelicall demonst. lib. 1) who ſaith, that Moſes Lavv vvas impoſſible to be kept of any man: And Thomas Aquinas, vponupon Gal. 3. ſect. 4. ſaying: Moſes commaunded many things, vvhichwhich no man could fulfill. therefore thoſe things may be performed of vsus. Chriſt deſcended to the dead: therefore he deliueredcDVR Tell me for what other cauſe Christ went into bel, but to deliuer the Fathers from Limbus? WHIT. pag. 772. Nay, firſt proue you that he did go ſo to hel, as you thinke; for my part I beleeue it not, but that his ſoule went preſently to heauen. Againe, you begge the queſtion, ſaying, he went to hell to deliuer the Fathers. DVR. I proue it by theſe Scriptures: Zac. 9.11. Pſal 68.18. Heb. 9.8. WHIT. …acharie ſpeaketh only of the Iewes deliuery from the captiuitie of Babylon. Dauid ſpeaketh of Chriſts aſcending into heauen, and triumph ouer his enemies; and you childiſhly inferre hereupon, therefore he deſcended to hell to deliuer the Patriarkes from Limbus: but moſt ridiculouſly you abuſe that place to the Hebrewes, the true ſenſe whereof is; that we are not reconciled to God, by the Iewiſh ſacrifices, but by Chriſt; therefore you inferre, that none of the Patriarkes vvent to heauen, vntill Chriſt came out of hell, and opened heauen by his bodilie aſcenſion. the Fathers out of Limbus. The Church diſcerneth the Scriptures:dDVR. Catholikes ſay not ſo. WHIT. pag. 773 But your falſe Church doth ſo; for it interpreteth Scriptures as it liſteth: and conſtraineth all Chriſtians to reſt therein, bee it neuer ſo falſe, and contrarie to the Scriptures; elſe it doth condemne him for an heretike. therefore the authoritie of the Church is greater than the authoritie of the Scriptures. Saint Paul commaundeth the Theſſalonians,2. Theſſ. 2.15 that they keepe the ordinances which they had learned: thereforeeDVR. What error find you in this argument? WHIT. pag. 774. I find in it a threefold falſe conſequent: firſt you cannot proue hence; that the things which S. Paul ſpake by word, were not the ſame in effect which hee wrote to thē: ſecondly, if he wrote not all to thē which he had taught thē, it followeth not that hee taught ſomething which is not written in the Scriptures: thirdly; admit many things were left vnwritten, yet it followeth not, that all things neceſſary to ſaluatiō be not written: nor do the ancient Fathers ſay ſo. all things are not written which are neceſſarie to ſaluation.2. Cor. 3, 15. Hee himſelfe ſhall bee ſafe, yet as it were through fire: fDVR. Sundry Fathers expound this place of Purgatory fire. WHIT. pag. 776. But the place it ſelfe ſheweth that it cannot bee meant of any ſuch fire: for 1. S. Paul ſpeaketh of the purging away that which is a fault: but in your Purga…orie faults are not conſumed, but (you ſay) puniſhments are ſ…ffred for f…u…s. 2. S. Paul ſaith eueryevery mans worke, be it gold or wood, ſhall be tried; but you caſt nothing but wood, hay, and ſtubble into your fained Purgatory. 3. S. Paul ſaith eueryevery mans worke ſhall be manifeſt by this fire; but your Purgatory fire is obſcure, and neuer ſheweth ſuch light. 4. The word fire, is vſed by S. Paul Metaphorically, as alſo are gold, ſiluer, hay, wood &c. but you ſay your Purgatory fire, is true fire. The fire which S. Paul heer… meaneth, is the holy Ghoſt, who proueth all doctrines, and ſeuereth the falſe from the true. Ambroſe on Pſal. 118. ſaith, This fire is the vvord of Christ: Angustine indeed ſpake doubtfully of Purgatory, ſaying, (Enchiridion, cap. 69.) it may be that there is ſome ſuch thing, but whether yea or no, it is a queſtion; and in his booke of the Citie of God; he ſaith, perhaps it is true: many others of the Fathers thought this purging ſhould bee at Chriſts comming to iudgement; vvhichwhich much differeth from your Purgatorie. Chryſoſtome in his Preface on Eſay, ſaith; God at one inſtant aboliſheth ſin, freeth from puniſhment, and giueth righteouſnes; Tertullian in his booke of Baptiſme, ſaith: Guilt and puniſhment are taken away togither. Hierome ſaith, vponupon the 31. Pſalme; the ſin which is couered is not ſeene; that vvhichwhich is not ſeene is not imputed; that which is not imputed ſhall not be puniſhed: ſo that nothing is left for your Purgatorie, by theſe mens iudgements.therefore men paſſe thorow the fire of Purgatorie to life eternall.
To what purpoſe ſhould I rehearſe innumerable others your diſputations like theſe? Now, Campian, let vsus heare a few of your owne. Augustine wrote three bookes of free will: therefore Augustine approued that man hath free will. Chriſt was ignorant of ſome thing: therefore Chriſt was not without ſinne. The Fathers diligently ſearched the Scriptures: therefore it is neuer lawfull to diſſent from the Fathers.
Theſe your argumentations I hauehave thus briefely collected: which what goodly ones they be, our Vniuerſitie ſtudents eaſilie perceiue. Doe you acknowledge them to be your owne, Campian, ſo ſophiſticall, ſo inconſequent, ſo full of deceite and falſehoods? You were in a great ſtraite if you could not denie it; but if you confeſſe it, you are quite ouerthrowne: for all theſe are very vnlearnedly concluded; either by mistaking words of double ſignification; or by wresting phraſes figuratiuely ſpoken: or without any conſequent; or from ignorance of the Elenche; or (to conclude) altogethe trifling. It ſufficeth that I hauehave touched theſe but lightly: now I come to thoſe which you obiect againſt vsus.
There be foure chiefe heads of deceitfull diſputing,Sciamachia. wherein you ſay our ſophiſtrie chiefely conſiſteth: to wit, Sciamachia, a fighting with a ſhadow, Logomachia, a contention about words. Homonymia, a miſtaking of the ſenſe of words: and Circulatio, a going about the buſh. Let vsus ſee how groſſely wee vſe to erre in them. Sciamachia, or a fighting with ones ſhadow, you firſt define, then you produce examples (of our ſuppoſed practiſe.) I diſlike not the definition, and haſten to thoſe examples. Against thoſe that hauehave vowed ſingle life (ſay you) they alleage Scriptures which ſpeake honourably of mariage; whom ſmite they with ſuch weapons? Whom but your ſelfe, Campian, and thoſe ſo worthy Prelates on your ſide, which firſt impoſed the vowe of perpetuall virginitie vponupon Miniſters of the Goſpell. For if the Scriptures doe indeed ſpeake honourably of wedlocke, then Pope Syricius, and Innocent the ſecond of that name, and ſuch others your ſtoute maintainers of ſingle life, can by no meanes be defended, who, as is well knowne, hauehave ſpoken many things baſely,aDVR. This is your impudencie, for vve ſay matrimony is ſo holie, that it is euen a Sacrament, yet not equall vvith Virginitie. WHIT. pag. 778. All men know what Syricius and Jnnocentius wrote of Matrimony. By the Scriptures it appeareth to be equally holy with virginity; if not, why bring you no teſtimony to the contrarie? And it is very abſurd, that you account virginity more holy, and yet wil needs hauehave matrimony to be a Sacrament: virginity ſhould rather be a Sacrament, ſeeing (by your opinion) it is the more holy. deſpitefully, and wickedly of matrimonie. Conſider well thoſe ſpeeches which euen now I produced, taken out of your law: deny, if you can for ſhame, that they be diſhoneſt in themſelues, and egregiouſlie iniurious to wedlocke. Certainely if theſe Scriptures doe indeed wound (the auncient heretikes) Saturninus, Seuerus, bDVR. VVhat Catholike euer esteemed marriage to be no better than pollution, as thoſe heretikes did? WHIT. pag. 779. Pope Innocent in effect, in that he diſſwaded Deacons from it, becauſe they muſt be holy, and hauehave nothing to do with pollutiōs, and bed-pleaſures: than which Tatianus himſelfe could ſay nothing againſt mariage more impious.Tatianus, the Encratites, and the Archontici, needs muſt they alſo moſt ſharpely touch you to the quicke, which commonly are woont to iudge and ſpeake no whit more honourably of wedlocke than they hauehave done. For ſhew me, Campian, if you can, wherein thoſe reprochfull ſpeeches may any whit more touch the marriage of Miniſters, than of other men. Thus then both you your ſelues hauehave apparantly fled to the heretikes holdes; and alſo theſe Scriptures which doe ſpeake ſo honourably of wedlocke, doe diſproue your hereſie, and giuegive you a very deadly wound. For thus I preſſe our argument more effectually (than you:) If wedlocke be honourable in eueryevery degree of men, and the bed vndefiled; then in no degree ought they to be eſteemed diſhoneſt or impure: but the antecedent iscDVR. By this argument, you may as well cōdemne Saint Paul: for marriage is honorable, euē in thoſe widowes, who yet hauehave damnation (ſaith he) becauſe they will marry. WHIT. pag. 779. S. Paul diſalloweth ſuch widowes, not becauſe they vvould marry, but becauſe they vvould reiect their faith & Chriſtian profeſſiō, by waxing wanton, & marrying with Infidels. true; therefore the conſequent is neceſſarily true alſo.Hebr. 13.4. What can you here diſproue? or why hath it not the force of a neceſſarie concluſion, out of which you ſhall neuer be able to winde your ſelfe? As for your ſleight euaſion, becauſe of a former vowe, I hauehave already confuted it. Let vsus now proceede vntounto your other examples.
Against the merits of a Christian man, dipped in Christs blood (ſay you) they recite testimonies, which commaunde vsus to put our affiance neither in nature, nor in the Law, but in the blood of Christ: whom doe they confute with theſe testimonies? Thoſe arguments which are vrged by our ſide againſt mens merits, doe moſt clearely confute you and ſtrike you dead. Mans nature is corrupt;Gen. 6.5. …. Rom. 4.15. and the Law ſheweth the diſeaſe, but doth not cure it: therefore all our hope of ſaluation conſiſteth in Chriſts blood. But you hauehave deuiſed vsus a kinde of merit, forſooth, dipped in the blood of Chriſt, which may auaile much to deſerue ſaluation. For ſo you maintaine, that ſaluation doth not wholy conſiſt in the blood of Chriſt, but that it much what dependeth vponupon your owne merites; yet ſo as that they be dipped with Chriſts blood; leſt you might bee thought downe right Pelagians. To ſpeake more plainely: this is that you teach, wherein the whole ſumme (firſt and laſt) of your righteouſneſſe conſiſteth: namely, That Christ hath merited for vsus by his blood, that we might dDVR. VVee teach plainely, that all the merits of our good workes, hauehave their force and effect only from Christs blood. WHIT. pag. 780. Thus you detract ſaluation frō Chriſts merits, and aſcribe it to ou… merits, dipped with his blood: vvhichwhich the Scriptures no vvhere teach, but vtterly condemne, prouing that all our good vvorkes, are in ſomething faulty, and ſo merit not eternall life. Againe by your doctrine, eueryevery man ſhould bee redeemed by his ovvne vvorkes, and ſo not by one only Mediator. 1. Tim. 2.5. Thirdly, Chriſt vndertooke to obtaine for vsus remiſsion of ſinnes by his ovvne death, which he performed not perfectly, if it be in part by our owne workes. Fourthly; ſo ſhould we not truſt in God only, but alſo in our workes dipped in Chriſts blood, which were blaſphemie. DVR. The Scripture ſaith, we are vvorthie the kingdome of God. WHIT. pag. 782. It ſaith we are worthie, not becauſe of our owne merits, but in that Chriſts merits are communicated vntounto vsus. DVR. Life eternall is often called a revvard in Scriptures, and the Fathers. WHIT. pag. 78…. Reward doth not alwaies argue merit, but is oftentimes freely giuen: and the Scriptures neuer mention any of our merits.merit ſaluation. This is that merit dipped with the blood of Chriſt, which you ſpeake of, Confute now our arguments, if you can, which vſually are alleaged againſt it. Whatſoeuer is required as aeDVR. The Angels hauehave merited, & our first parents might hauehave merited bleſſednes before their fall, yet all that they could doe, was a due debt vntounto God. WHIT. pag. 785. If Chriſt ſay truly, that they are vnprofitable ſeruants which do all that is commanded, & no more; then neither may the Angels, nor might thoſe out firſt parents aſcribe any thing to their ovvne merits, but to Gods free mercy, ſeeing they could do no more good then they ought, and vvas commanded them. debte, that meriteth not: but whatſoeuer (good thing) we doe,Rom. 8.12. Luk. 17.10. Rom. 4.4. is wholy a debt: therefore we hauehave no merit at all of our owne. And that you may vnderſtand, that we ought to put confidence in the blood of Chriſt onelyonly, and not in our owne merits; I will thus reaſon from Saint Pauls doctrine.…al. 2.21. If righteouſneſſe be by the Law; then Chriſt died in vaine: but if we be iuſtified by ourfDVR. VV…e are iustified by the merits of our workes, not done by our owne power, and helpe of the Law only, but by grace in Christ. WHIT. pag. 786. Thus might the Galathians hauehave anſwered S. Paul, whoſe faith was all one vvith yours in this point; vvhen be reproued them for ioyning the workes of the Law vvith grace to iuſtification: but S. Paul ſhevved them, that the inheritance is of promiſe only, and ſo meerely of grace; and no vvhit of works; which are euer of the Law, whether before or after faith. merits, we are iuſtified by the Law: therefore if we be iuſtified by our merits, Chriſt died in vaine. What neede I here mention innumerable other our arguments, not one whereof, but it is concluded demonſtratiuely, and infallibly: whereas your owne merits, alas, are verie pittifully and ſhameleſly defended by you, againſt the blood of Chriſt.
You adde to theſe a third example (ſaying) Against thoſe which honour ſaints, as the most acceptable ſeruants of Christ, there are vouched whole pages of Scriptures, which prohibit the worſhipping of many gods: where are they now? Verily the Lord by his owne authoritie reſerueth vntounto himſelfe,Pſal. 50.15. that we inuocate him alone: wherefore who ſo worſhippeth and inuocatethgDVR. VVe worſhip not Saints as Gods, but as the friends and ſeruants of God; and Saint Paul himſelfe deſired to be helped by the prayers of ſundrie Christian Churches: ſo that you cauill with vsus, as the heathen and heretikes did of old againſt the Fathers. WHIT. pag. 787. The honor of inuocation may not be giuen to any of Gods friends; for we muſt pray to none, but whom we may call, Father, Luk. 11.2. and in whom we may beleeue, Rom. 10.14. therefore not to Saints at all. As for Saint Paul, he craued the prayers of Saints for him, vvhileſt they liued▪ but he neuer either prayed to them liuing, or dead. Nor did the Catholike Fathers vvorſhip, adore, or inuocate Saints departed, as you doe: For Auguſtine Epist. 44. ſaith to Maximus the Heathen, know you that no Catholike Chriſtian doth worſhip any of the dead, & Ierome to Vigilantius, ſaith, who is ſo madde, as to vvorſhip any of the Martyrs? Saints, hee giueth to them the honour due to God: for he both preſuppoſeth that they can performe any thing whatſoeuer, and alſo that they behDVR. The Saints heare our prayers, though they be abſent. WHIT. pag. 790. EueryEvery one that prayeth to Saints ſuppoſeth thē to be preſent, & to know euē his thoughts, and ſo (in effect) maketh them Gods: as Baſil proueth the holie Ghoſt to be God, becauſe hee heareth godly mens prayers wherſoeuer. DVR. The Saints are in many far diſtant places at once, though not eueryevery where. WHIT pag. 791. Duraeus doteth to ſay ſo: for as well they might be in all, as in many places at once: But Damaſcene, lib. 2. cap. 3. and A…nas, quaest. 52. art. 2 ſay of the very Angels, that when they be in heauen, they are not in earth. preſent eueryevery where, both which are the peculiar properties of God onelyonly. So that whatſoeuer is (truly) alleaged againſt many gods, that is altogether effectuall againſt your Saints in heauen, whom both you worſhip more zealouſly than God himſelfe, and robbe him of his due honour to adorne them.1. Tim. 1.5. Rom. 8.34. Heb. 7.25. There is (indeed) one mediator of God and men, the man Ieſus Christ; he for euer maketh interceſſion for vsus; therefore they which bring in new interceſſors, and mediators, areiDVR. Christ is the only Mediator of Redemption; and Saints may be Mediators of Interceſſion, without iniurie to him. WHIT. pag. 793. Chriſt alone is Mediator of both, as theſe Scriptures proue plainly: and Chriſt himſelfe ſaith, no man commeth to the Father but by me, Iob. 14.6. and, hee will giuegive you all things in my name, Ioh. 16.23. and 1 Ioh. 2.2. ſo that it is ſacrilege againſt Chriſts Prieſthood, to make Saints mediators to commend vsus to God. iniurious vntounto Chriſt. Tell me, Campian, hauehave you any face to defend theſe your ſentences following?kDuraeus excuſeth this, perſwading himſelf the writer meant no ill in it; though it be indeed intolerable, as are many other ſuch their vſuall ſpeeches of the bleſſed Virgin: ſee VVhit. pag. 794. Commaunde him by thy motherly authoritie; and thoſe which are often chaunted in the rude ryme of the Maſſe of the virgin Maries conception, thus:
Tu ſpes certa miſerorum, verè mater orphanorum,
Tu leuamen oppreſſorum, Medicamen infirmorum,
Omnibus es omnia?
That is to ſay, Thou (bleſſed Virgin Marie) art the infallible lDVR. Saint Paul calleth the Theſſalonians his hope, 1. Theſſ. 2.19. WHIT. pag. 796. But hee neuer put his truſt in, nor called vponupon 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 eueryevery 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 mDVR. 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 re…ēption frō 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 vsus,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 vsus (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 foreign. yet the matter it ſelfe, and the ſenſe, as Epiphanius writeth, commeth to hand in all places, and is eaſily eueryevery where to bee found. But yournDVR. 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 Sacramēt, not a ſacrifice: he offered himſelfe a ſacrifice only once vponupon the Croſſe, Heb 9 10. not in his laſt Supper, except you will ſay, he died then alſo, vvhichwhich he muſt hauehave 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 vnderunder 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 hauehave 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. …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 onelyonly 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 nameoDVR. 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, Dia…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 vsus all Prieſts; and alſo aboliſh choice of meates, and preſcribed obſeruation of daies, Apoc. 5.becauſe the Prophet highly commendeth a ſpirituall faſt. Eſay 48.I wil ſpeake a few words both of the one and other, that I may cleerly quit vsus of this crime of Homonymie. Saint Iohn alone hath not named allpDVR. By this argument you may as well proue the Iewes had no Prieſts; properly ſo called. WHIT. pag. 809. Not ſo, for the Lord ordained ſuch a Prieſthood amongſt them, which he hath not amongſt Chriſtians. Chriſtians Prieſts,1. Pet. 2.5.9 but S. Peter alſo hath tearmed them a holy, and a royall Prieſthood: and this name is in no place of the new TeſtamentqDVR. So the name, Sacrament, is neuer giuen to Baptiſme, nor to the Euchariſt in the New testament. WHIT. pag. 810. But the ſubſtance of it, agreeth to them both, and is there, whereas the name, Sacerdos, a Prieſt, is not in the nevv Teſtament, nor doth the thing it ſelfe properly belong to any but Chriſt, ſince his death. DVR. Yea Chriſt inſtituted a ſacrifice in his Supper, and where a ſacrifice is, there is a Prieſt alſo. WHIT. pag. 810. Chriſt ordeined thē no ſacrifice, but only a Sacrament of a ſacrifice. DVR. Eſay calleth the M…niſters of the Gospell, Prieſts, cap. 6….6. & 66.21. WHIT. Eſay in the firſt place ſpeaketh of all Chriſtians; and in the ſecond, of Miniſters in the phraſe of that time; vvhence alſo you may as well ſay Deacons are Leuites, vvhichwhich you vvill not ſay they are prope…ly. DVR Miniſters are needleſſe, except they be Priects, and as mediators betwixt God and men vntounto ſaluation: and your Ministers are but Lay-men. WHIT. pag. 810. …15. They muſt preach the Word, and adminiſter the Sacraments, but not offer ſacrifice of mediation betwixt God and men, as you ſay, you do in the Maſſe: to do theſe we hauehave a calling ordeined of Chriſt; for your ſacrifice you hauehave none. DVR. The Apostles name them not Priests, becauſe they are not of the order of Aaron; but the Fathers call them Priests, who knevv the Apoſtles m…a…ing: and you call them Prieſts in Engliſh. WHIT pag. 812. Chriſt only is a Prieſt, after the order of Melchiſedecke: Heb. 7.3. ſo then there be no Prieſts at all, you confeſſe: the Fathers call them ſo by cuſtome, but not properly & the Apoſtles of purpoſe abſtaining frō the name of Prieſts, might teach vsus hereafter better vviſdome to do ſo alſo. properly applied to the Miniſters of the Goſpell. For Chriſt being made an high Prieſt for euer after the order of Melchiſedech, hath no copartners of thisrDVR. True, for it is Christ that preſenteth himſelfe in the ſacrifi…e, vve onelyonly are as ministers. WHIT. p. 814. If you be Miniſters only, then are you not properly Prieſts; & why then will you be ſo called? DVR. Yet vve as truely ſacrifice, as baptiſe. WHIT. Thus you will be Miniſters only, and no Prieſts, nor be copa…tners in Chriſts ſacrifice; yet you will b… tearmed Priests, and truly ſacrifice; theſe be contraries, and cannot ſtand together, yea, meere madnes and dotages. Prieſthood: therefore Chriſt hath left vntounto his (Churches) a Ministerie, and not a new Prieſthood. Neither doth there remaine to vsusſDVR. Thus you ſtrippe the Gospell of all ſacrifice and …eligion. WHIT. pag. 816. 817. All your religion by this your doctrine, is in your Maſſe, which we willingly hauehave not; but notwithſtanding we hauehave the ſacrifice of Chriſt, which is perpetuall and inchangeable, Heb. 7 2….28. and 10.14. your inuiſible ſacrifice the Scripture knoweth not. any ſuch ſacrifice; for the adminiſtration whereof ſome ſpeciall Prieſts muſt needs be authoriſed. For that ſacrifice of praiſe, and doing good, Hebr. 13.15.16.which the Apoſtle mentioneth, and which now remaineth onelyonly; that (I ſay) appertaineth indifferently to all Chriſtians. Notwithſtanding we permit none to execute the adminiſtration of this miniſtery, which Chriſt would hauehave to be perpetuall in his Church, but them whom it concerneth, and who are by due ordertDVR. VVho called Luther, Caluin, Beza, &c. your Ministers? WHIT. pag. 820. Luther, Zuinglius, Bucer, &c. were Prieſts of your owne, and ſo had a calling (except your order of Prieſthood be no calling) and might call others by your law. Againe, God is not tied ſo to order, but that he may for the good of the Church, call Miniſters extraordinarily. And the Churches hauehave lavvfull povver to chuſe Ministers (ſo that we need not to call any from you that ſeruice) as ſaith Cyprian. Epist. 68. Thus were Calui… and Beza choſen. called thereunto. Albeit then Chriſt hauehave made vsus all both Kings, that we might be able to ſubdue our ſinnes; and Prieſts, that we might offer him ſpirituall ſacrifices: notwithſtanding as it is not lawfull for eueryevery man to dreame of a kingdome, ſo it is a thing deteſtable for any man to enter vponupon the holy Miniſtery, who hath not that function committed vntounto him by diuine authoritie. Wherefore I ſee not at all why you ſhould charge vsus with any ſuch Homonymy (or falſhood from ambiguous ſignification) in this word. As for your maner of faſting, that indeed is wholly in ſhew, and hath nothing in it of a Chriſtian faſt, but the very name. For to make choyce of meates, as a thing more religious, and to preſcribe certaine, and perpetuall ſet dayes, wherein we muſt neceſſarily faſt, theuDVR. This ſauoureth of Luthers ſpirit: but Pope Leo ſaith, that the holy Ghoſt taught the Apoſtles, the diſcipl…ne of faſting, for one of the chiefe Sacraments of heauenly doctrine. WHIT. pag. 8…1. &c. Wee allow Chriſtian faſting; but vvhat ſpirit taught Leo to ſay ſo of your ſolemne ſuperſtitious faſts? the Scriptures ſpeake no ſuch thing, which wee preferie before all mens iudgements. one is witleſſe, the other ſuperſtitious. For what man, which is not depriued of iudgement and all ſenſe, will thinke that he faſteth, who (ſo that he abſtainexDVR. No Catholike euer ſaid, that the force of faſting conſiſteth in only abſtinence from fleſh. WHIT. pag. 822. All men know that you call your abſtinence from fleſh in Lent, in the Ember daies, the Saint Eues &c. faſting: and that he, who then eateth …ſh and other meate in abundance in not ſaid amongſt you to violate his faſt; but if one doe but taſt fleſh, you eſteeme him a grieeuous malefactor. DVR. But Eliſha, Daniel, & Iohn Baptiſt made religious choiſe of meates, vvhichwhich you thus call madnes: yea Daniel abſteined from fleſh and vvine to appreaſe Gods anger; vvhoſe example teacheth vsus alſo to abſteine from daintier meates in time of fasting, as the Church hath long accuſtomed, WHIT. pag. 823. Theſe holy men did not faſt as you doe, and teach: for Eliſha fed the Prophets with wild and bitter herbes, not for religion ſake, but in time of f…mine, for want of other victuall, 2. King. 4.39. and Daniel abſteined not from ſome only, but from all deſireable meates, Dan. 10.3. not to appeaſe Gods anger, as you ſay, but that he might vvith more liuely ſenſe of his brethrens miſerie, humble himſelfe to God: as for John Baptists cōtinuall 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. frō 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 yDVR. 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 th…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 Scrip…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 bezDVR. Saint Paul reprooueth there, the practiſe of Ievviſh ceremonies. WHIT. pag. 8…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 vsus 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 andaDVR. You ſight againſt vsus vvith the Manichees vveapo…s; vvhom Auguſtine a…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 th…ſe creatures vvere vnc…e. WHIT. pag. 817. Thus you make Saint Paul a Manichee; but indeed he there condemneth them, and all that forbid to cate meates, vnderunder 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 vsus, 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 vntounto 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 timebDVR. The auncient obſeruation of Lent, of VVedneſday and Fridates fast, and of the Ember daies might hauehave informed you hereof. WHIT. p. 828. 829. You play the Sophiſter here in graine, for Moſes, Elias, Dauid, …ohn Baptiſt, and the Apoſtles nouerkept thoſe faſts; neither did they nor any of the auncient Fathers preferre fiſh before fleſh in their… faſtings, as you doe. DVR. Aeriu… vvas counted an heretike. vvho taught the ſame doctrine of faſting vvhichwhich 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 Pſychico…) witneſſeth that in the auncient Chriſtiā church mē vſed to faſt volūtarily & freely, not by Canō or precept: & Epiphanius defēded Euſtathius againſt ye churches iudgmēt 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 conſequēt, then by Homonymie, or equiuocation; how beit, what the truth is we hauehave ſufficiently ciſcuſſed.
You haſte forward and ioyne vntounto 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 hauehave theſe, hauehave a Church of Chriſt; but they who altogether want theſe, are vtterly without both the Church and Chriſt. Let vsus contend about theſe notes, that it may be diſcerned whether you or we hauehave 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 hauehave alreadie conſulted with it, and you now fauour our cauſe leſſe then you did before. But I ſay, Campian, we reſt vponupon the word of God, and not on your iudgement. Yea but (ſay you) prooue vntounto 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 vntounto his Church. Wherefore this is no more our fault, then yours; the controuerſie is about the word of God. You contend that you hauehave it; I contrariwiſe defend that we hauehave it: if you like not my iudgement, why may not I diſlike yours? But you ſay, we expound the word cDVR. You doe ſo, for you proue the ſenſe of Scripture vvhichwhich you alleage, neither by authoritie of Fathers, nor by decrees of Councels, nor by the rule of faith, that is, the common vſe and cuſtome of Chriſtians. WHIT. pag. 831. The meaning of the Scriptures in matters neceſſarie to ſaluation is plainely taught in the Scriptures (as the Fathers themſelues confeſſe) and may bee found out by religious conferring of eaſier and harder places, and ſuch like meanes, and ſo we proue the true ſenſe of them. The Fathers expoſitions often erre, and varie one from another, as their writings witneſſe, and you vvill confeſſe: the auncient Councels expound little of the Scriptures: as for the vſe and cuſtoms of the people, it is no rule of faith at all, nor muſt vvee expound the Scriptures thereby.amiſſe: I againe auouch that it is falſe which you ſay. Whither are you now come at laſt? go one foote further forward if you can. Why, ſay you, I hauehave the testimonie of fifteene hundred yeeres. This is nought elſe but a friuolous, a fooliſh, and an inſolent bragge. You hauehave not, I ſay, you hauehave not Campian. You are euer heere deceiued, and turne round againe, as it were into a circle, and are faultie in that ſame very thing, for which you reprooue vsus. Touching the Fathers, I hauehave anſwered you alreadie. In the queſtions of greateſt waight, they are wholly on ourdDVR. Jf it vvere ſo, you vvould not extenuate their authoritie, nor refuſe to ſtand to their iudgement as you doe. WHIT. pag. 833. We giuegive the Fathers their due, but rely more vponupon the Scriptures, which are infallibly true. you are driuen from the Scriptures, and rake vp, euen out of the Fathers ouerſights, whatſoeuer ſeemeth to fauour your errors: neither doth it follow that the Fathers are not on our ſide in many and the greateſt controuerſies, becauſe wee ſay with Augustine, that all controuerſies of religion muſt not bee determined out of the Fathers, but onelyonly by the Scriptures. ſide; in thoſe of ſmaller moment, their iudgemēts are diuers, and they make for you in very few, and thoſe of leaſt importance. How much better would it ſtand with wiſedome, that (as Augustine ſometime wrote of Councels) neither you ſhould obiect Ierome againſt me, nor I Augustine againſt you,Aug. contra Maximian. lib. 3. cap. 14 thereby to preiudice each ſide, but that matter might be tried with matter, cauſe with cauſe, and reaſon with reaſon, by the authority of the Scriptures? Aug. Epiſt. 111. ad Fortunatian.For indeed, as the ſame Augustine hath elſewhere taught vsus, we muſt not hauehave any mens diſputations (howſoeuer otherwiſe they be mē of ſound iudgement and worthie praiſe) in like eſtimation as the eDVR. No Catholike euer eſteemed any mans vvittings to be compared vvith the Scriptures. WHIT. pag. 834. But Papiſts not onelyonly compare them with, but alſo preferre them before the Scriptures: for they vvill not hauehave controuerſies tried by the Scriptures, but by the Fathers, and they ſooner allovv a ſentence of one Father, than many Scriptures, ſo did not Anguſtine nor Thomas Aquinas.Canonicall Scriptures. Such an vnderſtander (ſaith he) am I in reading other mens writings, ſuch would I hauehave other men to be of mine. And becauſe you hauehave mentioned Thomas Aquinas, The. Aquinas 1. p. 1. q. 2. Art.learne of him what manner argumēts may be taken out of the Fathers writings. Diuinity, or holy learning, ſaith he, vſeth authorities of Canonicall Scripture to proue or disproue a thing neceſſarily; but it vſeth the authorities of other fDVR. VVe ſay not that the iudgement of one or tvvo of the Fathers, but that the common conſent of the Paſters and Doctors of the Church is the ſtrongeſt argument to confute you. WHIT. 833.835. Auguſtine and Thomas ſpake alſo of all men, oppoſing onelyonly Scriptures vntounto them: ſo that apparantly they taught, that the conſent of all Fathers and Doctors could bee but a probable reaſon, and that the Scriptures onelyonly yeeld neceſſarie arguments, vvhichwhich no conſent of men, though neuer ſo learned Doctors and Paſtors can confute. Further I ſay, pag. 854. that you hauehave the common conſent of all the Fathers in no one cauſe againſt vsus; yea, that all the auncient Fathers, doe together with vsus, vvith one voyce condemne your halfe Communion, Tranſubſtantiation, reall preſence, ſole Communion, bread-vvorſhipping, externall reall ſacrifice, ſeruice in ſtrange language, your Popes abſolute iuriſdiction, and many other ſuch like.Doctors of the Church to dispute of a thing probably.
Theſe, forſooth, ô you truly learned Vniuerſitie ſtudents are thoſe ſo notorious ſophiſticall errors, which Campian could finde worthie his cenſure in our mens writings: I could wiſh you might hauehave this ſo famons a Sophiſter to canuas awhile at home in your Schooles, then verily would it eaſily appeare how much truth excelleth falſhood, and how farre ſound learning preuaileth againſt vaine bragging words: for I know well ſuch Sophiſters as this is can neither any whit affright, nor greatly perplex you.