Answer to Campian the Jesuit, Reasons · Answer 7

Answer to Campian the Jesuit · Reasons · Answer 7

p. 191WILLIAM WHITAKERS. The anſwere to the eighth Reaſon, which is the Paradoxes of our aduerſaries.

HIerome ſaid that hee would not hauehave any man to bee patient, if hee were ſuſpected of hereſie. And therefore, Campian, in ſo much the worſer part do I take it, that theſe which you terme Paradoxes, being ſo falſe, ſo many, and ſo horrible, be now by you obiected againſt vsus. And certainlie you that hauehave euer exceeded all other Papiſts in impudency and audaciouſnes, hauehave in this place in very p. 192deed ſurpaſſed your ſelfe: for vnleſſe you had quite and cleane put off both all religion of God, and reuerence toward men, and now of late made ſhipwracke of your owne conſcience, and caſt off vtterly all humanity, you would neuer hauehave admitted ſo much impietie into your ſelfe, as to vpbraide vsus with theſe monſtrous opinions. But I perceiue what you intend: for you hope that by ſlaundering boldly, as he being moſt like you, was wont to ſay, ſomewhat would alwaies cleane fast. For ſith you lacke true imputations, whereby you might oppugne our Churches, it remained that either you ſhould leaue off writing, which had been your honeſteſt way, or at leſt deuiſe ſome ſlaunders, which you would caſt like vnomed darts vponupon vsus; which thing is both in it ſelfe very filthy, and alſo a ſure argument of your deſperatenes. But now if I ſhall ſo wipe away theſe your Paradoxes and impoſſibilities, that al men may perceiue, they were aſcribed to vsus by you moſt falſly and moſt impudently; I do craue not only of all men of our Vniuerſities, but alſo of all Chriſtiās, that hauehave 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 hauehave learned. Wherefore I will ſet vponupon theſe your monſters, Campian, that after I hauehave 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 p. 193either many are deceiued, or elſe you do rather thinke of fighting then diſputing. And I hope that you ſhall once hauehave freedome granted you for that diſputation, which you ſo often deſire. But now let vsus attend how you endeuour to make vsus 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. IfaaDVR. But if I do not ſhew, that Caluin is the maintainer of this ſo horrible ablaſphemy. I refuſe no puniſhment for ſo great a ſlāder: 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 mā found like to Campian, who will …uow that to be ſaid and defended by our men, which they hauehave 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 perhap… 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.Rom 1Judg 9Jas 1:132 Sam 12:112 Sam 12:12 Caluin, or Martyr, or Philip, or Luther, or any of vsus 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 eſſēce: 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, p. 194that all his things be in a certaine excellent manner good, it hath been in times paſt inquired and moſt grauely diſputed, whēce that euil ſprung, which had ſpread ſo far, & what might be the cauſe of this euill. This queſtion Augustine often handled, becauſe of the M…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 thebbDVR. But Caluin ſaith, that when the Diuel moueth men to ſinne, hee is rather the inſtrument of God, than th… author o… 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; …nd did perſwade, and was the author vntounto 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 noccDVR. But what is more often in the mouth of Caluin & all Caluiniſts, …hen this, that God doth not only permit but will ſinne, that he doth moue and thruſt vsus forward to ſinne, nay that be doth by the efficacie of his will impoſe a neceſſity of ſinning vponupon vsus? 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 vsus, yet he doth not frame or put ſinne into vsus: as the Phyſitian, is not the author of d…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.1 Pet 4:19 ſinne; and ſo do teach it in our ſchooles and Churches.Pſal. 44. Zach. 8.17. Gen. 18.25. 1. Ioh. 1.5.Ps 44Zech 8:17Gen 18:251 John 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 eueryevery 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 vntounto vsus ſuch a ſlāder not to be vttred, in ſo much as you affirme that we ſpeake and thinke things flat contrary? But you ſay Caluin and Martyr hauehave taught this p. 195this thing. Nay rather they are wholy bent vpō 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 vntounto 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 do moſt truly deny this, which they deny, I will ſubmit my ſelfe to any puniſhment. But yet there is doubtleſſe ſomewhat, which theſe men ſay, and which Campian doth attribute to them: what that is, let vsus conſider.

There was a certaine inueterate opinion among men, that whatſoeuer ſinne was committed by any, all that was done, God only permitting, and not willing it: now they did ſeparate this permiſſion vtterly from all will of God, ſo as they affirmed that God did no way will thoſe things which he had permitted. But now ſeeing the Lord is to be held toddDVR. Here you, while you, vvould defend that God is not the author of ſinne, yet do nothing elſe but make him the author of ſinne: for if he do not only permit, but alſo willeth that man ſinne, tell me which way, if the will of God be the firſt and effecting cauſe of ſinne, God is not the author of ſinne. WHIT. pag▪ 535. There is no need that I ſhould expound to you that which you demaund for we do not make the will of God to be the firſt and …ffecting cauſe of the ſin, but of the action, which as it commeth from a wicked man, is vitious, ſo then not the vvill of God, but the naughtines of the inſtrument, is the cauſe that thoſe things are done vvic…edly, which the Lord doth rightly. permit thoſe things which are done, not only that they might bee done, as if hee did no whit intermeddle himſelfe in thoſe things, nor had nothing at all to do therein, but alſo doth by his ſpeciall prouidence ſo gouerne all things, as that nothing in the whole world happeneth againſt tha…, that he hath willed & decreed: certainly it cānot be denied, that God doth will after a ſort thoſe things, which the wicked doe, & that this wil of God is ſo effectual, that in the wicked actions of men, God doth execute his owne decree. For in ſinne two things are to be conſidered, the action it ſelfe, and the corruption of the action: which thing your Aquine might teach you, which p. 196alſo he learned from Augustine. The action ſo farre forth as it is a thing and a worke, is good; for God effecteth it: but ſo farre forth as this ſelfe ſame action is vitious, it proceedeth not from God, but from the corrupt nature of man. Although therefore God who worketh all things in all, and againſt whoſe will nothing can bee done; doth bring to paſſe a certaine worke of his in the euill actions of men; yet hee doth thoſe things that are iuſt, nor ought he any way to be thought to be guiltie of the ſinnes of the men themſelues: therefore that which a wicked man doth, that, as it is a ſinne, and as it hath the proper nature of ſinne, the Lord neither willeth nor ſuggeſteth, nor biddeth, nor effecteth; nay he deteſteth and reuengeth it, and iudgeth it worthy of euerlaſting puniſhment. But that which is ſpoken of the thing, that you applie malitiouſly and vnskilfully, to the qualitie of the thing, that you may conclude, that God, becauſe he is the author and cauſe of the action, is alſo the author and cauſe of whatſoeuer corruption is found in that action. I will not proſecute any long digreſſion, nor ouerwhelme you with that multitude of Scr…ptures, which I could here vſe: for I hauehave not taken vponupon me to expound any poynt in the Schooles, but briefely to confute your filthie ſlaunder.

Now anſwere me, Campian, doe you thinke that that which any one doth, how wicked ſoeuer, is done whether God will or no? If you hold that any thing is done againſt Gods wil, what prouidence or omnipotencie doe you leaue him? For he which permits that to be done, which he would by no meanes hauehave to be done, it is certaine that he is not endued with ſo great power, as that he can forbid that which he would not hauehave done. Wherefore you muſt need… confeſſe that all things which are done, are done by the will of God; not that God doth will, that is, p. 197eeDVR. You ſay that God willeth euill, but that he doth not allow it: as if God could will that vvhichwhich he doth not allovv, or as if he could not allovv his ovvne iudgement and decree. WHIT. pag. 538. It is no hard thing to proue this, that God doth vvill many things vvhichwhich he doth not allovv: for if is do happen to Princes, that they doe not ſimplie allovv of vvarre, as being dangerous to them and their ſubiects, but they vvould vvillingly ſhun it it they could, and yet they are compelled ſometime to vvill it for the publike peace ſake: and ſo to a Magiſtrate, vvho ſpareth the liues of his people, and neuer liketh of murther, yet novv and then doth vvillinglie deliuer ſome one or other malefactor vntounto the executioner; ſhall vve thinke that the like cannot happen vntounto God, that hee vvilleth ſome thing in ſome ſort and for ſome other reſpect, vvhichwhich hee doth not allovv ſimplie and of it ſelfe? Thus then God cannot but allovv the action, vvhichwhich he hath deſtinated to a certaine end: but he doth not allovv the corruption and ſinne of the action, vvhereof not he but man is the author.allow the ſinnes of men, but becauſe by this means he doth exerciſe his iudgement and execute his decree, which he both willeth and alloweth. God can vſe euill inſtruments well, and bring to paſſe by wicked men, thoſe things which agree with his will and liking. Now whatſoeuer things God doth by euill inſtruments, thoſe he neither doth nor alloweth, as they be euill things, but as they be his good and holy iudgements: ſo as although he both willeth thoſe things which be done, & doth moue the wils of men, and doth exerciſe in euill inſtruments, though vnknowne to the inſtruments themſelues, an effectuall power, and doth gouerne the wicked counſailes of impious men, that they can doe nothing which hee willeth not; yet both men are wicked, albeit they doe thoſe things which the Lord willeth; and the Lord is holy, howſoeuer he willeth thoſe things which the wicked doe. This may be made manifeſt by examples; but I had rather you ſhould heare Augustine than me. When the Father (ſaith he) deliuered the ſonne, August. Epist. 48. ad Vincent.and the Lord his body, and Iudas the Lord by treacherie, why is God iust in this deliuerie, and man guiltie, but becauſe in one thing which they did, the cauſe was not one for which they did it? Againe, In that the wicked ſinne, it is their owne: in that in ſinning they doe this or that, it comes from the power of God, who diuides the darkenes as he ſeeth good. And in another place: It skilleth much (ſaith he) what will agreeth to man, and what to God, and to what end each one referreth his will, ſo as it may be allowed or p. 198diſallowed. For God fulfilleth certaine of his wils, being ſurely good, by the euill wils of euill men: as by the ill willed Iewes, through the good will of the father, Christ was ſlain, which was ſo great a good, that the Apoſtle Peter, what time he would not hauehave had it done, is termed Satan by him who was willing to be ſlaine. And elſewhere: God (ſaith he) hardened Pharao by iust iudgement, De Grat. & lib. arbit. cap. 23.and Pharao hardened himſelfe by his owne free will. And that you may plainely perceiue there is nothing taught by vsus touching the will of God, but that which the Church of Chriſt long ſince hath taught, I will annexe ſome other ſentences which the ſame Augustine hath written in another place: Great are (ſaith he) the works of the Lord diſtinguiſhed into all his wils, Enchirid. ad Laurent. cap. 100.ſo as after a wonderfull and vnutterable manner that is not done without his will, which alſo is not done againſt his will: becauſe it ſhould not be done, if he did not ſuffer it, neither certainely doth he ſuffer it vnwilling, but willing. And againe: God worketh in the hearts of men to incline their wils whither ſo euer hee will, De Grat. & lib. arbit. ca. 21.whether to good according to his merciemercy, or vntounto euill, according to their merits. And that certainely in his iudgement ſometime open, ſometime ſecret, but alwaies iust. I can vſe infinite teſtimonies in this matter, but I thinke, not very needfull. I will raiſe vp out of your owne ſchoole Hugo de Sancto victore, who ſhall moſt clearely approue our opinion with his owne words. For thus he writeth:De Sacra. part. 2. c. 14. His will is neuer idle, ſo as that is not done, which he willeth: neither in a word can any thing bee done at any time which hee willeth not. And a little after:Cap. 15. The will of God is euer fulfilled, and wicked men are not therefore excuſed, becauſe the will of God is performed in them and by them, for that they are not directed by their owne will, to fulfill the will of God, but by his ſecret prouidence.

Doe you perceiue at length (Campian) that no new paradoxe is defended in our Churches, which p. 199was not both receiued in times paſt in the Churches of Chriſt, and is alſo defended as the truth it ſelfe? For that which you adde, As the calling of Paul, ſo alſo Dauids adulterie, and Iudas his treacherie, were the proper worke of God: from whence you drew theſe poſitions I know not. Theſe works of God not one of our writers doe ſo compare together, as that wee ſhould ſay that God wrought alike in Dauid and Iudas to the committing of hainous offences, as he did in Paul for his effectuall conuerſion. Indeed the Lord wrought both in this and in them, but not after one and the like manner: he did inſpire inwardly the heart of Paul by his ſpirit, and endued his minde with true faith, which he lacked before: but to Dauid and Iudas hee did caſt in no new kinde of impietie or inclination of will, nor did hee ſtirre vp new motions vntounto ſinning (God forbid that any Chriſtiā ſhould ſo much as thinke it:) but they running of their owne accord, and ſtirred vp by and of themſelues, be did ſo hold and bend, that they vnwitting to themſelues, and not imagining any ſuch thing, did execute Gods decree. For by this adulterie of Dauid the Lord did both chaſtice Dauid, in that he did puniſh ſinne with ſinne, as hee is wont, and alſo hee made a way open for his purpoſes in time ſucceeding. Like hereunto is that of Abſalom: he defiled Dauids Concubines:2. Sam. 17.22.2 Sam 17:22 the h…inouſnes of which offence cannot bee vttered: yet this way the Lord had decreed to take puniſhment of Dauid. But the treacherie of Iudas, if you reſpect the couetouſnes and perfidiouſnes of the man, did ſo diſpleaſe God, that neuer any thing did offend him more: and yet the Lord vſed both Iudas treacherie and the Prieſts crueltie for the finiſhing of that worke of our ſ…luation, and he would hauehave theſe wretched inſtruments to effect that diuine worke. Therefore the Apoſtles doe teſtifie that all theſe did nothing elſe but p. 200thoſe things which the hand and counſaile of the Lord did decree to bee done.Act. 4.28.Acts 4:28 And yet there is not here any monſtrous thing, wherof either Philip Melanchton or any other ought to bee aſhamed, vnleſſe perhaps the holy doctrine of the Scripture ſeeme monſtrous to you.

As for that that you demaund with what minde Luther did take away this verſe from the Church prayers, O holy Trinitie, one God, hauehave merciemercy vponupon vsus, certeinly you are too ſuſpitious. If Luther did think erroneouſly touching the Trinitie, conuince him: his bookes are in mens hands, and they are read by you, as it ſeemeth, very diligently. Alleage, if you can, any one word, iniurious either to the Trinitie or Vnitie. For if out of all his writings, which are innumerable, you can draw no probable inkling of this ſuſpition, why doe you make queſtion about one verſe taken away from the Church prayers? which whether it bee taken away or no, I know not: and though it bee taken away, yet how appeares it that it was taken away by him? But Luthers condition is very hard, who muſt ſtand vntounto, both what hee hath written, and what hee hath not written. And theſe are thoſe our paradoxes concerning God, which you could carpe at in the bookes of all our writers, which hauehave come foorth in a manner infinitely. The matter is ſafe and ſound: the aduerſarie hath viewed ouer all of them, and yet hath found nothing.

By and by you proceede to the perſon of Chriſt,Of Christ. and you demand what theſe words of Caluin meane; Christ i… the ſonne of God, God of God, God of himſelfe▪ What reprooue you here Campian? what, that hee ſaid, Chriſt is the Sonne of God? or for that hee termed him God of God? or elſe, that he affirmeth him to be God of himſelfe? But which of theſe aſſertions is it, that is not holy, not granted, not agreeable to the Catholike faith? which if you deny, you doe not p. 201conuince any Paradox of ours, but you bewray your owne hereſie. But this is the point, vnleſſe I be deceiued, wherin you hauehave found, I know not what, knot, as it were in a ruſh. The Nicene Fathers doe profeſſe Chriſt to bee God of God, to the end they may teach that the Son is of the ſame ſubſtance with the Father. This ſaying, ſome afterward catcht at ſo, as that they did maintaine that Chriſt is not God by himſelfe and of himſelfe, but that hee receiued it of his Father: wherein they quite tooke away the Diuinity of Chriſt. For vnleſſe he be God of himſelfe, he cannot be God at all. For that hee may be God, hee muſt needs be God of himſelfe. Wherefore howſoeuer thoſe Fathers did ſay that Chriſt is God of God, yes Calain maintaineth that it is moſt firmely to be beleeued, that Chriſt hath this, to be God of himſelf, vnleſſe we will rob Chriſt of his Diuinity. To be the Sonne, he receiued that indeed of the Father: for he is the Son of the Father. To be God, he hath that offfDVR. If the Sonne of God hauehave not his eſſence from the Father, ſurely be is not the Sonne of the Father. WHIT. pag. 542. And vvhy ſo? did Caluin euer deny that the Son hath his eſſence from the Father? he and vve all teach that the Sonne vvas begotten of the Fathers eſſence; and that the Sonne hath the vvhole eſſence of the Father, and that not by deciſion or propagation, as the wicked Prithe…s dreame, but by cōmunication. And yet h…e you multiply Scriptures and Fathers needleſly. This vve ſay, Chriſt is God of himſelfe, but in this ſenſe, that, that eſſence vvhichwhich is in the Sonne, is not from any other eſſence, but of and from himſelfe, ſeeing that the eſſence of the Father and the Sonne is one and the ſame. For eſſence, as Baſil truly vvriteth againſt Eunomius, cannot be generated: and pag. 543. vvherefore Chriſt, ſo farre forth as he is God, is of himſelfe; and ſo farre forth as he is the Sonne, is of the Father: for he cannot be God, vvhoſe eſſence is not of and from it ſelfe, ſo Baſil and Augustine. himſelfe, becauſe he is God by himſelfe. What ſay you now Campian? God of God, is with Caluin, God of himſelfe: and ſay you ſo indeed? hath not Caluin admoniſhed you of this, that the name of God is to be taken for the Father, when as Chriſt is termed the Sonne of God? That therefore which the Nicene Fathers deliuer, that Chriſt is God of God, that is ſo to be vnderſtood, that we ſhould confeſſe the Sonne p. 202to be begotten of the Father, and not that we ſhould attribute the name of God only to the Father: for we muſt looke to it, that wee doe not ſo determine the Sonne to bee of the Father, as that wee ſhould deny him to be God of himſelfe. And theſe things Caluin hath interpreted moſt diligently and moſt holily, nor hath he ſet forth any one word at all different from the faith of the Scriptures and of the Catholike Church. Remember that ſentence of Augustine: Christ in respect of himſelf is termed God, Hom. de Temp. 38.but in reſpect of the Father he is termed the Sonne: wherein you may acknowledge the opinion of the auncient Church.

Now you ſet vponupon Beza: for like to the faſhion of mad dogges, you ſtand not in one place, but flie hither and thither, and vponupon whomſoeuer you light, you bite him ſhrewdly with your venomous teeth. Beza ſaith (as you ſay) he is not begotten of the eſſence of the Father. Why are you angrie with Beza, if he ſay the ſame things, which are wont to be ſaid & maintained by your owne ſelues? For you cannot be ignorant, what your Lombard teacheth touching the oſlence of God, which both he, and the ſchoole men that hauehave followed him do affirme, neither to get, nor to be begotten. For that eſſence is not begotten by eſſence, but perſon by perſon. If Beza would imitate theſe, in ſaying that Chriſt was begotten not of the eſſence but of the perſon of the Father, why doe you reproue him? and yet we may not imagine that the eſſence is ſeparated from the perſon, as if the eſſence of the Sonne were another from the eſſence of the Father: (for there is but one ſimple eſſence of the Deity) but for aſmuch as perſon is diſtinguiſhed frō eſſence; albeit not in the thing, yet by rolation; and ſith tho Ancient were wont to ſpeake after this manner, that they ſaid Chriſt was begotten of the perſon of the Father, rather then of his eſſence: it is no maruel that the ſame forme of ſpeech did like Beza beſt, p. 203whoſe iudgement it was euer, that we ought to ſet downe determinations touching the higheſt myſteries very warily and with great conſideration. Now that the eſſence is not begotten, the whole auncient Church held, as Baſil writeth expreſly:C…ntr. Eu…m. lib. 1. God is not begotten either of himſelfe … of any other. Albeit I do not very wel know, whether theſe be Beza… words which you recite: ſurely I remember not that I hauehave euer read them in Beza, nor can I find them in this place which you quote. But thoſe that follow, are very malitious. Beza ſaid once, that there be two perſonall vnions in Chriſt, as you ſay, the one of the ſoule with the body, the other of the Godhead with the manhood. Which ſpeech of his Iames Andreas reproued: and indeed not without cauſe; albeit this doth not follow out of that ſpeech, that there are two perſons in Chriſt, though there bee two perſonall vnions: but that, becauſe it was written ambiguouſly, Beza profeſſeth that he would willingly mend it. And what can you deſire more? if he hauehave erred, yet he perſiſted not in his error, but hath amended his fault: with what face therefore can you vpbraide him with that, which fell from him but once ere he was aware, ſeeing he corrected it after? And touching the perſon of Chriſt, Beza eueryevery where teacheth thoſe things, than which nothing can be more true and ſincere: nor is there any of vsus that is wont to affirme or defend that which you obiect concerning thoſe two perſonall vnions. For we confeſſe but one perſon, conſtituted of the two natures, as alſo we acknowledge but one perſonall vnion: for although Chriſt did aſſume both body and an humane ſoule; yet theſe parts are not ſo perſonally ioyned together in Chriſt, as that they do make any perſon ſeparate from his Godhead, leſt we ſhould imagine that Chriſt conſiſteth of two perſons.

Now againe you make recourſe to Caluin, whom p. 204I thought you had quite giuen ouer before. Caluin denieth▪ that the place of Iohn, I and my Father are one, doth ſhew that Christ is God of the ſame ſubſtance with the Father. What then Campian? was it ſo hainous an offence, to diſſent from the auncient Fathers in the expoſition of one place? Did he euer deny that Chriſt is of the ſame ſubſtance with the Father? you cannot maintaine it. For hee alwaies taught it moſt conſtantly, and confuted the Arrians by other innumerable texts of holy Scripture. For what? doe you thinke that he cannot be of the ſame ſubſtance with the Father, vnleſſe this place teach it? he that heedfully readeth ouer that diſpute of Chriſt with the Iewes, which Iohn in that chapter ſetteth downe,Ioh. 10.John 10 ſhal eaſily perceiue that ratherggDVR. What is this that you ſay? Iohn ſignified the vnion of power & will, and not of eſſence: are you ſo rude, as that you are ignorant that in God, povver, and eſſence are the ſame? WHIT. pag. 546. I am not ſo rude, but that I well vnderſtand, that the power of God is the eſſence of God: but doth it follow, if Chriſt being endowed and enuironed with the power of God could not be ouercome, but that God alſo ſhould be ouercome, that the eſſentiall power of God and Chriſt is the ſame? an vnity of will and power, then of eſſence, is ſignified. Chriſt affirmeth that no man can take his ſheepe out of his hands: & that he may perſwade it plainly, he adioyneth, I and my Father are one. I doe not ſee how you can thereout conclude an vnity of ſubſtance, vnleſſe you ſtill vnderſtand that ſame word, One, of the ſubſtance. What is it then that Chriſt ſaith, not of himſelfe only, and his Father, but of all the faithfull,Job. 17.21. 1. Ioh. 5.8.Job 17:211 John 5:8 that they all may be one, as thou O Father art in me, and I in thee? That place in the Epiſtle of Iohn, Theſe three are one, the Ordinarie Gloſſe doth thus expound, that is, witneſſing of the ſame thing. Eraſmus in annot. in 1. Iob. c. 5.Job 5But Eraſmus doth much more vehemently find fault with the old Fathers, becauſe they abuſed theſe words, I and the Father are one, againſt the Arrians. Not, I think, for that he did any whit fauour the Arriāt, but becauſe he thought it was done by the Fathers with no great reaſon. But you ſay, that, that word, Homoouſion, was odious to Luther. For he ſaith, my ſoule hateth this word, Homoouſion. Luther neuer ſaid that: only this he ſaid, if he had hated that word, p. 205Homoouſion, yet he ſhould be no heretike as long as he held the thing it ſelfe. Theſe are Luthers words: But if my ſoule did hate that word, Homoouſion, and would not vſe it, I ſhould not bee an heretike: for who ſhould compell me to vſe it, ſo as I hold the thing, which was determined in a Councell by the Scriptures? hhDVR. What more fooliſh then to hate a name vncopable of hatred? WHIT. pag. 547. Then is he no heretike for hating the name, when he loueth the thing: and out of theſe words to faine and caſt ſuch a poſition vponupon Luther as this; My ſoule hateth that word, Homoouſion; it is a deuiſe moſt worthily deſeruing perpetual hatred.But howſoeuer he did hate the name, yet he did louelove the thing it ſelfe as his owne ſoule. And with this ſame name, it is certaine that many and thoſe very excellent men were in times paſt offended, in ſo much as they hauehave wiſhed it had neuer been heard of. For this name being once brought in, the Churches were at ſuch conflicts betweene themſelues through hatreds and contentions, that the holy Fathers themſelues did not a little repent them of that name: nor if a man would hauehave perhaps ſome name to be taken away, which hath giuen occaſion of many diſſentions, is he therefore to be thought to diſallow the thing declared by that name.Hieron. in Epist. ad Damaſ. Hierome could not be perſwaded to receiue the three Hypoſtaſes, becauſe he had that new name, Hypoſtaſis, in ſuſpition: for he was afraide leſt there lay ſome venome vnderunder that name: yet hee did acknowledge and preach three perſons. And now both thoſe tearmes are receiued, nor ought any one to be offended with it.

Goe yee forward, ſay you: goe you alſo forward, Campian, ſeeing you will needs doe ſo, but it had been better for you rather to giuegive ouer, than to goe on of this faſhion. It is better to retire than to runne ill. You reproach vsus now for this, that wee ſay, Christ was not perfect in Grace from his infancie, but that he grew in the gifts of his mind as other men doe, and was made wiſer eueryevery day by experience. I doe eaſilie endure you to obiect many paradoxes againſt vsus, ſeeing you taxe the very hiſtorie of the Goſpell with the ſame fault: for who may hope that he can eſcape p. 206your ſlander, who ſticke not moſt audaciouſly to fly vponupon the writings of the Goſpell: for what doe we teach elſe herein, but that which the Euangeliſt hath expreſſed in his writings once or twice? for thus we reade in Luke. The Child increaſed, Luk. 2.40.Luke 2:40and was ſtrengthned in the ſpirit, and he was filled with wiſdome, and the grace of God was in him. And againe,Verſ. 52. Ieſus grew iiDVR. That is, ſaith Ieremy, and the auncient Fathers, Chriſt grew in wiſdome, becauſe together with his age that his wiſdome did eueryevery day more ſhine forth and ſhew it ſelfe to men. Ieremy thus, a woman ſhall compaſſe a man; and Auguſtine, Iuſtine, Clement, and Hilary ſay, to aſcribe to Christ ignorance, is an impious thing, and not to be beleeued. WHIT. pag. 550. Thus you …rgue, Ieremy chap. 31. wrot: A woman ſhall compaſſe a man: therefore Chriſt was a man in his mothers wombe, full of knowledge and wiſdome. Out of all doubt with theſe arguments you will win the field: but yet take this with you; if a woman compaſſed a man, in ſuch ſort as you affirme, then it will follow that Chriſt was a man, before he was borne; and Marie did beare him, not an infant, but a man; and old Symeon tooke in his armes a man, and not a child. Theſe are expoſitions worthy your patronage. As for the Fathers that you cite, they ſpeake only of Chriſts Diuine nature. DVR. Adam in his creation vvas indued with excellent wiſdome and knowledge: what madnes is it then to attribute to Chriſt the infirmitie of ignorance? WHIT. I anſwere, you diſpute very admirablie. Adam was created with excellent knowledge, therefore Chriſt was ignorant of nothing: firſt, Adam knovv not all things, but you ſay Chriſt was neuer ignorant of any thing. Againe from this ground you may conclude, that Chriſt is not dead. For if Adam in the beginning was ſo created, that he could not die, what madnes is it, (to vſe your owne words) to attribute the infirmitie of mortalitie to Chriſt? Tell me I pray you, which is more befitting to Chriſt, mortalitie or infirmitie? But when the Scripture is manifeſt, that Chriſt did not take our nature whole and ſound, as it was then in Adam, but infirme and weake, yet without ſinne; it is no maruell if he would be borne ſuch as we are, not ſuch as Adam was created.Jer 31in wiſdome, and in ſtature, and in fauour both with God and men. What els can be vnderſtood out of theſe words, but that Ieſus did increaſe both in ſtature and wiſdome, & the more he grew in age, ſo much the greater progreſſes had he in the gifts of the holy Ghoſt: for ſo our Euangeliſt had written a little before of Iohn: The Child grew and was ſtrengthned in the ſpirit. Luk. 1.82.Luke 1:82Doe you thinke that Iohn was preſently as ſoone as he was borne endewed with perfect wiſdome and grace of the ſpirit, ſo as he had no additiō euer made him? But Luke ſaith that Christ was full of wiſdome. I p. 207doe not deny it:foreign. albeit Luke doe not ſay filled, as though he were full of wiſdome, but filling, wherby ſome growth and addition is ſignified. But to grant that he was full, will you therefore hauehave it that nothing was added afterward? what then doe you determine of Iohn, of whom the Angell foretold that he ſhould be full of the holy Ghoſt from his mothers wōbe? Wherefore if Chriſt had this, that at what time he firſt was made man, abſolute & perfect wiſdome, and other gifts of the ſpirit were heaped vponupon him, certainly he had it not alone; nor am I moued with the authority of the ſchoolmen, who leſt they might ſeeme to thinke leſſe honorablie of Chriſt, doe attribute to him preſently all perfections. And Damaſcens argument taken from the perſonall vnion doth not conclude it,Damaſc. lib. 3. de Orthodox. ſide. vnleſſe we will thinke that the Deity did infuſe all the quality of it ſelfe into the humanity of Chriſt. That which the Euangeliſt writeth of this progreſſe of wiſdome, pertaineth only to the human nature of Chriſt? And ſeeing that Chriſt would aſſume the whole nature of man,Heb. 4.15.Heb 4:15 ſauing in ſinne, and lay off that perſon of God, and emptie himſelfe, and take the forme of a ſeruant,Phil. 2.Phil 2 will it be vnbeſeeming the perſon of Chriſt, that wee ſay hee was made both wiſer and fuller of grace by little and little? He was indeed moſt full of grace, …nd whatſoeuer grace any bodie hath, al that he drew out of this euer remaining foū taine of moſt abundant grace:Ioh. 1.16.John 1:16 but yet this hindreth not, but that Chriſt, as the Euangeliſt writeth, might grow in grace: which thing alſo Ambroſe confeſſeth. For ſo he ſaith:Ambroſ. in Luc. lib. 2. cap. 2. kkDVR. But he ſaith, lib. 5. de fide cap. 8. I ſay that the Sonne was ignorant of nothing, but he tooke vponupon him our affection, that hee might ſay, hee was ignorant by our ignorance. WHIT pag. 553. If Chriſt as a child was ignorant of nothing, becauſe of the perſonall vnion with the Deity, yet it is a very childiſh argument, to reaſon from the perſon to the humane nature; that becauſe the man Chriſt is ignorant of nothing, therefore the humani…y of Chriſt is not ignorant of any thing. If Ambroſe ſometime vponupon occaſion diffe… from himſelfe, let him looke to it.According to the fleſh certainly hee p. 208was filled with wiſdome and grace. Nor doe ſome of your men, Campian, differ from this iudgement, leſt you ſhould perhaps imagine it to be ſo horrible, as that it cannot fall vponupon a Catholike: for I anſenii… Biſhop of Gandaua,Comment. in concord. cap. 12. Eraſm. annot. in Luc. cap. 2.Luke 2 who was preſent at the Cōuenticle of Trent, profeſſeth that he doth willingly incline to this iudgement: and Eraſmus (albeit I name him not among writers on your ſide) doth giuegive his note that it is the truer opinion.

But, ſay you, they affirme alſo, that Chriſt was ignorant of ſome things. And why may they not affirme it? This (ſay you) is as much, as if they affirmed that he was defiled with originall ſinne. Now at length you begin to argue very wittely, that our Vniuerſitie men may vnderſtand your wonderfull ſubtiltie in diſputing. Would you deale on this manner with vsus, Campian, if that diſpute, which you ſo often wiſh, might bee permitted you? For what could be ſpoken more abſurdly? Chriſt was ignorant of ſomething: therfore Chriſt was defiled with originall ſinne. As if he that is ignorant of ſomething, which may be knowne, or he which is not endued with the perfect knowledge of all things, it muſt needs be that he is defiled with ſinne. Thus then I will returne you a like argument:llDVR. Though they were ignorant of many things, yet they had not that ignorance, which commeth fr… originall corruption, vvhichwhich if you ſay Chriſt had, you must affirme that he was defiled vvith originall ſinne. WHIT. pag. 555. All ignorance commeth not from originall ſinne, as appeareth by the ignorance of Adam and the Angels; therefore Chriſt might be ignorant without ſinne. And though we affirme all ignorance is now the puniſhment of ſinne: yet will it not follow that no ignorance was in Chriſt, nay rather that there was; for hee was to take vponupon him the puniſhment of all our ſinnes. Therefore hee vnderwent not only this puniſhment, but alſo death, being the puniſhment of ſinne, Rom. 6.2…. yet for all this was he not defiled with originall ſinne. DVR. The Fathers ſay he knevv not the day of iudgement, becauſe hee hath not reuealed it, and would that others ſhould be ignorant of it. WHIT. pag. 556. This interpretation is eaſilie refelled. For from this will follow that the Father alſo was ignorant of it, ſeeing the Father did no more tell it and manifeſt it to others, then the Sonne did.Rom 6:2 The Angels are now ignorant of many things (for p. 209they know not that day and houre) and Adam, Mar. 14.36Mark 14:36before he ſinned, was ignorant of many things: (for he did not vnderſtand that Satan lay in waite for him) therefore both the Angels are now defiled with ſin, and Adam in his greateſt innocencie was a ſinner. You ſhall neuer pricke vsus with theſe goades ſo, as that wee may feare any deadly wound. If you know not that there is an ignorance void of all fault, learne it of Thomas, who wil teach you, that negatiue ignorance, which he termes neſcience,12. q. 76. art. 2. is not ſinne, but the priuatiue. If you can conclude that conſequent out of our iudgement, that Chriſt was ignorant of ſomewhat, which hee then ought to hauehave knowne, when he was ignorant of it, then you put vsus downe from this our ſtanding. For it is not a fault not to know thoſe things, which yet may bee knowne, vnleſſe it concerne vsus to hauehave them knowne. For who will blame a Porter, for that he is ignorant of the Mathematikes? But concerning Chriſt, I anſwere now that vntounto you, which toucheth this cauſe neerer. Although he were moſt pure from all ſpot of ſinne, ſo as nothing could be more vncorrupt; yet hee tooke vponupon himſelfe the puniſhment due to ſinne, that he might deliuer vsus from it. Therefore alſo hee would die, albeit death iſſued from ſinne. He then that ſuffered death for vsus, which ſinne brought in; can any thing, which is ours, be vnbeſeeming him, ſo as it be not infected with ſin? And you can neuer proue, that ignorance in Chriſt was any whit more faultie, than death. Chriſt as he was a true man, albeit a pure man, ſo hee did neuer thinke, imagine or vnderſtand all things at once, and he did ſleepe ſometimes. Do you thinke that Chriſt while hee was ſleeping, did comprehend all things in his memorie? which though you ſhould affirme, yet I ſee no reaſon to beleeue you. That which Chriſt ſpake of that day and houre, (no man knoweth it, Marc. 13.32.Mark 13:32nor the Sonne himſelfe) Cyrill writeth p. 210that Chriſt ſpake it of himſelf, and that he knew not the day of iudgement,Cyril. Theſaur. lib. 9. cap. 4. as he was man, becauſe it is proper to the humane nature to bee ignorant of things to come.

But now, ſay you, wee ſhall take knowledge of worſe things, and here you recite many things concerning Chriſts ſwea…e, horror, and ſudden outcrie. I acknowledge that which you alleage, but I ſee no paradoxe therein. I am not ignorant what is wont to be giuen out by you in corners, that Chriſt is reproched, when wee ſay he was tormented with ſo great griefes of minde. But it is ſo farre off, Campian, that I doe either denie or diſſemble thoſe things which you now obiect, that I doe teach and auow them openly and freely. And though the whole nation of Ieſuits ſhould ſet vponupon me, yet I will neuer be aſhamed to celebrate Chriſts merciemercy, which I ſee to bee violated by them with vnſpeakable iniuries. For what thinke you was it that Chriſt felt, which brought ſo great ſadnes and vexation to him, that it wrung from him a bloody ſweate? was it only death,foreign which takes away life and ſenſe? Doe you thinke that Chriſt could be broken ſo with the feare of that death that he ſhould conceiue ſo much griefe in his minde, to make him ſweate water and blood, for the deſire he had to eſcape taſting of that cup which hee came to drinke of? Did Chriſt ſo much abhorre this death, which the Martyrs hauehave gone vntounto, ioyfull and cheerefull? That were indeede to caſt a greater reproch vponupon Chriſt, while ye would auoide the leſſer. Wherefore that which raiſed ſo great horrors in Chriſt, was the moſt bitter wrath of God againſt mankinde, which Chriſt muſt needes hauehave ſuffered for a time. For the whole weight of our ſinnes was impoſed vponupon Chriſt, which brought with it a moſt heauie remembrance of Gods wrath. Seeing therefore Chriſt our Mediatour being laden with our ſins, p. 211did ſuffer the greatnes of Gods diſpleaſure, and did alone endure the puniſhment of our ſinnes, certainly he did quake, as man, and did expreſſe thoſe incredible ſorrowes of his minde many waies. Hence came that ſpeech vponupon the Croſſe, My God, my God, why hast thou forſaken me? which he vttered not fainedly, but from his heart; not deſpairingly, as you wickedly write, but vponupon the conſideration of Gods wrath, which then he was to be ſubiect vntounto.mmDVR. Christ truly was the Sonne of God, who knew nothing in himſelfe worthie of wrath, and ſo could not feare the paines of hell. WHIT. pag. 558. You diſpute wittily: as if he were not the Sonne of Man alſo, and ſuſtained the perſon of ſinfull men. Neither did he ſo feare hell, as you imagine: but when the puniſhment of vsus all was vponupon him alone, he muſt needs as a man be greatly affected and moued with it. For God was exceedingly incenſed againſt vsus for our ſinnes: Chriſt interpoſed himſelfe; and he alone vn…erwent the greatnes of that wrath powred vponupon him, he therfore that ſaith, Chriſt felt nothing, diminiſheth the greatnes of ſin, the iuſtice of God, and the merit of Chriſt. I hat he was not ſwallowed vp of thoſe torments, it muſt be imputed to the power of his diuine nature. DVR. But how could hee thinke himſelfe forſaken of God. vvho offered himſelfe vvholy to God? WHIT. pag. 559. If be did nor feele this defection, why did hee ſay vainely and raſhly that he was forſaken? he o…ed himſelfe by his eternall ſpirit, that is, his Diuinity, Hebr. 9.14. Therefore this freewill offering did not hinder, but that he might feele in his mind thoſe ſorrowes which men ſhould hauehave ſuffered.Heb 9:14 This is that Hell, of which Chriſt while he was aliue, and not as you obiect againſt Caluin, after he was dead, did taſte. And certainly this vexation, which Chriſt endured at that time, did equall after a ſort the very paines of hell. But theſe things are reproued by you, becauſe they bee not vnderſtood. For the Papiſts with their dull hearts cannot conceiue, what Chriſt performed for vsus by his death, and what paines hee endured for the ſatisfying of his Father. Therefore they thinke wrong is done to Chriſt, when we ſay he ſuffered thoſe things which hee both would and ought to hauehave ſuffered for vsus. For it was neceſſarie not onelyonly that Chriſt ſhould die innnDVR. Christ being God and man ſatisfied the diuine iustice, not by the greatnes and multitude of his puniſhment, but by the weight of his actions, euerie one of vvhichwhich is ſufficient to be a full price of mans redemption. Neither vvas it neceſſary that Christ ſhould vndergoe the ſame puniſhment; vvhichwhich man ſhould hauehave ſuffered, as if any man vvould free another from priſon, vvho is caſt into it for debt; it is not neceſſary that be go into priſon for him. Beſides, who will ſay that the body of man aid ſinne? it is man that ſinneth, not the bodie. WHIT. pag. 562. See I pray you what followeth vponupon your defence, that it was needleſſe that Chriſt ſhould die at all: for if any action of him being God and man, would hauehave ſatisfied Gods iuſtice, and wrought mans redemption, in vaine did hee ſhead his blood and ſuffer death But if this be contrary to the decree & iuſtice of God, and not eueryevery puniſhment but extreame ſufferings both of body and ſoule was to be vndergone, as Chriſt ſuffered in his body the moſt b…ter …eath, ſo did he in his ſoule exquiſite and extreame ſorrowes. And out of your ſimilitude it will follow …s well, that he need not to hauehave deſcended from heauen to hauehave been made man, or to hauehave ſuffered any ſorrowes: and yet who knoweth not, that not only the debtors themſelues, but their ſu…ies muſt be caſt into priſon, till the creditor be ſa…fied? And ſeeing that in ſuch a ſuerty as this, not the bare payment of money, but a reall ſuffering of grieuous paines was neceſſary, why ſhould we doubt but Chriſt hath moſt truly accompliſhed the part of a ſuertie? Laſtly if the bodie doe not ſinne, why ſhould it ſuffer the puniſhment of ſinne? for is it equall, that the body, which in your iudgment doth not ſinne, ſhould be grieuouſly and eternally puniſhed for ſinne? And if it bee as you ſay, that the man doth ſinne, then muſt the body hauehave a finger in it; for the ſoule of it ſelfe is not a man. And if Chriſt tooke mans ſinne vponupon him, it was certainly the ſin of the whole man, becauſe he hath redeemed the whole. bodie, but alſo in his ſoule wraſtle with death, becauſe not onelyonly p. 212mans bodie, but alſo his ſoule had offended God, and deſerued euerlaſting death. And they that ſpeak againſt this doctrine, being very full of diuine comfort, if Caluin doe proſecute ſomewhat eagerly, no good man ought iuſtly to bee diſpleaſed with him for this cauſe. But that you cannot abide: and therefore you cry out, Oh wicked daies! oh monſtrous times! It may be you hauehave ſeene a monſter at Rome, or rather many monſters, which trouble you now with furious thoughts, and vrge you to make an outcrie. But we Vniuerſitie men are not woont much to bee moued with the clamours of mad men. For he ouercomes in the Schooles, not who can crie out moſt ſhrilly, but who cā diſpute moſt ſitly vntounto the truth. But I pray you, Campian, ſpare your voyce a while, and gather your wits together, and then I truſt you will be ſomewhat milder anon, when you hauehave reſted you a little, for I doe not heare that this is the p. 213continuall dint of your minde, and I doe not doubt but you may bee pacified with words. You ſay that Chriſt hath contumelious iniurie offered him by vsus. Wherefore? becauſe he is by this meanes too much abaſed, and much is detracted from his Maieſtie. Concerning that Nazianzen anſwers you: Is Chriſt therefore ſpoiled of his honour, Nazianz.becauſe hee is become humble for thy ſake? Now how great bitternes of griefe Chriſt felt, learne of Rabanus, Rabanus, in Catena Thoma.if happely you regard him. Thus doth he expound thoſe words of Chriſt, Why haſt thou forſaken mee: Our Sauiour (ſaith he) ſpake this, carrying about him our affections, who being in danger thinke our ſelues to be forſaken. For his humane nature was forſaken becauſe of ſinne: but becauſe the Sonne of God was made our Aduocate, he bewailes their miſerie whoſe fault he tooke vponupon him. And Hierome though he did differ from this opinion becauſe of the Arrians,Hieronym. yet the very power of truth did wring frō him ſome confeſſion. Concerning Chriſts prayer, wherein he entreated, that that cup might be taken away, thus he writeth: Neuertheleſſe returning to himſelfe, that which he had refuſed ſomewhat fearefully in his nature, as man, he ratifieth in his nature as he was God and the Sonne: Yet not as I will, but as thou wilt, ſaith he, let not this be done which I ſpeake in my humane affection, but that for which I came downe to the earth by thy will. Ambroſius.And Ambroſe vſeth theſe words to Gratian: As he tooke my will, ſo he tooke my ſorrow. Finally,Melch. Canus. lib. 12. cap. 13. I will annexe the iudgement of Melchior Canus, to whom you owe much on good cauſe, that you may know the opinion of a flat Catholike touching this matter. Surely (ſaith he) it was conuenient that the Sonne of God, being to exhibite himſelfe a ſacrifice for ſinne, ſhould take vponupon him not onelyonly the ſorrowes of the bodie, and of the ſenſitiue facultie of the ſoule, but alſo the ooDVR. But it followeth not that ſo he did diſpaire or feele the paines of hell. WHIT. pag. 564. There was no dāger, leſt Chriſt might perchance deſpaire, nor is it neceſſary, that whoſoeuer ſuſtaineth the paines of hell for a while, the ſame ſhould bee ouerwhelmed with perpetuall deſpaire: many of the godly are ſometime afflicted with a very deepe ſenſe of Gods anger, which they yet ouercome through Gods ſpirit, much more then could Chriſt ouercome all the paines of hell.torments of the ſpirit, and the griefe p. 214of the will, to the end that that moſt acceptable ſacrifice to God for all our ſinnes, might be by all meanes broken and bruiſed. And a little after: Hee being forſaken of God, and deſtitute vtterly of all comfort, did not reioyce.

You ſay that Bucer in compariſon of this madnes was modeſt, although hee were very impudent, who takes Hell in the Creed for the graue. I let paſſe your reproch, which you lacke not in any place, nor am I diſpoſed to extend any longer anſwere about this Hell. The matter is in ſome difference among learned men, who albeit they agree not ſo well among themſelues about the thing, yet they agree herein excellent well, in that they affirme that the Papiſts doe very wickedly vnderſtand it of Chriſts deſcent into Hell. For as for Hell, whether it ſignifie the buriall of Chriſt, as Bucer thought, or that ſorrowe of minde, wherewith Chriſt was affected a little before his death, as Caluin would hauehave it; yet we retaine the Article, and we teach y^t Chriſt did deſcend into Hell. If that cannot bee otherwiſe vnderſtood than thus, that Chriſt did deſcend into, I know not what, Limbus Patrum, wherein you ſuppoſe the Fathers to hauehave been, and that hee did out of that place bring with him an infinite multitude of holy men, I will confeſſe that Bucer did erre, and that Caluin made a foule ſlip. But thoſe your dreames concerning Hell, are worthie to be buried in Hell it ſelfe. Now as for that you ſay, that it was in deliberation in a certaine conuenticle at London, how that article might bee taken out of the Creed, this certainly is the firſt time that euer I heard of it, neither doe I giuegive any credit either to your ſelfe, or to your wretched Cheiny, who told you this tale. Although if the ancient Creeds of the Romane and Eaſt Church did lacke that Article, as hee affirmeth, whoſoeuer hee is, that in Cyprians workes expounded the Creed with his Commentaries, p. 215perhaps their fault wasppDVR. Js it a ſmall fault to croſſe out of the Apoſtles Creed Chriſt his deſcenſion into hell? It is ſolid in the Creed of Athanaſius, where there is mention of buriall, and in the Nicene Creed, when his buriall is mentioned, this deſcenſion is not expreſſed. And who ſeeth not that it was neceſſary that his ſoule muſt deſcend into the common place of other ſoules? WHIT. pag. 568. If it be a haynous fact to put out this article, then the Church of Rome (which you ſay cannot erre) is guiltie of this, as Ruffinus writeth in expoſit. Symb. And it is no ſtrange thing, when in very few auncient Creeds it is to be found. I could produce fiftie Creeds, which hauehave it not; in certaine it is found, but then ſaith Ruffinus it muſt be vnderſtood by the precedent article, for it is the ſame with that, which ſaith he was buried. And this was Bucers opinion, which the two Creeds of Athanaſius and Nice do confirme: for if they be ſo diuerſly ſet downe, that in ſome of them is mention of his buriall only, in others only of his deſcenſion; it is manifeſt, that there is one and the ſame ſenſe in them, and that to be buried is as much as to deſcend into hel, and this as much as that. Finallie it is true his ſoule went into the common receptacle of ſoules, but how proue you that that place is in hell? for if his ſoule went into Paradiſe, it could not go into hell, vnleſſe Paradiſe be there. leſſe, which would imitate the Church of Rome, which you hold cannot erre.

Of Man.Now you make your queſtion concerning man: and you bring vsus in ſpeaking on this faſhion. The image of God is vtterly blotted out in man, no ſparke of good being left: For ſo, ſay you, hauehave Illyricus and Caluin taught. I know well the iudgement of Illyricus, which I doe not thinke ought to bee laide to our charge. For you are not ignorant, Campian, that his opinion touching the image of God, and of the nature of originall ſinne, hath been reprooued and confuted by our men: he went ſomewhat farther than he ſhould; I beleeue he did it, that he might remooue himſelfe fartheſt off from you, whom hee throughly hated. But I would he had amended ſome things: then certainely had he been a very excellent man. As for Caluin you doe him open wrong, whom you ioyne with Illyricus in the fellowſhip of this iudgement: for he writeth directly and flatly contrarie to that,Inſlit. lib. 1. cap. 15. ſect. 4. that you bring him in ſpeaking;qqDVR. But Caluin ſaith, that the Saints hauehave 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 v… 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, louelove, 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 hauehave no iuſtice of their ovvne, vvhichwhich 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 hauehave not that perfection vvhichwhich 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 p. 216things to be ſaid by vsus, 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 louelove 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 louelove 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 vsus acceptable vntounto God, and bee ſufficient for vsus to ſaluation, is blotted out and extinguiſhed. p. 217All 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 vsus; but yet the fall of Adam did inflict ſuch a blow vponupon all theſe faculties which yet remaine in vsus, 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.John 1:5 but yet the darkenes comprehendeth it not. But now thoſe greater things, faith, righteouſneſſe, holineſſe, and perfect vertue, which may leade vsus vntounto euerlaſting felicitie, theſe did not onelyonly receiue a wound to become weaker, but they did quite periſh, and became none, vntill that they bee renewed in vsus 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.Gen 6:5 The wickednes of man was great in the earth, and all the imagination of the thoughes of his hart was onelyonly euill continually. And that we might vnderſtand that theſe things were pronounced of mankind as it is in it ſelfe, and not onelyonly of thoſe wicked men, who liued before the flood, the Lord doth againe repeate theſe things after the flood, what time Noah onelyonly with his familie were left aliue vponupon the earth:Gen. 8.21.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 onelyonly 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 p. 218which Chriſt ſaith, That which is borne of the fleſh, Ioh. 3.6.John 3:6is 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. 2.3…Eph 2:3But the Lord doth not hate his owne image, nay whereſoeuer he beholds it, hee loueth it entirely. And Paul pronounceth that the whole man eueryevery whit is the child of wrath: wherefore that image which may make vsus acceptable to God, can neuer now be found in vsus. For he ſaith, not onelyonly 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 vsus 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. 4.14Eph 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.Rom 7:23 but thoſe things which he receiued from God, are contrarie to this corruption and contagion; which if any do denie to be good and holy, he may well be held blaſphemous p. 219againſt 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 merciemercy, and doe make voide the promiſes by precepts, cannot hauehave an honourable opinion of faith.

You neuer keepe your ſtanding,Of Sinne. Campian, and you begin the battaile like a runnaway. For you hauehave a wandring and vnſtable wit, as it ſeemeth. You oppoſe Illyricus to vsus againe in the ſame cauſe, whoſe teſtimonie ought not to be of force againſt vsus. 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 vsus, which your ſelfe knoweth to be condemned by our Churches? Obiect our owne opinion to vsus, 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 vsus. 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 hauehave 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 iudgemēt of the Catholike Church, which I profeſſe to be ours, that the ſubſtance of the ſoule p. 220was not quite ſlaine by ſinne, but onelyonly charged and infected with vitious qualities: and that ſinne is no inward ſubſtance of the ſoule, but anrrDVR. 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 vvhichwhich is in ſome ſubſtance, but is no part of it, vvhichwhich may either be abſent or preſent without the corruption of the ſubiect and ſuch a thing eueryevery 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 ou… of your Thomas. For. 1.2. quaeſt. 82. art. 1. he ſaith, ſinne is not a meere priuation, but a corrupt habit, like vntounto a diſeaſe, vvhereby not only health is taken avvay, but bad humours are brought vponupon 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.ſſDVR. Baſil ſaith not, that ſin is an accident or a quality, but an affection cōtrary 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. i…ub…p. hons. 2. August. de nuptijs. lib. 1. cap. 25. but a qualitie contrarie to the vertue of the ſoule. Auguſtine: ttDVR. Auguſtine vvill accuſe you for ſlandering him, becauſe he ſpake not of ſin, but of concupiſcence, vvhichwhich 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 hauehave 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. …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 vvhichwhich the ſpirit luſteth, and vvhichwhich in vvithout the conſent of the vvill. It at any time he denie it to be a ſinne, it i… not ſimplie, but in oppoſition to actuall ſinne; for hovv ſhould that be nothing, vvhichwhich is remitted in Baptiſme, vvhichwhich Chriſt ſatisfied for by his blood? or is God angry vvith vsus 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 p. 221Ambroſe moſt plainly:Ambroſ. in Rom. 6. c. 7.Rom 6 uuDVR. 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, thē not nothing.How dwelleth ſin in the fleſh, ſeeing it is no ſubstance, but a ſtraying from good? Therfore let vsus, if you pleaſe, ſend away the ſuſpition of this error impoſed by you vponupon vsus, 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 vsus with any true crime, but ſhameleſſely to obiect thoſe things againſt vsus, 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 into the minds of our Vniuerſitie men by theſe meanes, by lying ſo openly, ſo ſhamefully, and ſo boldly? O Rome, what a Campian haſt thou returned to vsus! how much chaunged from him that he was when thou receiuedſt him? Art thou wont ſo to inſtruct, adorne and poliſh thy penſioners, as that they retaine nothing of their auncient ſhamefaſtnes? What may I complaine of, or to whom ſhould I appeale? ſurely euen to the very ſame our Vniuerſitie men, to whom you your ſelfe write: they may conuince you by their teſtimonies. For within theſe two yeares our Cambridge men hauehave heard this very matter twiſe p. 222propounded and defended in the diuinity Schooles, That ſinnes are not equall. If neither our owne confeſſion, nor the teſtimonie of all mortall men can make enough for the defending of our innocencie; be it, that we are Stoikes, and heretikes, and eueryevery thing elſe.

But theſe are**DVR. Herein Caluin made ſinnes equall, for that hee thought all ſins to be deadly, and vvorthy of euerlaſting puniſhment. WHIT. pag. 578. Therefore doth Caluin make all ſinnes equall, becauſe hee proueth that all ſinner are in their owne nature deadly? but the Scripture hath taught this moſt plainly. For if eueryevery ſinne be the tranſgreſſion of Gods law, and an auerſion & defection from God, which is the chiefeſt good, it muſt needs in it ſelfe deſerue eternal death, Rom. 6.21.23. Iam. 2.10. though eueryevery ſinne in Gods iuſtice is odiudged to eternall death, yet it doth not equally deſerue it.Rom 6:21Rom 6:23Jas 2:10 Caluins words, ſaith Campian, howſoeuer with an exception, if they be pondered by God the Iudge. What are theſe the words of Caluin? that he ſaith ſinnes are equall, but ſo, if they be weighed by God the Iudge? nothing leſſe: for Gods iudgements could not be right, if ſo be he did iudge ſinnes to be equall. But marke yee a ſingular witneſſe. The Fathers of the Councell of Trent pronounce a curſe on them, who affirme that a iuſt man doth ſin either mortally or venially in eueryevery good worke. To this Caluin anſwereth that which Salomon ſaith,Antidot. 6. Seſſ. in Can. 25. that man thinketh his owne waies right, but God pondereth the hearts. But in the iudgement of God nothing is ſincere and honeſt, but that which floweth from the perfect louelove of him. Caluin ſpeaketh not one word of the equalitie of ſins, nor was there any cauſe why he ſhould. Only this he intendeth, if the Lord would weigh in his ballance the excellenteſt works of godly men, that he would eaſily find what to cōdemne: what is this to the purpoſe?

As for that, that Thomas Walſingham did obiect againſt Wicliffe, it is not much materiall, he wrote many things againſt Wicliffe being dead, and let paſſe no ſlander which witty malice could deuiſe. While Wicliffe was aliue, no aduerſaries could hurt him, but being dead they condemned him, they plucked him out of his graue, burned his body, when they might without danger deuiſe any thing againſt that moſt holy man. Neither can I euer be induced to beleeue, p. 223that Wicliffe taught theſe things, if this imputation depend vponupon no greater credit than of an aduerſarie. As touching that, that you report of the Duke of Guiſe, I defend not the fact: he that committed it, ſuffered puniſhmēt greater I wis, than Tauerners are wont, that kill pullen when there is no need. I confeſſe that the Guiſe was a man of admirable fortitude: I would he had been of more clemencie. He was flaine, euen as you ſay, by a wicked man, whom if perhaps either hope of impunity or feare of puniſhment did induce, that being examined, hee did accuſe verie noble and innocent men, it is neither marueilous nor new. Him that he did appeach as the Ringleader of his plot, the King himſelfe did pronounce an innocent: but as for Beza all good men hauehave acquitted him in their iudgements long ago.

From Sinne you paſſe your ſpeech to Grace:Of Grace. I would rather you your ſelfe did make paſſage: and you hope, that we who are ſo ſtrict in the matter of ſin, will play the Philoſophers ſo gloriouſly about Gods Grace. Surely we ſhall thinke we play the Philoſophers very well, if we referre all our Philoſophie for the amplifying of the Croſſe of Chriſt.Gal. 6.14.Gal 6:14 You alſo do treate of Grace, but as ſtill you are wont, in few words. But what do you reproue in our Philoſophie? becauſe we place Grace out of vsus only in the fauouer of God. For you, Campian, would hauehave your men to be perſwaded, that we take all Grace from man, and doe place it only in the mind of God, like Platoes Idea. But either you know not what you talke of in this place, and that you are ignorant of this Philoſophie, or els you ſuffer not our opinion, being infolded in your ſlanders, to bee manifeſt. For wee make grace to bee twofold (that I may omit many diſtinctions) wherein wee doe not diſallow the Philoſophie of your Schoole men. For either Grace declareth the free goodwill and clemencie of God toward vsus, or elſe it p. 224ſignifieth thoſe gifts, which flow out of that mercy of God to vsus. That they commonly call, Grace making acceptable; and this, Grace freely giuen. Now for thatxxDVR. I know vvell your doctrine of imputatiue iuſtice, than vvhichwhich I know not whether any man can deuiſe one thing more againſt the Scriptures. WHIT. pag. 582. Thus you ſpeake, like a Ieſuite: but vvhat is there that the Scripture doth more celebrate than imputatiue iuſtice? Rom. 4.3.4.5.6. is a moſt cleere text for it. But what? know you not that our ſins were imputed to Chriſt? and why then may not Chriſts righteouſnes be imputed to vsus in l…ke manner? Thinke you that Chriſt had our ſinnes really infuſed into him? I ſuppoſe, you will neuer ſay ſo: ſeeing then in the one part you are compelled againſt your will to confeſſe an imputation, why do you not alſo grant it in the other, ſpecially ſeeing the Apoſtle himſelfe propoundeth vsus this Antitheſis, 2. Cor. 5.21. Christ vvas made ſinne for vsus, that we might be made the righteouſnes of God in him? Therefore we are ſo made righteouſnes in Chriſt, as he was made ſinne for vsus, which muſt neceſſarily bee vnderſtood of imputation. And ve…ly whereas our iniuſtice or iniquitie is a debt, and Chriſt hath payed it, then muſt it of neceſſity follow, that, that payment is ours no otherwiſe then only by imputation. Againe, I pray you, what can bee imagined more abſurde, then that the merit… of Saints ſhould be imputed vntounto vsus, and Chriſt his righteouſnes cannot bee? for they who buy indulgences with money, doe not doubt but to reape much fruit from the merits of others. It then the merits of Saints, as you thinke, can make them more iuſt, in whom they are not inherent, what an impious and abſurd thing were it to giuegive leſſe power of imputation to the merits and righteouſnes of Chriſt? DVR. Charity i… the end of the Law. Rom. 13. For he that loueth his brother hath fulfilled the Lavv. So that if charity be truly in vsus, vve hauehave true iustice: and vvell ſaid Auguſtine, Charitie begun, is iuſtice begun; charitie encreaſed, is iuſtice encreaſed; great charity is great iuſtice; perfect charitie is perfect iuſtice. WHIT. pag. 583. All is true you ſay touching charitie. LoueLove your neighbour as the law requireth, and you hauehave fulfilled the ſecond Fable: but this you cannot doe; therefore be not brag in the opinion of your charitie, which if it were as great as euer any man had, yet it ſhould be farre ſhort of that the Law requireth, neither can it make you iuſt. As for Augustine wee confeſſe as much as hee ſaith: but this is not the iuſtice which fre…th vsus from the wrath of God, for that neuer increaſeth or groweth, but is euer moſt abſolute and perfect, that is Chriſt his obedience imputed vntounto vsus by faith. Of charitie Auguſt. Epiſt. 29. writeth thus. As long as charity may be encreaſed, that verily vvhichwhich is leſſe, is faulty: by that vvhichwhich is faulty, there is none iust vponupon earth.Rom 4:3Rom 4:4Rom 4:5Rom 4:62 Cor 5:21Rom 13 goodwill and fauour whereby the Lord embraceth vsus in Chriſt, and forgiueth vsus our ſinnes, and receiueth vsus into fauour; we place it in God: but the effects of this Grace are in vsus: which effects are theſe, that we do by the holy Ghoſt perceiue that wee are p. 225loued of God, that we beleeue in God, and repoſe al hope of ſaluation in that mercy of God. We do not therefore take away all grace from man, and place it only in Gods fauour: but that firſt grace, wherby he hath reconciled vsus to himſelfe in Chriſt, and wherin our ſaluation is contained, that alone wee place in God; which being felt by vsus, faith, hope, and charity and other vertues do follow it, which are ours, and reſident in vsus. But we deny that poſition of yours of infuſed grace, whereby you defend, that the grace whereby we are iuſtified, is a certaine habite ſituate in our minds within: and we acknowledge no other iuſtifyingyyDVR. Why do you not then freely confeſſe that you doe place all grace only in the fauour of God vvithout vsus, vvhichwhich fauour doth neither amend the wicked, nor purge, nor illuminate, nor enrich them, but only diſſemble their old remaining & ſtinking chanell, God winking at it? WHIT. pag. 584. You ceaſe not to trouble vsus with your ignorance: for doth it follow that wee remoue all grace from vsus, becauſe wee place iuſtifying grace, which is the mercy of God in Chriſt, not in vsus, but in God only? for beſide this grace, there is another grace communicated to all the Saints, wherby their ſoules …re purged and renewed. This conſiſteth in faith, and in the fruits of faith, which they cōmonly cal Grace infuſed: therfore that chanell of ſin doth remaine not within them, that hauehave attained true righteouſnes, as you ſlander vsus to teach; but by the power of the holy Ghoſt it is daily purged out; yet ſo, that as lōg as we liue there remaine ſome reliques of ſin & old Adam. For if that chanel were ſo purged, that no blots of ſinne did remaine in vsus; neither would S. Paul complaine of the law of his members, and the body of death, Rom. 7.23.24. Neither ſhould wee neede the renuing of the ſpirit, 2. Cor. 4.16.Rom 7:23Rom 7:242 Cor 4:16 grace, but the great and free mercy of God, whereby hee did elect and predeſtinate vsus in Chriſt before all eternitie vntounto life euerlaſting, and hath called vsus in time and iuſtified vsus.zzDVR. But vvhat place of Scripture doth diſtinguiſh iustification from ſanctification? S. Paul doth not, 1. Cor. 6.11. Rom. 6.13. That alſo is a ſtrange thing, that faith ſhould iustifie vsus and not ſanctifie vsus: but more ſtrange that Christ ſhould impute his righteouſnes to vsus, that vve may be iust, and yet not holy and ſanctified. WHIT. pag 586. Who can reade the Scripture, ſpecially the Epiſtle to the Romanes, and not find theſe two diſtinguiſhed? for in the firſt part of it he treateth of iuſtification, in the latter of ſanctification; vvhat is more manifeſt then that he vvriteth, Rom 8.30. vvhom he hath called, thoſe hee hath iuſtified; vvhom hee hath iustiſted, thoſe hee hath glorified. Now this glorification ſignifieth the glorious renouation, which is begun heere, and perfected in another life, as your Thomas vponupon this place hath obſerued. Againe, 1. Cor. 1.30. Is not heere iuſtification and ſanctification diſtinguiſhed? iuſtification and ſanctification are inſeparable, yet muſt they be diſtinguiſhed: which becauſe you do not, you place iuſtification in ſanctification Your place out of the Epiſtle to the Corinthes, doth plainly diſtinguiſh them. Your ſecond place ſheweth that a kind of iuſtificatiō is in ſanctification: but it is not that perpect iuſtice, by which we are iuſtified before God, but only an imperfect one. As for your wonde…s and ſtrange things, they come from your ignorance: for we hauehave neuer ſepa…ated theſe two, but affirme that he who is by faith partaker of Chriſt his righteou…nes, muſt needs hauehave the old man crucified, and the body of ſinne deſtroyed in him, that he may no longer ſerue ſinne.1 Cor 6:11Rom 6:13Rom 8:301 Cor 1:30 For grace infuſed, wherein regeneration and ſanctification conſiſteth, and which the Scriptures call the new man, p. 226is not ſtrong enough to iuſtifie vsus,aaDVR. Grace infuſed and our inherent righteouſnes, though it be not perfect, yet it is true iuſtice, and doth iuſtifie vsus. WHIT. pag. 58…. By this you ouerthrow your doctrine of iuſtification: for that iuſtice which doth reconcile vsus to God ought to be moſt perfect, that ſuch as neither the law nor God himſelfe can require a more perfect. That which is not perfect, is in it kind corrupt. If then …n imperfect iuſtice can pleaſe God, then a corrupt thing will pleaſe him, and ſo ſhould he not be perfectly iuſt: but being moſt iuſt, that only pleaſeth him, which is according to the preſcription of the law, moſt perfect. Luk. 10.27.28. Leuit. 18.5.Luke 10:27Luke 10:28Lev 18:5 becauſe it neuer ſatisfieth the law of God in this life, and ought eueryevery day to be reſtored, and aſpire to greater perfection. For ſo Paul ſaith,2. Cor. 4.16.2 Cor 4:16 Although our outward man periſh, yet our inward man is renewed daily: which place Augustine hath very often vſed in this cauſe. You ſee therfore both what grace we place in God, and what we confeſſe to be infuſed into our hearts. For as for that you ſay wee barke out, that grace is not ſtrong enough for the reſiſting of ſinne, therein you goe about thorough our ſides to wound Paul himſelf, vppon whō this your reproch reboundeth.Rom. 7.18.19.21.23.Rom 7:18Rom 7:19Rom 7:21Rom 7:23 For though he were indued with infuſed grace, as much as any other, yet he denieth that he could attaine, to perfect that which is good:bbDVR. S. Paul ſaith only, that hee vvas aſſayed and tempted by thoſe motions; but ſeeing it is not ſinne, vvhere the conſent of the vvill is not, bee ſaith, it vvas not hee that did it, but the fleſh, for hee doubted not but grace vvas ſufficient for him, vvhereby be might ouercome all theſe, ſeeing he had the vvord of Christ for it. 2. Cor. 12.9. And he ſhevoeth that by this grace vvee may ouercome our corruptions, Rom. 7.25. WHIT. pag. 594. But the Apoſtle ſheweth that he was not only tempted by theſe, but ouercome. Rom. 7.15. he …aith, he did that vvhichwhich he hated. Why did he hate it, vnleſſe it were worthie hatred? Now nothing is worthy hatred, but ſinne. And verſ. 19. he addeth, hee did the euill, vvhichwhich he vvould not. Then he ſinned: for to be tempted with euill, is not to do that a man would not: but to be tempted and to ouercome them, is to do that a man both ſhould and would do. And verſ. 23. he ſaith, he was led captiue to the lavv of ſinne. How can he be a captiue and not be ouercome? Beleeue the Apoſtle then, and he could not reſiſt ſinne alwaies by all his grace. But you ſay his will did not giuegive conſent: bee it ſo, yet thoſe motions are ſinne againſt the tenth Commandement. For Rom. 7.7. he ſheweth that he ſpeaketh of concupiſcence without conſent. For luſts with conſent, ſubduing the will, the Philoſophers confeſſed to be ſinne. For the place you alleage 2. Cor. 12.9. the ſufficiencie of Gods grace is but ſo much, that hee ſhould not bee ſwallowed vp of temptations. The godly fall often, but God lifteth them vp againe. For the other place, Rom. 7.25. you are deceiued by the corrupt Latin tranſlation. For in the Greeke it is, I thanke God by Ieſus Christ: you reade it as if asking the queſtion, vvho ſhould deliuer him from the body of death; he had anſwered himſelfe; The grace of God by …eſus Chriſt, when he giueth thankes to God, as if hee had ſaid; Though this body of death be troubleſome vntounto me, becauſe it compelleth me to ſerue ſin, yet I reſt in that hope, which I hauehave placed in Chriſt.2 Cor 12:9Rom 7:25Rom 7:15Rom 7:7 for that he did not the good which he would, but the euill that he would not: and that when he deſired to do good, euill was preſent with him: finally that the law of his members doth p. 227ſo rebell againſt the law of his mind, that it maketh him captiue to the law of ſin. Hence you may know how great ſtrength ſinne hath, which euen the Apoſtle himſelfe, albeit hee were indued with ſingular grace, could not ſo fully reſiſt, but that ſometimes he was both ouercome of it, and bound vp in it, as Augustine ſpeaketh. If you doubt, Campians, whether the Apoſtle ſpake this of himſelfe, I had rather you ſhould take aduiſe of Augustine, August. de verb. Apost. Serm. 5 & …libi. Gal. 5.17.Gal 5:17than of the Maſters of Trent, ſeeing they be very bad interpreters of the Apoſtle. What ſhould I remember to you Dauid, and the reſt of the Fathers, who hauehave taught by their examples, that it is not eaſie to reſiſt ſinne? but herein you are like your ſelfe, in that you ſay, that Christ is no otherwiſe ſaid by vsus to b… full of grace and truth, but th…, that the Father did very much fauour him. I pray you Campian, whence could you gather this? Do we not ſay that Chriſt was full of grace ſo; that from his p. 228fulnes we all receiue grace: who of vsus did euer deny that there was very great and infinit grace in Chriſt. For they that ſay that Chriſt was ſo full of grace, that all men did declare that hee was worthy of the vnſpeakeable fauour both of God and men, they doe not only hold, that Chriſt was no otherwiſe full of grace, but herein that God did very much fauour him; but alſo they doe ſet out Chriſts grace to hauehave bin more abundant. For they doe confeſſe,Ioh. 3.34.John 3:34 both that the grace of the ſpirit was plentiful in Chriſt without meaſure, and alſo they hold that there did an outward grace ſo ſhine forth in Chriſt, that all did louelove him and did perceiue that he was beloued of God, this doth Brentius and Bucer, and all our Diuines acknowledge.

What thing therfore (ſay you) is Iustice? Of Iustice.you make anſwere to your ſelfe, a Relation. If you commence an action againſt vsus about Aristotles Predicaments, certainly we feare not, but we ſhall hauehave a Philoſopher gentle enough in this cauſe. For though Iuſtice beccDVR. That vvhichwhich is not at all cannot bee a reall Relation. WHIT. pag. 600. But Chriſts righteouſneſſe is not, not at all. For Chriſt performed all things vvhichwhich the Lavv required, therefore vvas indued vvith the qualitie of perfect iuſtice: but that reaſon which perſwadeth vsus, to confeſſe, that this righteouſneſſe of the Law in Chriſt was a quality, the ſame compelleth vsus to thinke that this righteouſneſſe is not a quality inherent in vsus; for that vvee neuer in our owne perſon obeyed the Lavv. Novv vvhat doth let, that that righteouſneſſe in Chriſt cannot bee made ours by relation and imputation? for common ſenſe might hauehave taught you this, if a man do pay money in your name, this payment is yours by imputation. If you aske, how that is yours, vvhichwhich is not inherent in you; I ſay againe, which thing the Apoſtle doth ſo oft preſſe, it is yours by imputation. Now rub vp your Philoſophie, if you can, to proue that nothing is made ours by imputation. a Relation, yet Philoſophie will not be caſhierd: but that it is a quality you can neuer proue, either out of the Predicaments, or out of the chiefeſt Philoſophie. But your Theologicall vertues, faith, hope, and charity, had neuer any iniurie offred to them by vsus: indeed they be ſo handled by you, that you ſeeme to take them not for Theologicall, but for Philoſophicall p. 229vertues. But the cauſe that maketh vsus not to hold, that our righteouſnes is compounded of theſe vertues, as you would hauehave it, is this, becauſe they are neuer ſo perfect in this life, as throughlie to ſatisfie the law of God: now the law muſt be ſatisfied or elſe we cannot be iuſt. For the Lord doth allow no other righteouſnes, but the very ſame which is deſcribed in the law, which whoſoeuer cannot attaine, are pronounced guilty of eternall death. Therfore if we will be righteous and ſaued, and free from that horrible curſe, ſuch a righteouſneſſe muſt bee ſought out, than which the law cannot require a more abſolute. And where ſhall we find this? Is it in our vertues, in our faith, in our charitie? But theſe are weake many waies, and want that integrity which the law requireth, & wherunto it propoundeth righteouſnes. For faith is but begun, & we are alwaies to pray that it may bee increaſed in vsus. Now if faith be weak,Rom 1.17. Luc. 17.5.Rom 1:17Luke 17:5 other vertues which ſpring from faith, cannot be perfect. But righteouſneſſe muſt be of that kind, as that nothing at all may be added thereunto. From hence it followeth, that righteouſneſſe is not compounded of our vertues, as you vnfitly ſpeake, but it muſt be fetcht elſewhere. Seeing therefore wee had no ſuch vertue, as might obtaine righteouſneſſe for vsus with the Lord, Chriſt was giuen vsus by the Lord, who performed perfect obedience to the law, that by his obedience we might be made righteous. For this obedience of Chriſt imputed to vsus, and apprehended by faith,Rom. 5.19.Rom 5:19 is that righteouſnes of ours, which you enquire after, not heaped vp with our vertues, as you would hauehave it, but place in Chriſt, who is made vntounto vsus of God, 1. Cor. 1.30.1 Cor 1:30wiſedome, righteouſneſſe, ſanctification, and redemption. And this is ourddDVR. The Scripture plainly witneſſeth, that as vve are made ſinners by Adam, ſo vve are made iuſt by Christ. Rom. 5. WHIT. pag. 602. You vnderſtand not the Apoſtle. For though we bee iuſt in Chriſt, as we were ſinners in Adam, yet not after the ſame manner. In Adam we ſinned, and had his ſinne by propagation deriued to vsus: but the iuſtice of Chriſt, thought it was communicated vntounto vsus by imputation, ye … …as it not ſo deriued vntounto vsus. The Apoſtle would only teach and ſay this, as Adam was the author of ſin, ſo Chriſt was the author of righteouſneſſe.Rom 5 righteouſnes, euen p. 230ChriſteeDVR. Anſwere me I pray you, why the Apoſtles and Christ do ſo oft exhort vsus to the obedience of the law? and neuer bid vsus apprehend the righteouſnes of Christ by faith? as Luk. 10. Matth. 25. WHIT. pag. 603. Chriſt and his Apoſtles do exhort vsus to the obedience of the law, not to the end wee may deſerue euerlaſting life by our workes, but becauſe it is our duty to walke in that race of piety wherein vvee are placed, that vvee walking in thoſe good workes, and inſiſting in that vvay vvhichwhich the Lord hath propounded to vsus, may come at length to that moſt happy mark For albeit we neuer come to a marke vnleſſe we goe the right way, yet the way is not the cauſe of the marke. Novv vvhereas you ſay that we are no where commanded to apprehend Chriſt righteouſnes by faith, you bewray your miſerable ignorance. Peruſe therefore better theſe famous places for proofe of that the Scriptures do commaund vsus this. Rom. 4.5. Rom. 5.19. Rom. 1.17. Gal. 2.16. Gal. 3.14. Ion. 3 18. Ioh. 5.24. Act. 10.43. As for the cauſe for which Chriſt in Matth. 25. ſaith he vvill make mention of vvorkes in the day of iudgement, it is for that as Iames (chap. 2.18.) ſaith, works do make ſhevv & proofe of faith. But in that very place verſ. 34. before Chriſt mentioneth thoſe vvorkes of the Saints, he toucheth the true and proper cauſes of ſaluation. 1. Gods adoption in Chriſt foreign poſſeſſe by the right of inheritance. For that which one poſſeſſeth by the right of inheritance, hee doth not deſerue it by his merits. 2. The eternall election of God, vvhen hee ſaith that it is a kingdome prepared for thē from the foūdations of the world. Novv if your opinion be this, that God did prepare them this kingdome, becauſe he did foreſee their great good vvorkes, your ovvne Thomas is an aduerſarie againſt you. Thom de verit. quast. 6. art. 2. & Thom. 1. part quaest. 23. art 1.Luke 10Matt 25Rom 4:5Rom 5:19Rom 1:17Gal 2:16Gal 3:14Jonah 3:18John 5:24Acts 10:43 himſelfe, whoſeffDVR. Christ is called by S. Paul our righteouſnes: ſo in the ſame place hee ſaith, that he is our vviſdome, and our ſanctification. WHIT pag. 609. That vviſdome, and righteouſnes, & ſanctification, vvhichwhich S. Paul affirmeth Chriſt to be made vntounto vsus, are not reſi…ent in vsus as qualities, nor are they othervviſe ours, than as vve doe embrace and poſſeſſe vvhole Chriſt by faith. righteouſnes and innocencie being aſcribed vntounto vsus, doth bring aſſured remiſſion of ſinnes, and true righteouſnes. This the Diuines cal the firſt iuſtice, after which followeth another, compounded of theſe vertues of yours. For with that remiſſion of ſinnes, which dependeth on Chriſts obedience, faith, and hope, & charity are ioyned, which make vsus iuſt alſo after a ſort, but inchoatiuely not perfectly.

I hauehave declared to you in few words our opinion touching righteouſnes, ſith you make inquiry, what it is. But your vertues cannot ſo cloath the ſoule round about, as that no naked thing may appeare. For all our righteouſneſſes, are likeggDVR. Jf you ſpeake of that iustice, vvhichwhich vve get to our ſelues vvithout the helpe of Christ, you ſay truly: but if of that which Christ hath purchaſed for vsus by his blood, and powred into our harts, you doe an intollerable iuturie vntounto Chriſt. WHIT. pag 610. I ſpeake of that righteouſnes which euerie regenerate man hath by the help of Chriſt. For do you thinke the Prophet wanted the helpe of Chriſt? yet he profeſſeth his righteouſnes is impure and imperfect: if you thinke hee did ſpeake of their workes which are not regenerate, you muſt deny that hee was regenerate, who confeſſeth the imperfection of his workes. Of this righteouſneſſe Beruard doth vnderſtand it, Serm. 5. de verbis Iſay And all the godly hauehave thus confeſſed of them clues. Pſal. 130.3. Dan. 9.7. Ezra. 9.15. Iob. 9.3.28. 1. Ioh. 1.8. & 1. Ioh. 2.7.Ps 130:3Dan 9:7Ezra 9:15Job 9:3Job 9:281 John 1:81 John 2:7 filthie clouts,Eſay 64.6.Isa 64:6 p. 231and thoſe not only defiled, but alſo torne and rent in many peeces.Rom. 13.14. Phil. 3 9. 2. Cor. 5.19.Rom 13:14Phil 3:92 Cor 5:19 Chriſt himſelfe muſt be put vponupon vsus, that we may be found in him, not hauing our ownehhDVR. Saint Paul calleth the righteouſnes of the law, that which is gotten by the doctrine of the lavv without the helpe of Grace: And the iustice of faith, not any apprehended by faith, but becauſe they come vntounto it by faith. WHIT. pag. 613. In examining the place we ſhall ſee of what iuſtice S. Paul ſpeaketh: firſt he denieth that to bee any part of iuſtice, whatſoeuer he had gloriouſly done when he was a Phariſie; that though he was then according to the iuſtice of the Law without reproofe, & indued with many good qualities, yet he accounted all loffe for Chriſts ſake. verſ. 4.5.6.7. And leſt any ſhould thinke that he attributed any thing to his workes ofter faith; he addeth that he reiecteth theſe alſo, neither aſcribed his iuſtification vntounto them. Adding in the 8. verſe. that hee accounted all things loſſe. Not the other, but theſe alſo I contemne: and vponupon this inferreth. verſ. 9. Not hauing my owne righteouſnes, which is of the law▪ but that which is through the faith of Christ. When then he excludeth all kind of workes, hee muſt needs vnderſtand the iuſtice of Chriſt. righteouſnes which is of the law, but that which is by the faith of Chriſt; namely the righteouſnes that is of God through faith. For God was in Chriſt and reconciled the world vntounto himſelfe, not imputing their ſinnes to them. With this cloathing our ſoules muſt be cloathed, that they may be beautified and gloriouſly adorned: neither are wee aſhamed of that word, vponupon which you play, when we ſay that our righteouſnes is a couering of the fault. For ſo doth the Prophet Dauid pronoūce him to be a bleſſed man,Pſal. 22.1. Rom. 4.6.Ps 22:1Rom 4:6 whoſe iniquities be forgiuē, & whoſe ſins are couered. And this pardon we apprehēd only by faith: now this faith is not feined, nor dead, nor ſeparate from other vertues, nor void of good workes, but it is of that nature, that it worketh by louelove. It is therefore faith alone, which iuſtifieth, that is, which embraceth Chriſts obedience p. 232wherin our righteouſnes conſiſteth; but yet this faith which iuſtifieth, is neuer alone: for it is euer accompanied with hope, and charity, and doth not ſuffer it ſelfe to be diſioyned from it. For as the heate alone of the fire doth ſet the wood on fire, and yet this heate is not alone, but continually ioyned with the light: ſo faith alone of it ſelf doth iuſtifie, albeit it can neuer be quite alone.

Now ſeeing that all our righteouſnes and happines, do conſiſt in the pardon of ſinnes, we alſo teach that this ought to be moſt certainly perſwaded to vsus and knowne of vsus, ſo as our ſoules may reſt therin as in a moſt ſafe and quiet hauen. For being iuſtified by faith, wee hauehave peace toward God, through our Lord Ieſus Christ. Now what could this peace be, it we were alwaies diſtracted with a doubtful hope & thoughts, and toſſed as it were with waues hither and thither about our ſaluation? Albeit therefore our conſciences are ſet vponupon oftentimes by many terrors, ſo as they cannot be ſo ſecure in this life, as if wee did alreadie enioy the endleſſe ioy of heauen; yet we ſay that this faith ought to depend moſt certainly and ſtrongly vponupon the promiſes of God, ſo as wee may expell all doubting about the grace of God, our adoption, and ſaluation. For true faith cannot agree with vnbeliefe. It is the propertie of this to diſtruſt Gods promiſes, but the property of that is to ouercome and driue away all doubting; as much as may be. But if faith be full of doubting, wherein doth it go beyond vnbeliefe? let vsus beleeue the Apoſtle, who both knew very well, and hath deſcribed exactly the nature of true faith. He propoundeth Abraham vntounto vn, in whom wee may behold a moſt notable image of true faith. What did he? did he ſtagger? was hee in ſuſpenſe with himſelfe? did he doubt? nay in him al things were contrary:Rom. 4.1….Rom 4:1 he againſt hope did beleeue vnderunder hope: he was not weake in the faith: hee did p. 233not diſcourſe againſt the promiſe of God through vnbeliefe: he was ſtrengthned in the faith: hee was fully perſwaded, that God which had promiſed, could performe it. And this faith was imputed to him for righteouſnes.foreign. This was Abrahams faith: ſhal ours bee vnlike it? but he is our Father, wee his children, and children ſhould bee like their father. The concluſion is made now againſt you Campian, that by faith wee areiiDVR. You can neuer ſhew out of Gods word, that forgiuenes of all ſinnes is giuen to them, vvho apprehend the righteouſnes of Chriſt by ſaith. WHIT. pag. 618. This that you deny to be ſhewed in the Scriptures, is moſt plainly taught in them, as Ioh. 3.16. Act. 10.43. Act. 13.39. DVR. But vve know not vvhether vve be endued vvith true faith. WHIT. pag. 620. Indeed it cannot be denied, that many are deceiued with a fained faith: but they who are indued vvith true faith, they do know that they hauehave true faith: ſo did Paul 2. Tim. 1.12. know for himſelf & in 2. Cor. 13.5. he biddeth other learne to know it. So a Chriſtiā may know that he hath true faith, & that by the ſpirit that he hath giuen vsus, as 1. Ioh. 3.24.John 3:16Acts 10:43Acts 13:392 Tim 1:122 Cor 13:51 John 3:24 made certaine of our ſaluation, and that your variable and ſuſpicious faith is liker to infidelity than to faith.Baſil. in foreign. kkDVR. That which you bring out of Baſil and the Tridentime Catechiſme doth ouerthrow your ſelfe: & what certaintie can a man hauehave of his iuſtification, vvhen as S. Paul ſaith. 1. Cor. 4.4. I knovv nothing by my ſelfe, yet am I not thereby iuſtified. And the like hath Iob. cap. 9.15.20. WHIT pag. 622. If they attribute to faith a moſt certaine perſvvaſion without doubting, as they do, do they not cōfirme our doctrine, that a man may be certaine of his ſaluation. For thoſe temptations which come frō the fleſh, though they may ſhake it, yet they cannot ouerthrow it. As for S. Paul doth hee denie himſelf to be iuſtified, doth he doubt of his ſaluatiō? Reade the end of the eight to the Romans, and you ſhall find him ſo certaine of his iuſtification and ſaluation, as that you Papiſts are glad to anſvvere, that he had it by an extraordinary reuelation of the ſpirit. And do you novv make him doubting of his ſaluation? But you vnderſtand not Saint Paul in the place you alleadge: for he doth not not deny that he is iuſtified; but he ſaith that thereby he is not iuſtified, becauſe he knovveth nothing by himſelfe. Iob alſo though he dare not truſt to his owne workes and innocency, yet he ſhevveth himſelfe to be certaine of his ovvne ſaluation. Iob 19.26.1 Cor 4:4Job 9:15Job 9:20Job 19:26Baſil ſaith excellently: What is the propertie of faith? a full or certaine perſwaſion void of all doubting. But what meane I to conuince you by teſtimonies of the auncient, whom the very Catechiſme of Trent doth confute?Catechiſ. Trid. in 1. art Symb. The word beliefe (ſaith it) as the holy Scriptures teach, hath the force of most certaine conſent. Wherefore he beleeueth, to whom any thing is certaine and aſſured without doubting. Now we p. 234beleeue euerlaſting life, therefore it ought to be moſt certaine & aſſured to vsus without any doubting. I require now nothing more, the Catechiſme of the Councell of Trent, ratified by the authoritie of the Pope and Councell, teacheth me that a man ought to be certaine of his ſaluation.

But are you not yet quiet, but ſtil queſtion farther, for (ſay you) how can a man be ſure llDVR. VVho could euer be certaine of his ovvne perſeuerance to the end, vvithout the peculiar reuelatiō of God? WHIT. pag. 626. In this ſpeech you cut in ſunder the ſinevves of Gods euerlaſting decree. For ſeeing Gods predeſtination is certaine and vnchangeable, it doth cauſe our calling, iuſtifying, and glorifying to be as certaine as it ſelfe. For is it in your povver to diſſolue and breake in ſunder that golden chaine of the Apoſtle? Rom. 8.30. and to vvhom can his owne perſeuerance be doubtfull, ſeeing God teſtifieth his perpetual good wil towards vsus, as theſe ſcriptures fully teach. Ier. 32 40. Ioh. 13. 1. Luc 22.32. Iob. 17.20.21. Matth. 21.22. Rom. 8.9. Ioh. 14.16. Ioh. 10.28. Phil. 2.6. Rom. 11.29. 1. Ioh. 3.9. Matth. 24.24.Rom 8:30Jer 32:40John 13:1Luke 22:32Job 17:20Job 17:21Matt 21:22Rom 8:9John 14:16John 10:28Phil 2:6Rom 11:291 John 3:9Matt 24:24of his future perſeuerance? That may be certaine, Campian, by faith, which if it be true cannot vtterly decay.Heb. 11.1.Heb 11:1 The Apoſtle termeth faith themmDVR. No man euer doubted but that all thoſe things which vve beleeue are most certaine. But you ought to ſhevv that eueryevery ode ought to beleeue that he ſhall perſeuere in that faith to his end, Saint Paul ſhe vveth that certaine had made ſhipvvracke of faith. 1. Tim. 1.19. WHIT. pag. 627. The queſtion is not vvhether things beleeued be certaine or no: for that the Diuels do certainly knovv; vvhichwhich is as much as you Papiſts doe beleeue, by your ovvne confeſſion, and ſo you confeſſe your ſelues to bee void of true faith But the faith, the Apoſtle ſpeaketh of, doth not only beleeue thoſe things are true in themſelues, but that they are partakers of them. Therefore he ſaith, it is the ground of things hoped for, becauſe it enioyeth thoſe good things vvhichwhich are prepared for another life by a certaine & an approued hopes and the euidence of things not ſeene, becauſe it novv beholdeth things that are hid from our eies. The perſeuerance then of the faithfull is ſo certaine, that they may thinke they hauehave the poſſeſſion of thoſe things vvhichwhich they ſhall receiue in another vvorld. Novv the faith S. Paul ſpeaketh of, is not a iuſtifying faith, but only true and ſound doctrine, of vvhichwhich Hym…naeus and Alexander had made ſhipvvtacke.1 Tim 1:19 ground of things that are hoped for, & the euidence of things that are not ſeene. Now how are thoſe things extant which bee hoped for, or demonſtrated which are not ſeene, if faith bee not perpetuall? But they which are endued with this faith, they doe now after a ſort enioy thoſe good things, which are yet hoped for, & they do contemplate thoſe things, which cannot be ſeene with mens p. 235eies. So that faith admits vsus being aliue here, and as the Apoſtle ſaith,2. Cor. 5.7.2 Cor 5:7 walking by faith and not by ſight, into the very poſſeſſion of heauen, ſo as becauſe vve arennDVR. 1. Cor. 10. He that ſtandeth let him take heed leſt he fall. Phil. 2. vvorke out your ſaluation vvhichwhich feare:the like. Heb. 4. WHIT. pag. 633. 1. You hauehave falſified, 1. Cor. 10. for Paules vvords are, he that thinketh he ſtandeth let him take heed leſt hee fall. Wherein you go againſt euen your ovvne authenticall Latin tranſlation. Bluſh you not at this? 2. The very Saints themſelues are diligently to be admoniſhed, to flie carnal ſecuritie, to be ware of Sathans aſſaults, and to be in cōtinual care. And yet this hind…eth not, but that they are in the meane vvhile moſt certaine of their ſaluation. For although Paul (Act. 27) ſayling, did not doubt a whit whether he ſhould come ſafe to land, yet he let paſſe nothing, vvhichwhich it behooued a man carefull of his ſafetie, to care for and to do.1 Cor 10Phil 2Heb 4Acts 27 certaine that wee ſhall one day bee there, wee ſeeme now after a ſort to liue and conuerſe in heauen. But all theſe things would be fading and light, if ſaith could not perſeuere. ThereforeooDVR Will you ſay that the Apoſtle ſpeaketh in the perſon of all t…e elect. WHIT. pag. 629. The Apoſtle proueth it, ſpeaking …n their perſon; vvhat ſhall ſeparate vsus (not me only) from the louelove of Chriſt. And againe, I am perſvvaded that nothing ſhall ſeparate vsus (not me only) from the louelove of God which is in Chriſt Ieſus. Therefore he ſpeaketh of all thoſe vvho are predeſtinated. Paul had a moſt certaine perſwaſion, that neither life nor death, nor things preſent, nor things to come, nor any other creature can ſeperate vsus from the louelove of God which is in Christ Ieſus. foreign Rom. 8.38.Rom 8:38But ſuch as doe not perſeuere, they may be ſeparated: but theſe cannot bee ſeparated, therefore they perſeuere. And for this cauſe the pledge of our adoption, euen the holy Ghoſt himſelfe is giuen to vsus, who aſſureth vsus moſt certainely that we are the ſonnes of God, ſo as now we do not doubt to call God Father.Cal. 4.6. But how dare ſuch a one call him Father, who thinketh that he may be ſometime not his ſonne? for the Saints may profeſſe with the Apoſtle,1. Ioh. 3.2.1 John 3:2 we know that we ſhall bee like him. Knowledge is certaine, & conſiſteth on aſſured principles: to doubt is the property of opinion, not of knowledge. Heare Cyprian: Cyprian. de mortal.Let ſuch a man feare to die, who not being borne againe of water and the ſpirit, is thrall to the fire. Let him feare to die, that thinketh not hee hath his part in Chriſts Croſſe and Paſſion. Chryſost. cap. 5. ad Rom.Chryſostome vponupon theſe words of the Apoſtle, Into this grace wherein we ſtand, writeth thus: The grace of God hath no end, it p. 236knoweth no full point, but it maketh progreſſe vntounto greater. And anone after, ſaith he, we muſt be fully aſſured not only of things giuen, but alſo of things to be giuen as well as of things giuen alreadie. And Augustine: Auguſt. in Pſal. 88.Ps 88becauſe therefore (ſaith he) the promiſe is firme not according to our merits, but according to his mercy, no man ought with fearefulnes to preach (the kingdome of Chriſt in his Saints) whereof he ought not to doubt. But Auguſtine is wholy ours. For as you did lately conclude, that Augustine did allow free will, becauſe hee wrote three bookes of free will, ſo may I reaſon after the ſame manner, that Augustine did thinke of perſeuerance, as we do, becauſe he wrote one booke of the good of perſeuerance. To this I will ioyne Bernard, whoſe golden words theſe be,Bernard. in Can. Ser. 61. My conſcience is troubled, but it is not ouer troubled, becauſe I will remember the wounds of the Lord. But I will alleadge no more teſtimonies. Faith is either perpetuall, or elſe it is none at all: either it perſeuers to the laſt breath, ot elſe that which is eſteemed for faith, is but ſome fancie.

As for that, that you alleage touching Luther, who you ſay affirmeth, that a Chriſtian though he will cannot loſe his ſaluation, vnleſſe hee will not beleeue, this Luther neuer affirmed, either in that booke or any where els. For if you ſhall turne ouer all Luthers writings, which you hauehave not ſaluted, nor I beleeue, ſo much as ſeene, yet you can finde this ſentence no where. The Fathers of Trent hauehave condemned this propoſition and worthily: for it is impious, and to bee reckoned among the chiefeſt paradoxes. But whoſe ſoeuer it was, certainly it was not Luthers. But, ſay you, Luther wrote ſo in his booke of the captiuity of Babylon. That is falſe: yet he wrote ſome ſuch thing. I will tell you what it is; and that in a word. Luther reproueth the Papiſts, for that they thought that the grace of Baptiſme is quite loſt by ſinne, and p. 237withall they brought in Penance a new Sacrament, which they terme a ſecond boord, wherby the grace of Baptiſme might be recouered. Therefore he denieth that the power and grace of Baptiſme can ſo bee loſt by ſinnes, but that it may bee repaired by faith; which thing he proueth by many and mighty reaſons. In that therefore Luther taught, that the grace of Baptiſme cannot be loſt, vnleſſe one will not beleeue; and this the Fathers of Trent and our countriman Campian do ſo interprete, as if hee had ſaid, that which theſe men obiect, that a Chriſtian though he will cannot leeſe his ſaluation, vnleſſe he will not beleeue. Why ſhould I confute ſo vnſauoury an imagination with more words?

You make haſt to the Sacraments. Of the Sacraments.And I will purſue you as much haſt as you make. Now here you cry ont moſt pittifully, O bleſſed Chriſt, they hauehave left neuer a Sacrament, not two, not one. Dare you appeale to Chriſt, whoſe Sacraments yee hauehave baniſhed with great reproch out of the Church, that ye might bring in certaine impure Sacraments not worthy to be named? we retaine thoſe Sacraments which Chriſt hath commended to vsus: if there had been need of more, he would hauehave left more. We hauehave two Sacraments, Baptiſme, and the Lords Supper: theſe Chriſt did inſtitute,ppDVR. Our ſeuen Sacraments ſtand vponupon good ground and reaſon, & hath antiquitie for them. WHIT. pag. 643. You ſhould then produce ſome antiquitie for the proofe of them; but hauing none, why do you ſo brag of it. I wonder not at your ſilēce, becauſe I know that, that this number was neuer heard of before Hugo de Sancto Victore, and Peter Lombard brought them into the Church: and yet for them Lombard neuer gathered any teſtimony of auncient Fathers. Neither euer any Councell, before the Florentine Councell, did approue or eſtabliſh this number. But your fiue baſtard Sacraments, 1. Order. 2. Confirmation. 3. Extreame Vnction. 4. Penance. 5. Marriage. I proue thus to be no true Sacramēts of Chriſts Church. 1. In eueryevery Sacramēt is neceſſarily required and elemēt or viſible matter. But that neither your Order, not Cōfirmation, nor Penance, nor Marriage hauehave, by any warrant of Scripture. 2. Thoſe which are the proper Sacramēts of the Church Chriſt did inſtitute. But Chriſt inſtituted not any one of thoſe fiue for Sacraments. 3. Sacraments belong to all Chriſtians, But your Order, and Marriage pertaine to a few in compariſon. 4. Seeing you faine that grace lye…h hid in the Sacraments, and is by them tranſmitted vntounto men, proue vsus which parts of theſe Sacraments do containe the grace incloſed. What anſwere ſoeuer you make you will be taken napping. Therefore theſe fiue baſtard Sacraments, are no true Sacraments of Chriſts Church. theſe the auncient Church acknowledge, and with theſe the later Church ought to hauehave been contented. For that it is moſt euident, that for ſeuen Sacraments, for ſo many you hold, that not a footſtep of antiquity can be found. O bleſſed Christ, they p. 238hauehave ſeuen Sacramēts, & yet they hauehave no Sacramēt, becauſe they hauehave not thine. For thoſe Sacraments which are not thine, are no Sacraments at all. Their bread, ſay you, is poiſon, and what is our wine? but the common people among you taſte not of that at all: belike, leſt they ſhould thinke that you did drinke to them of a poiſon. Wee doe vſe that bread and that wine in the Lords Supper, which Chriſt himſelfe commanded to vſe. That which hee deliuered, we hauehave receiued: that which he did, we do: in the bread and wine we celebrate the remembrance of our Redeemer. If thoſe were wholeſome, ours cannot bee deadly. Baptiſme (ſay you) although it be as yet among them true, notwithstanding in their iudgement it is nothing. You your ſelf cōfeſſe that our Baptiſme is true… I take it for granted. But why is it true? becauſe wee baptize ſo, as Chriſt hath commanded vsus. We keepe the law of Chriſt, we throw your, I know notqqDVR. What is that you call traſh? vvhichwhich of the auncient Fathers hauehave been. vvho hauehave not made mention of our ceremonies. WHIT. pag. 658. Chriſt cōmaunded nothing to the Church touching theſe trifles; & though we reade often of Baptiſme in the word, & of many, yet there is no word touching any of theſe Shall we then thinke that the Church in later times hath knowne better, vvhat ceremonies vvere fitter for the Sacrament then Chriſt and his Apoſtles? vvhere did euer any of them vſe ſalt, ſpittle, candles, &c. in this Sacrament. what, traſh away; the like hauehave we done in the other Sacrament, not hauehave wee departed a nailes bredth from Chriſts precept. If ours be true Baptiſme, then is out p. 239rrDVR. VVhen bread and vvine is your Eucharist (neither doe you beleeue Chriſt gaue any other thing in the Supper) vvee leaue you your Euchariſt alſo. WHIT. pag. 660. If wee hauehave true Baptiſme; why not the Euchariſt? wee follow Chriſts commandement in both. Further you falſely accuſe vsus, who thinke bread & wine to be but one part of the Sacrament, as Ireneus and antiquity hath done; & Chriſt his body and blood the other. But you hauehave no Euchariſt at all, who profeſſe you hauehave neither bread nor wine.Euchariſt true alſo. But in their iudgement (ſay you) it is nothing. Why ſo? It is not the water of ſaluation, it is not the conduit of grace, it doth not deriue the merits of Chriſt into vt; but only it is a ſignification of ſaluation. All theſe things are feined & falſe. For we preach it to be the ſauing water, and aſſDVR But Caluin denieth all this, making it only a ſigne and ſeale, by vvhichwhich vve are aſſured of the grace beſt…ed vponupon vsus. WHIT. pag. 663. Doth it follow hence that grace and remiſſion of ſinne is not giuen vntounto vsus in Baptiſme? As if by the ſeale of the Kings Charter ſome thing is not both giuen vntounto vsus, and confirmed? And in Baptiſme this confirmation is but a more bountifull donation. chanell of grace, and we doubt not but it deriueth Chriſts merits into vsus. For it doth not only ſignifie ſaluation, but alſo it performeth & bringeth it indeed to them that vſe Baptiſme aright and holily. For in Baptiſme we receiue forgiuene▪ of our ſinnes, we are accepted into the familie of Chriſt, we are endowed with the holy Ghoſt, we are raiſed vp to a moſt certaine hope of euerlaſting life. Are theſe matters of nothing to you, Campian? ſhall this Baptiſme be nothing, wherin we obteine ſo many and ſo great good things? but what manner of thing is your Baptiſme: or what hath it more, which ours ought to hauehave? hath it grace? or the merits of Chriſt? or ſaluation? Ours alſo hath theſe things; what then is wanting in it, why it ſhould not be true both in ours and others iudgement? I know your meaning. It conueigheth not grace by the worke wrought. This indeed is a magicall and peſtilent deuice, that you ſhould thinkettDVR. VVe thinke not ſo, but that it is in it, as in an inſtrument. And ſo hath Thomas taught. WHIT. pag. 664. Then you reiect and condemne all your old Sophiſters, who hauehave taught that grace is included in the Sacrament, as health is in a medicine or ſalue. For as that doth cure the diſeaſe whether he beleeue or no that is ſicke, only if he take it: ſo the Sacrament doth giuegive grace without any faith or good motion of the receiuer, ſo he hath no mortall ſinne to hinder it. grace to be incloſed in the water it ſelfe, as it were in a pipe, which ſheadeth it ſelf forth into all men, though quite void p. 240of faith. For what auaileth the Sacrament without faith, but to his perdition who receiueth the Sacrament: that monſter I doe abhorre and deteſt with mine whole hart. You adde, therfore they hauehave made no more reckoning of the Baptiſme of Chriſt, then of Iohns, that is, a meere ceremonie. I am not ignorant what the Fathers thought of the Baptiſme of Iohn. But I heed what the Scriptures teacheth, not what they imagined. In them both there was theuuDVR. But Matth. 3.11. Iohn baptiſed with water only, Christ with the Spirit. WHIT. pag. 669. Here is no compariſon betweene the Baptiſme, but the perſons: for not Iohn only, but not Peter nor any Miniſter of the Goſpel, can giuegive the holy Ghoſt to thoſe whom they doe baptiſe. Men giuegive but the outward ſigne, it is Chriſt who giueth the Spirit. DVR. VVhy vvere they Act. 19 4.5. baptiſed againe vvhom Iohn had baptiſed, if it be the ſame Baptiſme. WHIT. pag. 671. They were not rebaptiſed, as Ambr…ſe ſaith, de Spirit. Sanct. lib. 1. cap. 3. And the 5. verſ. being S. Paule… words, they are to be vnderſtood not of thoſe Epheſians, but of the people whom John baptiſed. As if S. Paul had ſaid. John taught thoſe who came to his Baptiſme to beleeue in Chriſt who was to come: and they when they heard it, were baptiſed in the name of the …ord Ieſus. From this then can be gathered no differenc… of theſ… tvvo Baptiſmes.Matt 3:11Acts 19:4Acts 19:5 ſame ceremonie, the ſame doctrine, and the ſame grace. If there were any thing vnlike in theſe things, I refuſe not to confeſſe, that the Baptiſme of Iohn and Chriſt were diuers. Now Iohn ioyned repentance,Mat. 3.2.1…. Luk. 3.3.Matt 3:2Matt 3:1Luke 3:3 which is the fruit of true regeneration, with his Baptiſme, and off…ed this Baptiſme for the remiſſion of ſinnes. If the Baptiſme of Iohn wanted not repentance and remiſſion of ſinnes, I ſee not why it ſhould bee held ſo much different from the Baptiſme of Chriſt. And what is the cauſe,**DVR. Becauſe that Baptiſme did prepare men to regeneration, of vvhichwhich preparation Christ had no need. WHIT. pag. 673. This is but your coyned diſtinction, for the Fathers ſpeake and anſwere otherwiſe. Chryſ…ſt. in 3. Matth. not that he ſhould receiue remiſſion of ſinne by …aptiſme, but that be might leaue ſa…ctified waters for thoſe who ſhould after be baptiſed. And Auguſt. in cat. …ur. in 3. Matth. Our Sauiour would therefore be baptiſed, not that bee might bee ſanctified, but that he might ſanctifie the waters for vsus. why the Fathers demand, wherfore Chriſt, who needed no regeneration, did come to the Baptiſme of Iohn, but becauſe they iudged that his Baptiſme had the power of regeneration?

Concerning that which you annexe: If you hauehave it, it is well: if you want it, there is no hurt: beleeue, and p. 241you ſhall be ſaued before you bee baptiſed; wee doe not ſpeake ſo looſely, as you imagine. For wee will not hauehave it to be in any ones choice, to be baptiſed if hee will, and to leaue it if hee will not. Yet wee doe not thinke that Baptiſme is ſoxxDVR. VVhat? If without Baptiſme infants may obtaine eternall life, is it not your iudgements, that it is no burt to them though they want Baptiſme? But Christ thought farre … therwiſe. Ioh. 3.5. WHIT. pag. 675. It is a wicked and batbarou… opinion to thinke that they who die before they can come to Baptiſme, are damned. For who will ſay, that the infants of the Iewes, who died before the eight day did p… riſh? And when in former ages they deferred Baptiſme till the houre of death, did they think it ſo abſolute neceſſary? Will you ſay that an infant is not of the nūber of the elect, becauſe God wil that he die before Baptiſme? if you will, you ſhall be accounted bold, raſh, and impious. As for the place of Iohn. Chriſt doth not thinke that none can come into heauen, which wanteth the outward Baptiſme. The theefe was with Chriſt in Paradiſe, and yet was vnbaptiſed with the outward Baptiſme. But the truth is, by water Chriſt meaneth there the Spirit, as appeareth by conference of places. Matth. 3.11. As there fire, ſo here water ſignifieth the power of the Spirit: & Ioh. 4.10.John 3:5Matt 3:11John 4:10 ſimplie neceſſarie to ſaluation, that he that is not entred by Baptiſme, muſt needs periſh euerlaſtingly. For the ſaluation of a Chriſtian man cōſiſteth in the merciemercy of God, which is not ſo tyed & bound to any Sacraments,yyDVR. God hath ſhewed his vvill, Ioh. 3.5. And …hen S. Paul makes all by nature the Children of wrath: Epheſ. 2.3. If there be no remedie against this euill in the Scripture, but Baptiſme, what can be, but that they vvho die vvithout Baptiſme, must needs die in the ſame condition? WHIT. 677. God in no place hath ſhewed this to bee his will; that they who die without Baptiſme, ſhall periſh. Of the words of Chriſt hauehave …in ſpoken, which if they be vnderſtood of Baptiſme, they belong only to thoſe who are of growne yeares. That by no other meanes we can be freed from the miſerable ſtate of nature, but by Baptiſme, is very falſe. For the Spirit of God doth in and without the Sacrament, doth communicate his graces.John 3:5Eph 2:3 as that he cannot ſaue thoſe, whom he will not hauehave periſh, without them. Where the opportunity of Baptiſme is not, Gods promiſe alone is abundantly ſufficient of it ſelfe. But whoſoeuer either neglecteth Baptiſme through heedleſnes, or boldly contemneth it, him we condemne of very hainous ſin. For he doth both diminiſh the Maieſtie of Chriſt, and alſo refuſeth his owne ſaluation. But he that committeth neither, ſhal not anſwere for the fault of another. Therefore verie right was that iudgement of Bernard, zzDVR. He ſpeaketh not of infants, but of thoſe vvho indued with true faith, were preuented by an vntimely death that they could not be baptiſed. WHIT. pag. 680. How truly you ſpeake we may iudge out of the ſame Epiſtle. For he thus writeth. VVho is ignorant that in former times they had other remedies againſt originall ſinne; beſides Baptiſme? for to Abraham and his ſeed vt as the Sacrament of Circumciſion giuen to this end. But in other nations, ſo many as vvere found faithfull, vvee beleeue that they, vvho vvere of yeares, vvere ſanctified by faith and ſacrifices: but the parents faith did profit their infants, yea and vvas ſufficient for them. If this was ſo before Chriſt, ſhall we thinke the condition of infants is now worſe?not the want, but the contempt of Baptiſme is damnable.Bernard. in Epist. ad Hugon.

p. 242In the reſt that follow, as being ſmall matters, you doe but triſle. For neither doe you your ſelfe declare any thing of your owne opinions, nor can you reproue any thing in ours. But I long to know, what you thinke of the faith of Infants. I ſuppoſe, you wil grant that they hauehave grace? For (ſay you) Baptiſme conferreth grace. But will you not yeeld that they hauehave faith? I wiſh therefore you would teach me, to the end you may draw me wholy into your opinion, how there can be any grace more ancient than faith. But (ſay you) how can they beleeue, who doe not yet vnderſtand whether they liue or no? and do they therfore not liue, becauſe they vnderſtand not that they liue? It is abſurd. Wherefore if they liue, although they doe not vnderſtand they do ſo:aaDVR. But ſpeake plainly; if Infants hauehave no faith, your nevv Euangelicall doctrine, teaching that the force of the Sacrament doth depend vponupon the faith of the receiuers, must vaniſh. WHIT. pag. 681. I do no: thinke that Infants do beleeue, there being neither reaſon nor Scripture for it. And I anſwere that is not our doctrine you faine to bee. Wee ſay, that to men of yeares without ſaith it is a Sacrament, but not a ſauing Sacrament: to children of beleeuing patents, though they cannot for their yeares beleeue, yet it is a ſauing Sacrament, as Circumciſion was to the Infants of the Iewes. For wee doubt not but the Spirit of God is powerfull vntounto them after a hidden and vvonderfull manner. As in the examples of Iacob, Ieremie, Iohn Baptiſt, and others. happily alſo they doe beleeue, albeit they perceiue not that they beleeue. That is hard (ſay you:) bee it ſo. Nor doe I ſpeake theſe things, as if I were wholy of that mind, but to the end I may fiſh out your mind, which our Vniuerſity m…n doubtles make great account of. But let vsus heare Luthers medicine: It is better (ſaith he) to omit it, becauſe except the Infant beleeue, he is waſhed p. 243…e…er a whit. But this medicine came out of your ſhop, not out of Luthers. And indeed you hauehave offred vsus many ſuch like medicines, very vnſauourie, and ill fauouredly ſeaſoned: ſo that all your confections ſeeme to be corrupt. But Luther did neuer perſwade that Baptiſme ſhould be omitted; & he was alwaies earneſt on that part, that Baptiſme ſhould be giuen to Infants: and therefore you are ſo much the more vniuſt in this place, in that you would marre Luthers opinion with your medley. For theſe things are ſo alledged by you, as if Luther ſaid, it were better to omit Baptiſme. Therfore let vsus heare Luther himſelf, and let Campians medicine alone. And yet (ſaith he) we deny not that Infants are to be baptiſed, Luther. aduerſ. Coc…laeum.nor do we anow that they receiue Baptiſme without faith: but wee ſay, that at Baptiſme they do beleeue by the power of the Word. He addeth: Or otherwiſe there would bee meere and intolerable lies, when the Baptiſer demandeth of the Infant whether he do beleeue: as intending not to baptiſe, vnleſſe it be anſwered in the child… ſtead, I beleeue. Wherfore doth the Minister aske whether he do beleeue, if i… be a certaine thing that they do not beleeue, as Cocleus maintaineth? Then he concludeth thus: But we hold that Infants are not to be Baptiſed, …f it be true that they in Baptiſme do not beleeue. Luther then maintaineth and determineth, that little children do beleeue, and he reproueth the Papiſts, becauſe they teach things contrary each to other, while they deny that an Infant hath faith and yet, to the end he may be baptiſed, they require faith of him. Who ſeeth not to what theſe things may be referred, ſo that hee muſt needs bee a moſt malicious man, who maketh Luther in theſe words a perſwader of ſo wicked an opinion?

And theſe things doe they ſpeake (ſay you) being doub…full in their own mind, what to maintaine poſitiuely. Howſoeuer ſome doe doubt of the faith of infants, yet wee all determine cleerely and poſitiuely that p. 244they are to be baptiſed. Therfore there was no need that you ſhould ſend for that Pacimentan… dayeſman, who was alwayes more enclining to your ſide than to ours. But why doe you obiect the Anabaptiſts to vsus, who hate vsus much more eagerly than you, and not without cauſe?bbDVR. I knovv you doe fight hotly against the Anabaptists, but vvith vvhat vveapons? Caluin vvas glad to flie to the Tradition of the Church: for be brought no place of Scripture against them, neither could be bring any. WHIT. pag. 685. You betray the Scriptures that you may eſtabliſh Traditions. What can be ſpoken either more contumeliouſly againſt the Scriptures, or more for the aduantage of Anabaptiſts, then that this their hereſie cannot be cōfuted by Scripture? But are you ignorant that Caluin vſed Scripture to refell this? And yet he produceth theſe places. Gen. 17.4. Matth. 19.13. & 28.19. which ſufficiently ouerthrow the Anabaptiſts. And in the place you alleadge, hee rather renounceth Traditions, then flieth to them for any defence. Jast. lib. 4 cap. 16. ſect. 8.Gen 17:4Matt 19:13Matt 28:19 for we hauehave both cōuicted them for heretikes by our arguments, and alſo hauehave expulſed them as ſeditious and pernicious men out of our Commonwealths, who if they dwelt not with you, could find no place to remaine in through the Chriſtian world. You paſſe ouer the reſt of the Sacraments, which I acknowledge to bee none at all: nor doe I vnderſtand which is that beaſt of many heads, whereof you make mention, vnleſſe perhaps you meane that threeheaded beaſt, of which Iohn writeth many things in the Reuelation.

Hitherto Campian, Of Manners.you hauehave examined certaine opinions and poſitions of our men: in all which you hauehave found as yet neuer a Paradoxe. For either the things that you obiect are ſuch, as that nothing can be truer then they, or elſe they are craftily and treacherouſly wreſted by you into a peruerſe meaning. But now, as if you were ſome new Cenſurer, and Maſter of the auncient diſcipline and ſeuerity, you make ſearch into our manners, not, I thinke, to make them better, but to make them ſeeme much worſe than they be. Although he that reproueth the manners of other, it were meet that he ſhould bee without fault. And is there ſo great a change made of Rome vponupon the ſodaine? is their life now ſuch? are their manners begunne to bee ſo goodly, that you being returned thēce a Frier dare ſtriue with vsus about vertue, ſhamefaſtnes, p. 245and hon…ſtie? howſoeuer there be here many things done which ought not to be, yet if you ſhall ſay that there is as great impunity and licenciouſnes of ſinnes in England, as you your ſelfe hauehave ſeene at Rome, the very towre of your religion and kingdome, all men will iudge you to bee too too impudent. Wherefore then doe you propoſe to vsus thoſe peeces of faults in Luther, ſeeing among you not only ſome fragments of vices, but huge bodies of the greateſt crimes are plainely ſeene? ſurely as long as thoſe publike ſtewes and dens of whoores ſtand ſtill in Rome, you could ſcarce honeſtly make mention of manners. But what are theſe peeces of faults in Luther? Is it for that you reproue ſome crime in his life? but that you neither can do, nor go about to doe. You obiect certaine ſayings caught out of his bookes, and as you are wont torne from the reſt of the body of the ſentence; which ſeeme preſently as ſoone as they bee propounded by you, to make ſhew of ſome filthines. About the moſt of which, ſeeing that you hauehave had an anſwere made you by him whom you name, Reuerend Charke, I maruell that you hauehave returned them to vsus heere againe. There muſt needs be great lacke of true imputations, ſeeing that you hauehave no varietie at all of falſe ones. And ſeeing that my fellow ſouldier and companion in Chriſt William Charke did labour diligētly 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 hauehave 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 p. 246marriage, 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 propoūd theſe things in this māner, 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.ccDVR. You are ignorant that vvith vsus 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 vvhē ſhee decreeth that for many cauſes diuo…ce from b…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 al…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 p. 247to hauehave beene Pope of Rome, what tragedies would yee hauehave raiſed? Heare Campian, & I would hauehave you marke whereto this ſpeech tendeth:ddDVR. If you had ſeene ſome old copies, or vvaighed the ſcope of the Epiſtle, you might eaſilie hauehave 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 vponupon auncient Biſhops, ſuch as they neuer writ, God would ſhew your perfidie by manifeſt demonſtrations For copies we hauehave none whether old or new but from you; and many I hauehave ſeene, and they all hauehave it. Yet remember that you here confeſſe the Popes decretall Epiſtles to bee corrupted (why … forged?) which other where you peremp…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 friēds 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 thē followeth after in thoſe patches of yours? For becauſe the carnall knowledge of the wife is as neceſſarie to eueryevery one, as meate, and drinke, and ſleepe are. eeDVR. Tertul. de Monog. Hieron. lib. 1. contra Iouinian. vnderstand it only of thoſe vvho are married, that they might lawfully keepe and hauehave 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 eueryevery man ſhould hauehave his wife to auoid fo…nication; vvho ſeeth not that this law concerneth the vnma…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 mar…: for it is better to marrie then to burne. Therefore hee doth not onli… commaund that they vvho hauehave vviues keepe them ſtill; but that they vvh… hauehave not, ſhould marrie, if they found it neceſſarie for them to auoid inconti…cie.The Apoſtle commandeth,1 Cor. 7.2.91 Cor 7:21 Cor 7:9 that eueryevery one for the au…iding of fornication, hauehave his wife, and eueryevery woman her owne husband: and that they that cannot conteine, ſhould marrie. They therefore who hauehave 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 p. 248they 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.ffDVR. VVhat is this elſe but euen the ſame that Iouinian anſ…vered vntounto 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 … …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 of men it is that Augustine doth iuſtly reproue. For virginitie is to be deſired, not ſimplie for that end that we may …idde and free our ſelues from the neceſſarie buſineſſe and cares accompanying marriage, but to the end we may with ſitter opportunitie and more conueniencie ſerue God, as alſo the Apoſtle …peaketh; That you may ſo …vv that vvhichwhich is honest, and that you may cleaue fast vntounto the Lord vvithout ſeparation. 1. Co. 7.35. … DVR. VVho ſeeth not that that is more excellent in it ſelfe, vvhichwhich is more difficult and hard? And Christ ſaith, that after this life there is no marrying at all. And S. Paul, He that giueth his virgin to marriage, doth well: but hee that giueth her not to marriage doth better. 1. Cor. 7.38. WHIT. pag 69…. I do not diſpute againſt holy virginity, which I acknowledge is both hard & excellent. But ſingle life muſt be diſtinguiſhed frō holy virginity. Very few attaine this of that eueryevery one may make choiſe of. But your reaſō is of no great force, for the hardeſt things are not the moſt excellent. It is moſt hard for a man to liue an hundred yeares: ſhal we therfore thinke that they who liue ſo long, are more excellent then others? As for that in the kingdome of heauē there are no marriages, it is not of force againſt vsus: for we ſpeak of the ſtate of this life, after which, as there ſhall be no marriages, ſo no vowes of virginitie. In S. Paul, better, is as much as ſi…es and more commodious: for if it were ſu…plie better, it were neuer lawfull to do otherwiſe; which he alloweth. Therefore he thus ſpake not for the nature of the thing, but in reſpect of circumſtances: as you may ſee, verſ. 26.28.32.35.1 Cor 7:351 Cor 7:38 Thus therefore ſtands the matter: they that can preſerue their chaſtitie in Virginitie, they may be deſirous of Virginitie, and yet not abſolutely, but by reaſon of the troubles which for the moſt part accompanie marriage: but they that cannot liue chaſt, ſuch muſt betake them to marriage, and that ſo as that if they doe otherwiſe, they infolde themſelues in great ſinne. So that Virginitie is neuer, ſaue onelyonly in ſome reſpect better than marriage, but g marriage oftentimes is abſolutely better than virginitie. Surely we doe thinke honourably of both theſe eſtates of life: but among you virginitie is aduaunced, but marriage p. 249baſely eſteemed. Baſil holdeth rightly, Let virginity be honored, let not marriage be despiſed. I had rather you ſhould approue virginitie by your deeds, than praiſe it with your words.Hieron. ad Furiam. foreign. Why doth the tongue ſound out chastity, and the whole bodie ſhew forth vncleannes? For ſo do ye. Euen as Epiphanius writeth of the Origeniſts. You refuſe marriages, but not lust: it is not holineſſe, but hypocriſie that is in honour among you. For neither did Chriſt nor Paul enioyne virginitie to any one that had not power to receiue it. For (ſaith Bernard) virginitie is not commaunded, Bernard. de Virgin ſer. 21. 1. Cor. 7.9.1 Cor 7:9but aduiſed. Nay, they that cannot conteine, are commaunded to marrie. Wherefore the Apoſtle was not onelyonly of opinion that thoſe ought not to keepe their virginitie, but alſo he diſſwaded them from it: nor would he hauehave diſſwaded them from it, if Chriſt had perſwaded them to it. Neither are theſe poſitions proper to Luther: for all good men doe both acknowledge and defend them.

But let vsus heare the reſt:hhDVR. Doe you not thinke therefore that the diuell himſelfe is neereſt of all to grace? WHIT. pag. 6…6. It is diuelliſh ſo to diſpute; Luther meant nothing els, but to ſtay mēs conſciences afflicted and troubled with the greatnes of ſin, and to comfort them vvith the merciemercy of God which, the greater ſinner thou art, the greater is it on thee, vvhen thou doſt truly turne vntounto the Lord, as the Apoſtle ſaith, vvhere ſinne abounded, grace abounded much more. Rom. 5.20.Rom 5:20 The more wicked that thou art, (ſaith he) ſo much the neerer art thou vntounto grace. The grace of Chriſt is ſufficient not onelyonly for ſmall ſinnes, but alſo for the greateſt: nor are ſmall offenders onelyonly inuited by Chriſt to come to him, p. 250but they alſo that are laden with the burthen of their ſinnes. Luther exhorts thee not to goe forward in ſinne, but that thou ſhouldeſt not deſpaire of pardon. And certainely theiiDVR. VVhere learned you to call him a wicked man, that is truly penitent for his ſins? WHIT. pag. 697. Chriſt ſaith, Luk. 15.7 There ſhal be ioy in heauen ouer one ſinner that repenteth. Aske novv, vvho taught Chriſt to call him a ſinner that repenteth him of his ſinnes; or vvhy do you not quarrell with the Apoſtle, vvhen he ſaith, God iustifieth the ungodly. Rom 4.5? For he that is vngodly is not iuſtified.Luke 15:7Rom 4:5 more wicked that thou haſt been in thy life by-paſt, ſo much the more aboundant grace ſhall imbrace thee, if thou be truely penitent for thy ſinnes.Rom. 5.20.Rom 5:20 For where ſinne hath abounded, grace hath ouerabounded. If you condemne Luther, who will thinke that you let Paul paſſe free? For you hauehave the ſame action againſt both, ſith they be of one and the ſame iudgement. What followeth? All good actions be ſinnes; of God be ſeuere in iudgement, they are damnable ſinnes; if hee bee fauourable, they be but ſmall ones, kkDVR. The Apostle S. Paul then ſaid not truly; If thou take a vvife thou ſinneſt not. 1 Cor. 7. Then S. Peter ſaid not truly, 2. Pet. 1.10. For if yee do theſe things, yee ſhall neuer fall. Neither ſaid Sa…nt Iohn truly, 1. Ioh 3.8. For this purpoſe the Sonne of God appeared, that heo might looſe the workes of the Diuell. Neither did S. Paul vvell to compare good vvorkes to ſiluer, gold, and precious ſtones. 1. Cor. 3.12. Neither did the Prophets and Apostle… well to exhort vsus to good vvorks. And if all our actions (though good) be ſinne, doe not you your ſelues ſinne vvhilest you beleeue to be iustified by faith? For faith is a vvorke, ſeeing Christ ſaith, This is the worke of God, that you beleeue. WHIT. pag. 698. That euen our good actions are tainted vvith ſome ſinne, no man can doubt, that either knoweth the Scriptures, or himſelf. As Iſay ſaith 64.10. Now it euen al our righteous actiōs be like vntounto a ſtincking & filthie clout, they are ſurely tainted with ſome ſin. The Prophet Dauid prayeth Pſal. 143.2. Wherefore no worke, (though good) can deliuer vsus from the iuſt iudgement of God. And this is that which the Apoſtle Paul ſpeaketh Gal. 5.17. and Rom. 7.21. alſo Job 9.2. VponUpon which place Gregorie Moral. lib. 9. cap. 1. thus writeth. The holy man becauſe he ſeeth, that euen all the merit of our very vertue is ſinne, if by an invvard iudgement it be rightly iudged of, doth vvell adde &c. Heere Gregorie calleth the merits of our vertue, that is, our very beſt workes, ſinnes. And againe the ſame Gregorie cap. 14. As vve hauehave often ſaid, all humane righteouſnes is conuinced to be v…righteouſnes, if it be rightly iudged of. Now he that calleth our rigeteouſnes vnrighteouſnes, what ſaith he elſe, then that which Luther ſaid, That there is ſome ſinne in eueryevery good vvorke? This Paradoxe therefore Luther learned our of the Scriptures and auncient Fathers. But to come to your ſlender reaſons. If thou take a vvife, thou ſinnest not. I anſwere heere is a fallacie. For we ſay not to marrie a wiſe is ſinne, but that they vvho marrie wiues intermixe ſome ſinne in that good action. And to the place of S. Peter. I ſay that there you vſe alſo a fallacy: for to fall, in that place ſignifieth to fall away wholy and altogether from grace and ſaluation. For the place of S. Iohn, vve meane not that good workes are ſinnes, but that they hauehave ſome ſinne mixed with them. For it followeth not that ſiluer is droſſe, becauſe it hath ſome droſſe mingled with it. And Chriſt came not to the end there ſhould be no ſinne left in his Saints whileſt they liue here, but that he might take away the guilt of ſinne. And what if S. Paul hath compared our good workes to ſiluer, gold, or precious ſtones? Know you not that euen in the beſt mettals, and in ſuch ſtones there may ſome droſſe be found? But the Apoſtle compareth ſound doctrine to theſe things; than which there is nothing more precious if it be kept pure and incorrupted. The Prophets and Apoſtles do well to exhort vsus to doe good workes: but if they bid vsus do our duty, doth it therefore follow, that vvee may not commit ſome ſinne in doing thereof? Laſt of all touching your demaund concerning faith, you bewray your ignorance; for we are not iuſtified by faith, as it is a worke or action of ours, for it is imperfect: but becauſe it is as the hand wherby we lay hold on Chriſt, and Chriſt calleth faith a worke either by imitation, or becauſe it is the worke of the holy Ghoſt that kindleth it in our hearts.1 Cor 72 Pet 1:101 John 3:81 Cor 3:12Ps 143:2Gal 5:17Rom 7:21Job 9:2Luther ſaid this, and hee ſaide it truely. For in eueryevery action of a man, p. 251llDVR. Therefore no action can euer be either excellent or good. VVell ſaid Dionyſius, That that vvhichwhich is good, must n…edes come of a cauſe perfectly good. WHIT. pag. 701. Is there any ſo dull, as to ſay that there is no health not ſoundnes in the body at all, becauſe there is onlie ſome thing in the body not ſo ſound as it ſhould be? As for Dionyſius, he ſpeaketh of that entire and perfect good which we neuer attaine to in this life. For as long as the fleſh luſteth againſt the ſpirit, there can be no ſuch entire good in vsus, proceeding from entire and perfect cauſes.though neuer ſo excellēt, there is ſome fault, which may wholy marre the action, and make it odious to God, if that which is done bee weighed in the ballance of diuine iuſtice. But after that the Lord hath receiued vsus wholy to fauour in Chriſt, thoſe things which are but begun in vsus, & beſprinkled with ſome blots,mmDVR. VVhat a monstrous ſpeech is this? Is it poſſible that euen ſinnes ſhould pleaſe God? WHIT. pag. 702. Can you put no difference betvveene the corruption of the action, and the action it ſelfe? A good father loueth the obedience and dutie of his ſonne, vvhichwhich he knovveth neuertheleſſe is not ſuch as it ought to be, and how much more doth God accept the ſlender and vveake endeuours of his children? yet they pleaſe him as if they were entire and pure, becauſe he looketh vponupon our perſons, and he doth not make ſearch into the worth and merit p. 252of the worke. Theſe things ſpake Luther and confirmed them by the ſentences of ſacred Scriptures and holy Fathers: which you could much more eaſilie paſſe by than confute. Goe forward. No man of himſelfe thinketh euill. This is maliciouſly obiected, as are all the reſt. God doth throw into no man an euill thought, he compelleth the will of none to ſinne: yet nothing is done by chaunce or fortune: and in the very ſinnes of men the prouidence of God ruleth. Thoſe thoughts of men which are euill, ſpring out of a certaine inbred naughtines proper to eueryevery one: and yet the Lord can applie them to his owne will. For ſo Ioſeph anſwereth his brethren: Ye thought euill against me, but the Lord turned it to good.Gen. 50.20.Gen 50:20

Now you adde:nnDVR. Then vvhy anſvvered Chriſt the yong man in the Goſpell vvith this, keepe the Cō mandements? And hovv doe theeues and adulterers ſinne? or hovv is it a ſinne novv to omit the duties of the morall Lavv, more then to omit offering vp of ſacrifices? WHIT. pag. 703. That vvhichwhich Chriſt anſvvered to the yong man Matth. 19.17. may vvell bee ſaid vntounto you. For you ſeeke righteouſnes by the Lavv: vvherefore keepe the Lavv if you vvill enter into life. But here you ſhall find no vvay to enter. Luther nor any of vsus, euer denied that the Lavv pertaineth vntounto Chriſtians. For the righteouſnes of the Lavv is eternall, and eueryevery man ought vvith all endeuour to frame his life according to the ſame. But it is one thing to bee bound by the Lavv, and another thing to conforme and fr…me our liues by the rule of the Lavv. Wherfore theeues do ſinne, and are iuſtly puniſhed; and much more they that eſtabliſh the ceremonies of Moſes Lavv, vvhichwhich are vvholy abrogated.Matt 19:17 The decalogue belongeth not to Christians. God doth not care for our workes. Touching the decalogue and workes, this anſwere I make you briefely. In the law the olde couenant is contained; Doe this and liue: Gal. 3.10. Deut. 27.26Gal 3:10Deut 27:26ooDVR Moſes denounceth not the curſſe against the breaches of eueryevery ſmall precept, but to thoſe only, vvhichwhich he there reckoneth vp: vvhichwhich vvere certainly very haynous ſinnes. WHIT. pag. 708. If that curſe be only proper to thoſe, vvho are guilty of the ſinnes there numbred and ſet dovvne, vvhat ſhall vve then thinke of blaſphemers, adulterers, and of other horrible malefactors? are they free from this curſſe? if this be impious and abſurde, then muſt it be vnderſtood of all, euen as many as do tranſgreſſe the Lavv. And ſo S. Paul interpreteth the place, vvho vndoubtedly vnderſtood the meaning of Moſes better then all Ieſuites. For he inſtructing the Galathians, as concerning the iuſtice of the Lavv, proueth by this teſtimonie, Gal. 3.10. that none can be iuſtified by the vvorks of the Lavv, but he that continueth in all things. Either then deny that any lavv vvas vvritten touching ſmall offences, or elſe confeſſe that that curſſe belongeth to the leaſt offences. If the Apoſtle had vnderſtood it as you doe, the Galathians might hauehave anſvvered him, that they vvere free from thoſe great ſinnes, and ſo from the curſſe, and therefore might vvell hope to be iuſtified by the Lavv. Finally if Gal. 3.13. Christ hath freed vsus from the curſſe of the Law, ſhall vve thinke that this is only, from the curſſe due to a fevv grieuous ſinners? I hope by this time, you ſee the error of your interpretation, which you hauehave ſucked from your corrupt maiſters.Gal 3:10Gal 3:13Curſed is eueryevery one that continueth not in all things which are written in the booke of the law to do them. The law promiſeth life to them, which p. 253obey the Law in all things: they that offend in any thing, to them it threatneth death and damnation.ppDVR. Yet Chriſt Math. 11.30. ſaith, My youke is eaſie and my burden light. And S. Iohn. 1. Epiſt. 2.4. Ho that ſaith, I know him and keepeth not his Commandements, is alayr. WHIT. pag. 705. S. Ioh. 1. Epist. 5.3.4. expoundeth the ſpeech of Chriſt, His Commandements are not grieuous: For all that is borne of God, ouercommeth the world: and this is the victorie that ouercommeth the world, euen our faith. This yoke then to thoſe who hauehave faith ſeameth not grieuous, becauſe they are inflamed with the louelove of Gods Law, neither feare they the curſe of it becauſe they are ingrafted by faith into Chriſtans for the place of S. Iohn, I anſwere; they are ſaid to keepe the Commandement…, who do their beſt enendeuour to keepe them. If any do thinke that he ſo keepeth them, that hee is without all ſinne, that is, that he perfectly keepeth them, S. Iohn calleth him a lyar, 1. Ioh. 1.8.Matt 11:30John 11 John 1:8 An hard condition, and which no man can euer ſatisfie. Chriſt doth propoſe to vsus another condition much eaſier:Mar. 16.16.Mark 16:16 Beleeue and thou ſhalt bee ſaued. By this new Couenant the oldqqDVR. If it be abrogated, how are we not freed from the obedience of it? If God require only that you beleeue; then by beleeuing you fulfill the Lavv, and ſo hauehave not only an imputed, but an inherent righteouſnes. WHIT. pag. 614. I ſay not, that the Law is ſimplie aboliſhed, but in ſome reſpect. Therefore it vvill not follovv that vve are freed from the obedience of it. Againe, vvee ſay not, that faith fulfilleth the Law, as if it did performe perfect obediēce to it, but becauſe it layeth hold on Chriſt, vvho is the end and perfection of the Lavv, and on his righteouſnes. Therefore is it not an inherent, but an imputatiue iuſtice. is abrogated; ſo as whoſoeuer beleeueth the Goſpell, is freed from the condition of the Law.Gal. 5.18. Rom. 6.14.Gal 5:18Rom 6:14 For they that rrDVR. Christ ſaith not as you write, but Hee that beleeueth and is baptiſed ſhall be ſaued, Now they who are baptiſed, hauehave receiued from God a good will to keepe the whole Law, which they determine afterwards by the grace of Christ to obſerue. WHIT. pag. 715. The words of Chriſt confirme as …ch as I brought them for. For Baptiſme is not a worke of the Law, but a wale of faith. And Chriſt ſheweth that our ſaluation conſiſteth only in faith. And though the baptiſed frame theirliues according to the rule of the Law, and are endued with new wills and new ſtrength, yet they do it not with that mind to iuſtifie themſelues by their obedience before the Lord. Then ſhould they loſe the righteouſnes of faith, which doth not conſiſt in our merits and good vvorkes, but is ſuch as the Apoſtle deſcribeth Rom. 4.5.Rom 4:5beleeue are not vnderunder the Law, but vnderunder grace. What needs many words? p. 254ſſDVR. This is your new Diuinitie, that vvee ſhould be freed from the curſſe of the Lavv, vvhichwhich vvee cannot fully obey, vvhen as Christ at the last ſhall pronounce the curſſe againſt thoſe vvho hauehave not obered And Chriſt (as S. Paul ſaith) hath freed vsus from the curſſe, becauſe by his death be …ath deſerued grace for vsus, vvhereby we may keepe the Lavv. WHIT. pag. 713. This is your ignorance in Diuinity. For who is ignorant of that, which the Apoſtle affirmeth plainely, Gal. 3.13. that Chriſt hath freed vsus from the curſſe of the Law? Though then we cannot fully keepe the Law, yet being ingrafted into Chriſt, and he communicating his righteouſnes vntounto vsus, wee eſcape the curſſe of the Lavv. At the laſt day it is no maruell if Chriſt pronounce the curſſe of the Law againſt the reprobates, vvho neuer vvere freed from the curſle. And if Chriſt by his death brought vsus grace to keepe the Law, why might not the Galathians hauehave kept the Lavv, and obtained righteouſnes by it? But the Apoſtle ſhevveth them, that Chriſt tooke the curſle, becauſe he tooke both the ſinne and the puniſhment vponupon him, & not that therby he procured thē grace to fulfill the Law.Gal 3:13Chriſtians are deliuered from the curſe of the law, but not from the obedience of it. As for our works, ſurely God regardeth them: and if they be good, he rewardeth them: if contrarie, he iudgeth them worthy of puniſhment:ttDVR. Jn thoſe vvho are iustified, God much respecteth their vvorkes, as in Abraham Iam 2.21. and 1. Ioh. 3.7. And in Phinehas, Pſal. 106.31. his vvorke imputed for righteouſnes. WHIT. pag. 716. To the places of Saint Iames and Saint Iohn you hauehave been anſvvered before. The fact of Phin…ha… proceeded from faith, and ſo the praiſe of it to bee giuen to faith, not to the worke. If you accounted of Th…mas, as you make ſhew of, your iudgment vvould bee ſounder in theſe things. For thus he vvriteth on Galat. 3. VVorkes are not the cauſe that any one is iuſt before God. but they are aff…ctes and manifestations of righteouſnes. Neither Luther, not any of vsus ſay any more.Jas 2:211 John 3:7Ps 106:31Gal 3 but in iuſtifying of vsus, God hath no reſpect to our works:uuDVR. The Prophet ſaith not that a man is iust, becauſe be beleeneth, but that be vvho is iuſt, doth liue by his faith, that is, doth vphold himſelfe by his faith, and ſainteth not. It is as abſurd to be iust by another mans iuſtice, as to liue by another mans life. WHIT. pag. 716. I could admit of your expoſition, but that I am perſvvaded the Apoſtle vnderſtood the Prophers mind beuer then you. For the Apoſtle hath vſed it to proue, that we are iuſtified by faith, and not by the workes of the Law: no not by thoſe which are wrought after faith; for thus he reaſoneth, Gal. 3.11. That … man is iuſtified by the Law in the ſight of God, it is euident, for the iust ſhall liue by faith. And the Law is not of faith. What hath he concluded but that you demy? that is, that the Prophet hath ſaid, that a man is iuſtified, becauſe hee beleeueth. So Chryſast in Gal. 3. ſheweth that ſaith iustifieth by the teſti…nie of the Prophet Abakuk. Which if it were not, what concerneth it the Galathians, who vvere endued vvith faith, and ioyned their vvorkes vvith their faith. If it be abſurd to be iuſt by another mans righteouſnes, I pray you tel me, hovv the Scripture calleth Chriſt both the curſſe and ſinne? As for vsus we had rather be abſurd vvith the holy Ghoſt, then vviſe vvith you.Gal 3:11Gal 3 for the iust ſhall liue, not by his works, but by his faith. Now goe p. 255on.**DVR. Then where is your faith which aſſureth you of the remiſſion of your ſinnes, and quiteth all your troubled thoughts? But holy men diligently prepared themſelues, and ſo came to this Sacrament. hauing quiet minds, free frō guilt of ſinne. And in the Primitiue times they who had fallen, were not admitted to the Eucharist, but after cō feſſion & full ſatisfaction made for their ſins. And then a Deacon was wont to crie. Holy things are for holy men. WHIT. pag. 718. You hauehave not taſted what true faith is, if you thinke all ſorrowes & doubts are remoued, ſo ſoone as faith is begotten. The Prophet often remembreth his ſorrowes, Pſal. 42.5.6. & 32.4. And this all the faithfull hauehave experience of, and yet are vpheld by their faith. They are the beſt prepared who hauehave the greateſt ſorrowes for their ſins, and in the word and Sacrament ſeeke a ſalue for them. For wherefore was the ſupper ordained, but to ſtrengthen and confirme our faith. Therfore the beſt prepared hauehave many temptations and ſorrowes in themſelues. The cuſtome of the Church proueth nothing againſt this. For will you account them wicked and prophane, whoſe conſciences are frighted with the ſenſe and bitter ſorrowes for their ſinnes? So ſhall you wickedly condemne the moſt holie ſeruants of God.Ps 42:5Ps 42:6Ps 32:4 Only they do rightly receiue the Lords Supper, who bring ſorrowful, afflicted, & cōfounded conſciences. And ſo it is indeed, for they are no right receiuers, who truſting to their owne merits come audaciouſly, but they who heing oppreſted with the greatues of their ſinnes,Pſal. 51.19.Ps 51:19 doe deſire to bee eaſed. For they which are whole deſire not the Phyſitian. A contrite and broken hart is an acceptable ſacrifice to God. wherefore they which hauehave greateſt feeling of their ſinnes and ſorrow for them, to them that heauenly food is wont to bee moſt wholeſome. Good Lord, who would euer thinke it might come to paſſe, that anie Chriſtian ſhould diſlike theſe things! But is there any thing elſe?xxDVR. VVho knoweth not that the Nouatians vvere condemned of the vvhole Church for denying this authoritie to the Priests? And that it vvas an old cuſtome of the Church, as Tertullian hath it, that penitentials vvere ſent to none but to the Prieſts: to whom, as Ambrole, Hierome, & Chryſoſtome writ, the keyes and power of binding and looſing are committed. WHIT. pag. 720. That you ſpeake of the Nouatians and the cuſtome of the Church toucheth not Luther, for they admitted neither repentance not confeſſion in the Church: did Luther euer any ſuch thing? or did he euer reproue the cuſtome of the Church, that they who had offended publikely, did publikely teſtiue their repentance. It was a priuate auricular confeſsion of all ſinnes which hee reproued, which is without teſtimonie either of Scripture of ſincere Antiquitie: which made Nectarius Biſhop of Conſtantinople put it out of the Church for the offence of a Deacon. For the Fathers by which you would eſtabliſh your keyes, we hauehave againſt them Auguſtine in Ioan. tract. 124. and Theophil in Matth. 18.Matt 18 You may confeſſe you ſinnes, but to any p. 256bodie, yyDVR. ƲVhat is then more manifest then that hee may giuegive a Sacrament which neuer intēded …? VVe beleeue that Prieſts as Iudges can abſolue the guilty from their ſins. WHIT pag. 722. When as faith dependeth vponupon no mans will, and faith bringeth remiſsion of ſins, another mans will cānot hinder, but that they who beleeue, may hauehave the pardon of their ſins For that to the Centurion, Mat. 8.13. is to eu…ry man▪ As thou beleeuest, ſo b…t …to thee, & not as another wil. If abſolution were then in the Miniſters will, it ſhould not be as men beleeue, but as their Miniſter thinketh: than vvhichwhich nothing can be more abſ…d. What skilleth it, vvhether the Miniſter be in …eſt or earneſt? if I beleeue ſeriouſly his ieſt ſhall not hurt mee. And what is more mi…erable, then to ba…g the dignitie of the Sacrament vponupon the thought and intention of the Miniſter? which if it were true of Sacramēts, yet what is that to abſolution, which neuer was a Sacramēt? wheras you ſay you beleeue that the Prieſ… do abſolue men, as Iudges do, I do not find fault with it. And ſuch …u…ges are they, as Prieſts vnderunder the Law were of diſeaſes. The chiefe Pr…ſt iudged of the Leproſie, which he neither inflicted nor cured. So the Miniſter doth pronounce and iudge all beleeuers to be abſolued, and the contrarie vponupon the wicked and vnbeleeuers.Matt 8:13who if he do abſolue you but in iest, ſo as you beleeue, you are abſolued. And why not? for it is not need full, either to number ſins by our fingers, or to vſe a Prieſt or a Frier, ſuch a one as your ſelfe.Iam. 1.16. 1. Ioh. 1.9.Jas 1:161 John 1:9 We may confeſſe our faults one to another, ſo as Friers may be idle hereafter. And whoſoeuer beleeueth that his ſinnes are forgiuen him, him ſaith it ſelfe abſolues, whether he be abſolued in ieſt or in earneſt.

Well, make haſte. To reade prayers by the houre, belongeth not to Prieſts, but to lay mē. What your Prieſts do, or what they thinke they ought to do, it concernes me not. Let them reade, let them pray, let them ſay Maſſe, let them drinke, let them play, and in a word, let them be alwayes like themſelues. It behoueth a Miniſter of the Goſpell not to recite certaine p. 257Collects by an houre-glaſſe, and to make his walke in them certaine ſpaces of houres, but to giuegive daily diligence vntounto reading,1. Tim. 4.131 Tim 4:13 exhortation, and doctrine; which things your Prieſts hauehave euer thought to be farre different from their office. But theſe ſame prayers by the houre albeit they do not ill agree to your ſacrificing prieſts, who vnleſſe they ſhould ſpēd the time on this faſhion, would neuer goe out of Stewes and Tauernes, yet are they vnworthie of a Chriſtian man, becauſe of their infinitezzDVR. Js it ſuperſtition to ſing Pſalmes vntounto God, to pray for remiſſion of ſinnes, and other temporall and ſpirituall graces, and to performe other exerciſes of religion? vvho knovveth not, that Christians had their night Pſalmes? that the Hymnes of Ambroſe vvere at ſet times. In the Acts vve read, that Peter and Iohn vvent into the Temple at the ninth houre of prayer. WHIT. pag. 726. Theſe things I reproued not as ſuperſtitious and impious, but that all the time, which ſhould be beſtovved in inſtructing the people, ſhould be ſpent in ſaying their daily appointed houres, ſpecially in that tongue vvhichwhich not the people, and often times not the Prieſt himſelfe doth vnderſtand. No man is ignorant that Chriſtians had their night houres, but it vvas becauſe they might not aſſemble themſelues in the day time: vvill you keepe this cuſtome, and not be accounted ſuperſtitious? The Hymnes of Ambroſe are full of piety, and ſarre from ſuperſtitious chaunting As for the Apoſtles, they vvent not vp to ſacrifice nor to keepe Canonicall houres, but to inſtruct the people who came thither to the euening ſacrifice in great multitudes. ſuperſtition. Let vsus heare the reſt. Christians are free from the lawes of men. That neuer came into Luthers mind, to pluck in peeces the authority of the Magiſtrates, which he did alwaies defend moſt diligently againſt the Anabaptiſts.aaDVR. It they be bound to obey, hovv are their conſciences free from the religion of them? Jf vvas a humane lavv, Act. 15.20. touching, ſtrangled and blood. And Rom. 13.2.5. and 1. Pet. 2.13.13. WHIT. pag. 730. To the firſt I anſwere, that ſome things may be done, vvhereunto vve are not bound in conſcience: vve muſt …bey humane and politike lavves, becauſe they are neceſſary for peace and publike tranquillitie. Yet vve muſt diſtinguiſh humane lavves from Diuine. For the Lawes of God muſt ſimplie bee obeyed without any difference of time, place and circumſtance: but the lawes of men as he circumſtances require. For example, he that is a Romane and liueth at Rome muſt obey the Romane lavves? If hee goe into Perſia, he is not bound to keepe there the Romane lavvea vponupon any neceſsitie. Then they bind not the conſcience, for then ſhould they in all places bind alike. 2. That Law of the Apoſtles did not ſimplie binde the conſcience, but in reſpect of the weake brother leſt he ſhould be offended: vvhom the lavv of God bindeth not to offend. Againe this was the law, not of mē, but of the ſpirit of God. 3. For the places of S. Paul and S. Peter, I anſwere, the Apoſtles doth not inſnare the conſcience vvith eueryevery particular precept of the Magiſtrate, but they ſpeake of his authoritie, which is ſacred and holy, and cannot with any good conſcience bee contemned. It is the commandement of God, that we obey Magiſtrates, and this doth bind the conſcience: in generall therefore he is to be obeyed for conſcience ſake; but his particular lawes do not bind the conſcience. Againe, when we obſerue their particular lawes, wee doe not ſo ſtand vponupon the precepts, as if doing of them would quiet the conſcience and ſatisfie it: but wee looke to the end, that is, the will of God, vvhichwhich commandeth obedience to honeſt and iuſt lavves.Acts 15:20Rom 13:2Rom 13:51 Pet 2:13 Chriſtians are free, not that they may obey no lawes, and liue only to themſelues, but that they may vnderſtand that their conſciences and minds are freed from making the lawes of men to p. 258be religion. The Pope of Rome hath bound the conſciences of Chriſtian men with his Decrees and Canons, and thereby hath laid ſuch a ſnare vponupon their minds, as that they might thinke they are no leſſe bound by the Popes Canons, then by Chriſts precepts. Therfore Luther freeth Chriſtian liberty from thoſe euill opinions wherein it had bene infolded, and bringeth it into that ſtate in which Chriſt would hauehave it to be, that we ſhould acknowledge him only to be the Lord of our conſcience, and that we ſhould obey the lawes of men with a free conſcience. We are now at length come to the bottome of this puddle, which although you hauehave ſtirred with all your diligence, yet you hauehave not found ſo much as one paradoxe, or a peece of a paradoxe of ours. But now if I would but a little make ſearch into the moſt filthy puddles of your writers, as to recken vp what they hauehave affirmed, of God, of the Prouidence of God, of Predeſtination, of the Perſon and Offices of Chriſt, of Originall ſin, of the Law, of Righteouſnes, of the Sacraments, of Purgatory, of the Pope of Rome, and of the reſt of the greateſt controuerſies in Religion, how many Carts ſhould I fill with paradoxes, horrible to be ſpoken, or thought? But it is p. 259better not at this time to ſtirre this common Sewre: and otherwhere (I hope) occaſion will be giuen to ſpeake hereof. Now in that you would ioine the Lutherans and Zwinglians together, therein ſurely you hauehave not offended vsus, for we both reuerence Luther as a father, and we embrace them as very deere brethren in Chriſt. And verily we hope it will come to paſſe, that this controuerſie, which is betweene vsus being compounded, we ſhall all with ioint minds and ſtudies ſet vponupon the common enemie. As for that you ſay touching your ſelfe, I am eaſily perſwaded to thinke it to be true, whether it be that you ſpeake it hartily or ſainedly. For what (I beſeech you) hauehave you alledged, for which wee ſhould not rather thinke you to be ſome Rhetoricall Actor vponupon a Stage, then a learned and experienced Diuine? Campian, if you be wiſe, be quiet, for (beleeue me) you cannot indure the force and violence of this combate. Let thoſe choiſe and old ſouldiers put themſelues into the camp, who are, if not more bold to prouoke, yet more wary to auoid blowes, and much more skilfull in all diſcipline of warre. To enter combate with theſe, both the Vniuerſities hauehave many worthie men, and I truſt there will neuer want excellent Diuines to wage perpetuall warre with the broken bands of Antichriſt.