An answer to the Ten reasons of Edmund Campian the Jesuit in confidence whereof…An ansvvere to the Ten reasons of Edmund Campian the Iesuit in confidence wherof…
An answer to the Ten reasons of Edmund Campian the Jesuit in confidence whereof he offered disputation to the ministers of the Church of England, in the controversy of faith. Whereunto is added in brief marginal notes, the sum of the defence of those reasons by John Duræus the Scot, being a priest and a Jesuit, with a reply unto it. Written first in the Latin tongue by the reverend and faithful servant of Christ and his Church, William Whitakers, Doctor in Divinity, and the Kings Professor and public reader of Divinity in the University of Cambridge. And now faithfully translated for the benefit of the unlearned (at the appointment and desire of some in authority) into the English tongue; by Richard Stock, preacher in London. ...An ansvvere to the Ten reasons of Edmund Campian the Iesuit in confidence wherof he offered disputation to the ministers of the Church of England, in the controuersie of faith. Whereunto is added in briefe marginall notes, the summe of the defence of those reasons by Iohn Duræus the Scot, being a priest and a Iesuit, with a reply vnto it. Written first in the Latine tongue by the reuerend and faithfull seruant of Christ and his Church, William Whitakers, Doctor in Diuinitie, and the Kings Professor and publike reader of Diuinitie in the Vniuersitie of Cambridge. And now faithfully translated for the benefit of the vnlearned (at the appointment and desire of some in authoritie) into the English tongue; by Richard Stocke, preacher in London. ...
William Whitaker 1548–1595London: printed by Felix Kyngston for Cuthbert Burby and Edmund Weaver, 1606London: printed by Felix Kyngston for Cuthbert Burby and Edmund Weauer, 1606
[40], 326 p. · 97k words · STC 25360 · ESTC S119870
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
Now Campian calleth upon the Fathers, from whom, because he presumes of a firm defence, he earnestly desireth a conflict, not like those light skirmishes of men in the streets, but a serious and constant disputation, such as Philosophers use: Campian (you see) hath a better mind to converse with Philosophers, than with Divines: for being furnished with Rhetoric and Logic, and having spent most of his time in often declaiming and in inventing and answering sophistical captions, he doubteth not of a famous victory, if Philosophers were Judges. But (Campian) these matters are not to be disputed among Philosophers, which are otherwhiles ⟨p. 123⟩deceived with probability and appearance of truth, following that opinion which themselves judge most agreeable to reason. This question in hand, must be discussed in the assembly of most grave and learned Divines, whom no juggling of words, no subtlety in disputation, no wit, no cunning, no youthful insolent boldness, in quarrelling lying, or foolish vaunting, can once move, much less remove them from the truth they are persuaded of. Here can you not have liberty to brag of your counterfeit devises, Philosophy may not sit as judge in these controversies, neither will those things, wherein you chiefly trust, be here of any authority: you must leave your own erroneous and endless walks, and be drawn perforce into the compass and limits of Scripture and true divinity. For Christ and his Apostles (as that discreet man said in the Nicene Council) commended not Logic and vain subtlety unto us,1 but a naked opinion, consisting in faith and good works: And this simple and sincere word of truth, will easily dissolve all your cavils, will dispel your artificial mists, and will hold you fast as in a net, so that the more you struggle to get out, the faster and straiter are you tied. But you haste to the Fathers, and say, If we may once come unto them, the war is ended. Now I must tell you, you make too much hast, and overslip many things. Is the battle ended, say you? Why, who had the victory? This is verily childish and too ridiculous, but yet usual in your combats, to triumph before the victory. But I would hear how you have finished the war, with such admirable expedition: For (say you) the Fathers are as surely ours, as Gregory the thirteenth himself;
NOw Campian calleth vpon the Fathers, from whom, because hee presumes of a firme defence, he earnestly desireth a conflict, not like those light skirmishes of men in the streets, but a serious and constant disputation, such as Philosophers vse: Campian (you see) hath a better minde to conuerse with Philosophers, than with Diuines: for being furnished with Rhetoricke and Logicke, and hauing spent most of his time in often declaiming and in inuenting and answering sophisticall captions, he doubteth not of a famous victorie, if Philosophers were Iudges. But (Campian) these matters are not to be disputed among Philosophers, which are otherwhiles ⟨p. 123⟩deceiued with probabilitie and apparance of truth, following that opinion which themselues iudge most agreeable to reason. This question in hand, must be discusted in the assemblie of most graue and learned Diuines, whom no iugling of words, no subtiltie in disputation, no wit, no cunning, no youthfull insolent boldnes, in quarrelling lying, or soolish vaunting, can once moue, much lesse remoue them from the truth they are perswaded of. Here can you not haue libertie to bragge of your counterfeit deuises, Philosophie may not sit as iudge in these controuersies, neither will those things, wherein you chiefely trust, be heere of any authority: you must leaue your owne erroneous and endlesse walkes, and be drawne perforce into the compasse and limits of Scripture and true diuinitie. For Christ and his Apostles (as that discreete man said in the Nicene Councell) commended not Logicke and vaine subtiltie vnto vs,1 but a naked opinion, consisting in faith and good works: And this simple and sincere word of truth, will easilie dissolue all your cauils, will dispell your artificiall mists, and will hold you fast as in a net, so that the more you struggle to get out, the faster and straiter are you tied. But you haste to the Fathers, and say, If we may once come vnto them, the warre is ended. Now I must tell you, you make too much hast, and ouerslippe many things. Is the battaile ended, say you? Why, who had the victorie? This is verily childish and too ridiculous, but yet vsuall in your combats, to triumphe before the victorie. But I would heare how you haue finished the warre, with such admirable expedition: For (say you) the Fathers are as surely ours, as Gregorie the thirteenth himselfe;
the most loving Father of the Children of the Church. Give me leave to answer you in your own words: My friends who are present, can you forbear laughing? What could be affirmed, ⟨p. 124⟩more weakly, fondly, or absurdly? Call you him, the most loving Father of the Churches Children, whom we knew to be their furious and mortal adversaries? And conclude you that other to be as true as this? I grant aswell the one as the other, for both are most false. What think you? have you not got a famous victory? And thus (Campian) you use to make an end of battles, and put to flight great armies of adversaries. What remaineth, but that as Conqueror, you be crowned with a Laurel garland, and carried with triumph into the Vatican, and solace your self many years with your dear Father Gregory, that good old man? But now (Campian) proceed and prosecute the victory, which you have gotten. We have (say you) whole volumes of the Fathers, which do fully, distinctly, and purposely declare that Evangelical religion, which we now defend. Now you muster and reckon up your armies; whereby you procured this victory, look well to them, you were best, and lay sure hold of them, lest they revolt, and forsaking you, come to our Tents: for you force them to be with you against their wills. So that in the most dangerous and important fight, they fly unto us with speed, and do most sharply assault and batter you. But let us consider your volumes: The two fold Hierarchy of Denis the Martyr, what orders doth it teach us, what sacrifices, what rites? Assuredly it teacheth us novelties, unheard of in the Scriptures; we therefore leave both them and their author wholly unto you. For, though this Denis, whosoever he were, was both for time ancient, and in his stile of writing, not unlearned; yet, that he should be the Ar••pagit•, whom Paul at Athens converted to the Faith, is altogether incredible. If you ask me a reason of this my opinion, I pray you read diligently and considerately that which Laurentius Valla, and Erasmus of Rotterdam ⟨p. 125⟩have written of him. Both of them persuade, by no feigned surmises, but by very weighty reasons, and such as (I ween) you will hardly gainsay, that this Denis cannot be the party you report him to be. You then have no reason to be angry with Luther or Caussaeus if they handled thisa counterfeit somewhat roughly, and censured him freely.
the most louing Father of the Children of the Church. Giue me leaue to answere you in your owne words: My friends who are present, can you forbeare langhing? What could be affirmed, ⟨p. 124⟩more weakely, fondly, or absurdly? Call you him, the most louing Father of the Churches Children, whom wee knew to bee their furious and mortall aduersaries? And conclude you that other to bee as true as this? I graunt aswell the one as the other, for both are most false. What thinke you? haue you not got a famous victorie? And thus (Campian) you vse to make an end of battailes, and put to flight great armies of aduersaries. What remaineth, but that as Conqueror, you bee crowned with a Laurell garland, and carried with triumph into the Vatican, and solace your self many yeeres with your deare Father Gregorie, that good old man? But now (Campian) proceed and prosecute the victorie, which you haue gotten. We haue (say you) whole volumes of the Fathers, which doe fully, distincty, and purposely declare that Euangelicall religion, which we now defend. Now you muster and reckon vp your armies; whereby you procured this victorie, looke well to them, you were best, and lay sure hold of them, lest they reuolt, and forsaking you, come to our Tents: for you force them to bee with you against their wils. So that in the most dangerous and important fight, they flie vnto vs with speede, and doe most sharply assault and batter you. But let vs consider your volumes: The two fold Hierarchie of Denys the Martyr, what orders doth it teach vs, what sacrifices, what rites? Assuredly it teacheth vs nouelties, vnheard of in the Scriptures; we therefore leaue both them and their author wholy vnto you. For, though this Denys, whosoeuer he were, was both for time ancient, and in his stile of writing, not vnlearned; yet, that he should be the Ar••pagit•, whom Paul at Athens conuerted to the Faith, is altogether incredible. If you aske me a reason of this my opinion, I pray you reade diligently and consideratly that which Laurentius Valla, and Eras•us of Roteradam ⟨p. 125⟩haue written of him. Both of them perswade, by no fained surmises, but by very weightie reasons, and such as (I weene) you will hardly gainsay, that this Denys cannot be the partie you report him to be. You then haue no reason to be angrie with Luther or Caussaeus if they handled thisa counterfeit somewhat roughly, and censured him freely.
aDVR. You say that Deny• is counterfeit, but prove it by no reason. But Origen, Nazianzene, Zoph•ine Archbishop of Jerusalem, Damascene, Nicephorus, Euthemius, Dionysius Archbishop of Alexandria, acknowledge his books & him to have been a disciple of S. Paul. WHIT. pag. 357. But I say that Antiquity was altogether ignorant of his books; which could not be if they bad been written of Denis Arc•pagita: for Eus•biu: diligently searching out, and setting down all ancient writers, and all th••r books and Epistles which they writ, mentioneth not •im, nor his works, neither do any […] the Greek and Latin Fathers speak of him. But who can think that the books of a disciple of Saint Paul should be unknown, and not highly esteemed of all in those days? Besides he citeth the Epistles of Ignatius, as also the Gospel and Revelation of S. John, which must needs be written divers years after the death of Denis Ar••pagita: he writeth▪ an Epistle to Polycarpus and calleth him a ruler of the Church, when at his detah Polycarpus must needs be very young▪ for Denis was slain Anno Dom 96. Polycarp died 1•6. being but 86. years of age; he calleth Timothy his sonne, who was converted before ever that Ar••pagita was: he acknowledgeth that his masters had their learning from the Apostles, doth he not thereby deny himself S. Pauls scholar? finally the Church Hierarchy and all the names of the officers reckoned up by him, were never known in the Apostles time▪ For your authors they are all new and late writers, but two. The first Origen, whom Erasmus denieth Annot. in Act. 17. once to have made motion of him in all his writings: neither ever doth Nazianzene.DVR. You say that Deny• is counterfeite, but proue it by no reason. But Origen, Nazianzene, Zoph•ine Archbishop of Hierusalem, Damascene, Nicephorus, Euthemius, Dionysius Archbishop of Alexa•dria, acknowledge his bookes & him to haue been a disciple of S. Paul. WHIT. pag. 357. But I say that Antiquitie was altogether ignorant of his bookes; which could not be if they bad been written of Denys Arcpagita: for Eusbiu: diligently searching out, and setting downe all auncient writers, and all thr bookes and Epistles which they writ, mentioneth not im, nor his workes, neither doe any the Greeke and Latin Fathers speake of him. But who can thinke that the bookes of a disciple of Saint Paul should be vnknowne, and not highly esteemed of all in those daies? Besides he citeth the Epistles of Igtius, as also the Gospell and Reuelation of S. Iohn, which must needs be written diuers yeares after the death of Denys Arpagita: hee writeth an Epistle to Polycarpus and calleth him a ruler of the Church, when at his detah Polycarpus must needs be very yong for Denys was slaine Anno Dom 96. Polycarpe died 16. being but 86. yeares of age; he calleth Timothy his sonne, who was conuerted before euer that Arpagita vvas: he acknowledgeth that his maisters had their learning from the Apostles, doth he not thereby deny himselfe S. Paules scholer? finally the Church Hierarchie and all the names of the officers reckoned vp by him, were neuer knowne in the Apostles time For your authors they are all new and late writers, but two. The first Origen, whom Erasmus denieth Annot. in
Where you say Calvin and the writers of the Centuries were offended with Ignatius, 1I confess they had just cause of offence. If heretics alleged him, to be a patron of a wicked and detestable opinion, Calvin might with reason and discretion reject him: how aptly and truly he was by them alleged, I cannot tell, let them look to it. Howsoever it be, the truth ought not by his authority to be borne down, whose credit is little, if any at all: you are not ignorant what the judgement of all the learned is those Epistles of Ignatius. Eusebius indeed makes mention of some of his Epistles, and Hierome of others: but now many more go under his name, which they have not ⟨p. 126⟩mentioned. Hierome balso reports a saying of his;3 and Theodoret another, which are not found in those Epistles which are carried about: what would you have more? Gratian himself favours not overmuch this your Ignatius. You see then, of how obscure, suspected and uncertain reputation are these two, which you place in the forefront of your army.
Where you say Caluin and the writers of the Centuries were offended with Ignatius, 1I confesse they had iust cause of offence. If heretikes alleaged him, to bee a patron of a wicked and detestable opinion, Caluin might with reason and discretion reiect him: how aptly and truly he was by them alleaged, I cannot tell, let them look to it. Howsoeuer it be, the truth ought not by his authoritie to be borne downe, whose credit is little, if any at all: you are not ignorant what the iudgement of all the learned is those Epistles of Ignatius. Eusebius indeed makes mention of some of his Epistles, and Hierome of others: but now many more goe vnder his name, which they haue not ⟨p. 126⟩mentioned. Hierome balso reports a saying of his;3 and Theodoret another, which are not found in those Epistles which are caried about: what would you haue more? Gratian himselfe fauours not ouermuch this your Ignatius. You see then, of how obscure, suspected and vncertaine reputation are these two, which you place in the forefront of your armie.
1Ignatius.
bDVR. If divers of those things there cited out of him be not to be found, how. followeth it that those works of his which are extant, be forged and none of his? WHIT. pag. 360. From thence verily it will follow that his works are not perfect, yea many things are found in his Epistles, which are incredible to have been taught in those days: as the strict keeping of Lent, and fasting upon the Sabbath days; yea it was but lately that these Epistles were printed and published, and so of the less credit and authority.DVR. If diuers of those things there cited out of him bee not to bee found, hovv. follovveth it that those works of his vvhich are extant, bee forged and noue of his? WHIT. pag. 360. From thence verely it will follow that his works are not perfect, yea many things are found in his Epistles, which are incredible to haue been taught in those daies: as the strict keeping of Lent, and fasting vpon the Sabbath daies; yea it was but latelie that these Epistles were printed and published, and so of the lesse credit and authority.
You are offended, that the Censors, as you call them, upbraid Irenaeus, as in some thing fantastical. We use not to speak reproachfully of Irenaus, whom we confess to have been both holy and learned: but what is this to the purpose? If Iraneus have written something foolishly, must be therefore by and by, be wholly yours? And if some where we have noted his opinion, as not true and sound, do we therefore reject all his works? Is this your manner of disputing (Campian) is this your skirmishing? are you of opinion, that never any word passed from Irenaeus unadvisedly, or which might justly be termed unreasonable? Then tellc me, Campian, 2how Christ preached only one year, yet was baptized the thirtieth year of his age, and died the fiftieth? what, shall we believe, that Christ taught only one year, and that the fortieth year? will you deny this to be a very new, strange, and almost frantic novelty? Besides that, many write Irenaeus to have been one of them, whom the Fathers call Millenaries; think you that was not a frantic opinion? And can you doubt of Clemens, whether he hath ⟨p. 127⟩sometimes sown Tares? what call you that, where he denieth, that Christ indeed did either hunger or thirst? Again, that Christ taught but one year, which he had of Irenaus? Again,3 that the Philosophers in hell expected the coming of Christ, & being taught by own mouth believed? Will you deny those to be Tares? and many of this kind are his to be found in the worthiest writers of that age. If you deny it, bring me one whom I will not convince to have erred by your own judgement. You dare not say,4 we have wronged Tertullian: But you will us to remember, that the book of Prescriptions was never taxed; which, for ought I remember, never was: though I confess that writing, which you name, is notable, in which many things are written, very divinely, against your Church.d I wonder you are not ashamed of Hippolytus; of whom Harding himself was almost ashamed.6 Think not that we are ought moved withe authors of so small credit, so lately drawn but of darkness, as they scarce yet have learned to look upon the light. For what was this Hippolytus? He writ, you say, of Antichrist. But how worthily? that foolish book of Hippolytus, which a ⟨p. 128⟩certain man, I know not who, of late days published, guesseth, that the Devil is Antichrist, and feigneth many other things:
You are offended, that the Censors, as you call them, vpbraide Irenaeus, as in some thing fantasticall. We vse not to speake reprochfully of Irenaus, whom we confesse to haue been both holy and learned: but what is this to the purpose? If Iraneus haue written something foolishly, must be therefore by and by, be wholy yours? And if some where we haue noted his opinion, as not true and sound, doe we therefore reiect all his works? Is this your manner of disputing (Campian) is this your skirmishing? are you of opinion, that neuer any word passed from Irenaeus vnaduisedly, or which might iustly be tearmed vnreasonable? Then tellc me, Campian, 2how Christ preached onely one yeare, yet was baptized the thirtieth yeare of his age, and died the fiftieth? what, shall we beleeue, that Christ taught onely one yeare, and that the fortieth yeare? will you denie this to be a very new, strange, and almost franticke noueltie? Besides that, many write Irenaeus to haue been one of them, whom the Fathers call Millenaries; thinke you that was not a franticke opinion? And can you doubt of Clemens, whether hee hath ⟨p. 127⟩sometimes sowne Tares? what call you that, where he denieth, that Christ indeed did either hunger or thirst? Againe, that Christ taught but one yeere, which he had of Irenaus? Againe,3 that the Philosophers in hel expected the comming of Christ, & being taught by owne mouth beleeued? Wil you deny those to be Tares? and many of this kind are his to be found in the worthiest writers of that age. If you denie it, bring me one whom I will not conuince to haue erred by your owne iudgement. You dare not say,4 we haue wronged Tertullian: But you will vs to remember, that the book of Prescriptions was neuer taxed; which, for ought I remember, neuer was: though I confesse that writing, which you name, is notable, in which many things are written, very diuinely, against your Church.d I wonder you are not ashamed of Hippolytus; of whom Harding himselfe was almost ashamed.6 Thinke not that we are ought moued withe authors of so small credit, so lately drawne but of darknes, as they scarse yet haue learned to looke vpon the light. For what was this Hippolytus? He writ, you say, of Antichrist. But how worthily? that foolish booke of Hippolytus, which a
cDVR. You that acknowledge, and admit nothing but the Scriptures, can by no argument confute this err•r. WHIT. p. 362. What may worse beseem a livine, then thus to speak? What think you of these places: Christ when he began to preach the Gospel was about thirty years of age? Luke 3.23. After his Baptism John maketh mention of three Pasleovers, and that in the third he was put to death? Is not the time then very plainly set down? and indeed what can be more plain and casie? Hence we may observe that the Fathers have plainly erred, where you would hardly believe any man could err.DVR. You that acknovveledge, and admit nothing but the Scriptures, can by no argument confute this err•r. WHIT. p. 362. What may worse beseeme a liuine, then thus to speake? What thinke you of these places: Christ when he began to preach the Gospell was about thirtie yeares of age? Luke 3.23. After his Baptisme Iohn maketh mention of three Pasleouers, and that in the third he was put to death? Is not the time then very plainely set downe? and indeede what can be more plaine and casie? Hence we may obserue that the Fathers haue plainely erred, where you would hardly beleeue any man could erre.
2Lib. 2. cap. 39.40.
3Clement. Stromat. lib. 3. idem lib. 1. idem. lib. 5.
4Tertul.
dDVR. But you tell us not any one particular whereby this may appear. WHIT. pag. 365. I suppose you never read this book, or else you would not make doubt of it. Is any thing more against your traditions, then that he pronounceth a curie to them that shall bring any doctrine, but the self same which the nations received from the Apostles, and they from Christ himself? And that men cannot be otherwise persuaded of the things of faith, then from the writings of faith? when he gathereth from Christ sending of his Apostles, that no Ministers are else to be receive, but such as Christ hath ordained? when whatsoever is later brought is foreign and false? when he w•••eth, that faith must be built and borne up, upon the writings of the Law and of the Prophets, the Evangelists and Apostles?DVR. But you tell vs not any one particular whereby this may appeare. WHIT. pag. 365. I suppose you neuer read this booke, or else you would not make doubt of it. Is any thing more against your traditions, then that hee pronounceth a curie to them that shall bring any doctrine, but the selfe same which the nations receiued from the Apostles, and they from Christ himselfe? And that men cannot be otherwise perswaded of the things of faith, then from the writings of faith? when he gathereth from Christ sending of his Apostles, that no Ministers are else to be receiue, but such as Christ hath ordeined? when whatsoeuer is later brought is forraine and false? when he weth, that faith must be built and borne vp, vpon the writings of the Law and of the Prophets, the Euangelists and Apostles?
which neither can be true, nor were ever esteemed for true. And yet you marvel we set him so light, whom no man regards or reads, or almost knows. I can give you good leave to reckon him for your own, and if you will, let him have a better note in your army.
which neither can be true, nor were euer esteemed for true. And yet you marueile we set him so light, whom no man regards or reads, or almost knowes. I can giue you good leaue to recken him for your owne, and if you will, let him haue a better note in your armie.
The accusation concerning Cyprian, 1is more heinous, whom all men reverence for his singular faith and excellent learning. But Caussaeus termeth him senseless and without God. They of Magdeburg, call him a corrupter of penance. Shall I be tied to take upon me, and defend every speech, which any man hath at any time uttered? This Caussaeus I never saw, nor before this ever heard of him. But in as much, as you so odiously accuse him, I suppose him to be some learned and godly man. Unto that he saith of Cyprian, I answer that which I remember I have read inf Nazianzene, viz. that he was in his youth dissolute and given to much vice, and worshipped Devils, and used the help of Devils: He was (saith Nazianzene) a worshipper of Devils, and after a disciple of Christ. 3Your unreasonableness forceth me to mention those things, which I had rather have concealed. For in the Fathers imperfections, you stick fast like a burr, and cease not to rub up the remembrance of those things, which you should do better, not once to touch, If these things which Nazianzene reporteth of Cyprian be true, then Caussaeus might say, that Cyprian at that time was foolish and godless. For I cannot think that Caussaeus would write so of him, but in regard of those times, or that any man would conceive so injuriously, of that godly Martyr: whereas they of Magdeburg complain ⟨p. 129⟩that he corrupted the doctrine of repentance, therein they forge against him no new accusation, but rather disclose that which all men know to have been too true. Cyprian wrote some thing of Repentance very unseasonably and undiscreetly, and not heg alone, but all the holy Fathers of that time, were tainted with that error. For being desirous by severe laws, to limit and restrain the evil manners of men, they made the greatest part of Repentance to consist, in certain outward disciplines, which they appointed: which severe censuring of sin & sharp punishing of wickedness, might haply be borne withal: but when they thought the punishment of sin to be discharged, Gods justice satisfied, freedom from sin, and certain forgiveness with righteousness hereby to be procured; herein they diminished the power of Christs death, they attributed too much to their own inventions, and in a word depraved the doctrine of repentance:
The accusation concerning Cyprian, 1is more haynous, whom all men reuerence for his singular faith and excellent learning. But Caussaeus tearmeth him senselesse and without God. They of Magdenburge, call him a corrupter of penance. Shall I be tied to take vpon me, and defend euery speech, which any man hath at any time vttered? This Caussaeus I neuer saw, nor before this euer heard of him. But in as much, as you so odiously accuse him, I suppose him to bee some learned and godly man. Vnto that he saith of Cyprian, I answere that which I remember I haue read inf Nazianzene, viz. that he was in his youth dissolute and giuen to much vice, and worshipped Diuels, and vsed the helpe of Diuels: He was (saith Nazianzene) a worshipper of Diuels, and after a disciple of Christ. 3Your vnreasonablenes forceth me to mention those things, which I had rather haue concealed. For in the Fathers imperfections, you sticke fast like a burre, and cease not to rub vp the remembrance of those things, which you should doe better, not once to touch, If these things which Nazianzene reporteth of Cyprian be true, then Caussaeus might say, that Cyprian at that time was foolish and godlesse. For I cannot thinke that Caussaeus would write so of him, but in regard of those times, or that any man would conceiue so iniuriously, of that godly Martyr: whereas they of Magdenburge complaine ⟨p. 129⟩that hee corrupted the doctrine of repentance, therein they forge against him no new accusation, but rather disclose that which all men know to haue been too true. Cyprian wrote some thing of Repentance very vnseasonably and vndiscreetly, and not heg alone, but all the holy Fathers of that time, were tainted with that error. For being desirous by seuere lawes, to limit and restraine the euill manners of men, they made the greatest part of Repentance to consist, in certaine outward disciplines, which they appointed: which seuere censuring of sinne & sharpe punishing of wickednes, might happely be borne withall: but when they thought the punishment of sinne to be discharged, Gods iustice satisfied, freedome from sinne, and certeine forgiuenes with righteousnes hereby to be procured; herein they diminished the power of Christs death, they attributed too much to their owne inuentions, and in a word depraued the doctrine of repentance:
1Cyprian.
fDVR. That Cyprian which Nazianzene speaketh of, was not our Cyprian the Father of the Church. WHIT. pag. 367. Nazianzene certainly speaketh of the same Cyprian. for see how he describes him; He did not only govern the Church of Carthage, and all Africa, but the whole West, and almost the East, the Southern and Northern parts: how think you, is it not the same Cyprian?DVR. That Cyprian which Nazianzene speaketh of, was not our Cyprian the Father of the Church. WHIT. pag. 367. Nazianzene certainely speaketh of the same Cyprian. for see how hee describes him; He did not only gouerne the Church of Carthage, and all Affricke, but the vvhole VVest, and almost the East, the Southerne and Northerne parts: how thinke you, is it not the same Cyprian?
3Nazian. de Cypri.
gDVR. O singular impudency! O intolerable arrogance! what, have all the Fathers in that age erred so sousely in so great a matter? As if they were ignorant that the works of repentance had any virtue any where else. but from the merits and blood of Christ. WHIT. pag. 369. What need all this heat? It had been your part to have showed that the Fathers who then lived, have spoken nothing unfitly of repentance, so had you confuted that I charge them with, which your hear will not cure. And what if the Fathers have thought that mens works have all their virtue and power from the merit of Christ; will it thence follow they have spoken nothing unfitly of repentance and works? As if Christ by his death had only merited that we might by our works and merits deserve eternal life; or that they who hold the foundation may not build timber or hay upon it.DVR. O singular impudencie! O intollerable arrogancie! what, haue all the Fathers in that age erred so sousely in so great a matter? As if they were ignorant that the works of repentance had any vertue any where else. but from the merits and blood of Christ. WHIT. pag. 369. What neede all this heate? It had been your part to haue shewed that the Fathers who then liued, haue spoken nothing vnfitly of repentance, so had you confuted that I charge them with, which your heare will not cure. And what if the Fathers haue thought that mens works haue all their vertue and power from the merit of Christ; will it thence follow they haue spoken nothing vnfitly of repentance and works? As if Christ by his death had onely merited that we might by our works and merits deserue eternall life; or that they who hold the foundation may not build timber or haie vpon it.
because our sins are cleansed and removed, by no offices or works of ours, but only by the blood and passion of Christ. And so your objection of Repentance is answered. We do not for all this deny the works of Cyprian, nor reject the books of any Father of that age, as you falsely affirm, seeing both he and they agree with us in the greatest questions: but this is the privilege of you and your fellows, that you even greedily hunt after, and pursue, whatsoever is faulty in any author, as if all the Fathers errors, served to make up the body and faith of your religion. Something, you say, Cyprian wrote to Cornelius, ⟨p. 130⟩which if we give credit unto: then Peter Martyr and his confederates, must be held for worse than adulterous & sacrilegious; but what that is, I cannot so much as conjecture. I know that Cyprian sent many letters to Cornelius, but none of them accuse us, either of adultery or sacrilege; neither can you out of those letters allege any thing to our prejudice or your advantage: but this is ever your manner, to prove nothing clearly and distinctly, but only to name the Fathers, and from their names, to raise certain roving & uncertain suspicions. That which you write of Chambers and pillows, I pass over as nothing else, but scoffing and reproachful taunts, such as is common in every varlets mouth. Now you come to the next age, and here you mention Chrysostom, Nazianzene, Ambrose, and Hierome. But to what purpose I pray you?1 for what if Luther do censure Chrysostom sharply, because by too much advancing our works and merits, he obscureth the righteousness of faith? what though Caussaeus find some thing fabulous in Nazianzene? 2htherefore are these Fathers wholly on your side? what is this else but dotage, and to speak without wit or fear? Some body said that Ambrose was bewitched by the devil;4 whether any ⟨p. 131⟩ever said it or no, I never knew, neither is it greatly material; the best & most righteous men, may sometimes be so far bewitched, as they do not in some things perceive the truth: and you do too openly bewray your malice, by labouring to raise an evil opinion of him, and to make us infamous for such speeches as may have a good construction, though at the first they seem odious. Certainly I have read many Papists, and heard of some, all passing shameless, and malapert;
because our sinnes are clensed and remoued, by no offices or workes of ours, but only by the blood and passion of Christ. And so your obiection of Repentance is answered. We doe not for all this deny the workes of Cyprian, nor reiect the bookes of any Father of that age, as you falsely affirme, seeing both he and they agree with vs in the greatest questions: but this is the priuiledge of you and your fellowes, that you euen greedily hunt after, and pursue, whatsoeuer is faulty in any author, as if all the Fathers errors, serued to make vp the body and faith of your religion. Something, you say, Cyprian wrote to Cornelius, ⟨p. 130⟩which if we giue credit vnto: then Peter Martyr and his cōfederats, must be held for worse thē adulterous & sacrilegious; but what that is, I cannot so much as couiecture. I know that Cyprian sent many letters to Cornelius, but none of them accuse vs, either of adultery or sacriledge; neither can you out of those letters alleadge any thing to our preiudice or your aduantage: but this is euer your manner, to proue nothing clearely and distinctly, but only to name the Fathers, and from their names, to raise certaine rouing & vncertaine suspitions. That which you write of Chambers and pillowes, I passe ouer as nothing else, but scoffing and reproachfull taunts, such as is common in euery varlets mouth. Now you come to the next age, and heere you mention Chrysostome, Nazianzene, Ambrose, and Hierome. But to what purpose I pray you?1 for what if Luther do censure Chrysostome sharply, because by too much aduauncing our works and merits, he obscureth the righteousnes of faith? what though Caussaeus find some thing fabulous in Nazianzene? 2htherefore are these Fathers wholie on your side? what is this else but dotage, and to speake without witte or feare? Some body said that Ambrose was bewitched by the diuell;4 whether any ⟨p. 131⟩euer said it or no, I neuer knew, neither is it greatly materiall; the best & most righteous men, may sometimes be so farre bewitched, as they doe not in some things perceiue the truth: and you doe too openly bewray your malice, by labouring to raise an euill opinion of him, and to make vs infamous for such speeches as may haue a good construction, though at the first they seeme odious. Certeinly I haue read many Papists, and heard of some, all passing shamelesse, and malepere;
1Chrysostom.
2Nazian.
hDVR. You freely grant that Chrysostom, Nazianzene, Ambrose, and Hierome are on Campians side: and yet you pleasantly demand are these Fathers wholly yours? we, who are then true sons, do not challenge them as half Fathers, but wholly our Fathers. WHIT. pag. 370. When did I ever grant Campian so much? I should certainly do the Fathers great injury, if I should adjudge them for Campian, who are so far different from him. And for your kindred with them; it is but as the Jews were Abrahams children: for if you were the children of the Fathers, you would hold the faith of the Fathers. For the Scribes and Pharisees were not the children of Moses, because they sate in Moses chair. Neither are they the children of the Saints, who hold the places of the Saints; as Hierome. Neither have they the inheritance of Peter, which have not the faith of Peter; as Ambrose: neither ought faith to be tried by persons, but persons by saith, as Tertullian hath written. We verily love and duly reverence the Fathers, yet we acknowledge but one Father in heaven, and one teacher, which is Christ. And if you acknowledge them wholly your Fathers, why do you forsake many of their opinions?DVR. You freely graunt that Chrysostome, Nazianzene, Ambrose, and Hierome are on Campians side: and yet you pleasantly demaund are these Fathers wholy yours? we, who are then true sonnes, doe not challenge them as halfe Fathers, but wholy our Fathers. WHIT. pag. 370. When did I euer grant Campian so much? I should certeinly doe the Fathers great iniury, if I should adiudge them for Campian, who are so farre different from him. And for your kindred with them; it is but as the Iewes were Abrahams children: for if you were the children of the Fathers, you would hold the faith of the Fathers. For the Scribes and Pharisies were not the children of Moses, because they sate in Moses chaire. Neither are they the children of the Saints, who hold the places of the Saints; as Hierome. Neither haue they the inheritance of Peter, which haue not the faith of Peter; as Ambrose: neither ought faith to be tried by persons, but persons by saith, as Tertullian hath written. We verily loue and duly reuerence the Fathers, yet wee acknowledge but one Father in heauen, and one teacher, which is Christ. And if you acknowledge them wholy your Fathers, why doe you forsake many of their opinions?
but more impudent then your self, in all my life, did I never know any. There is no end of your lying, you fear no mens censure, there is neither faith nor truth in any thing you speak. Even now you set upon Beza with a fresh lye. He (you say) hath written that Hierome is as surely damned, as the devil, because he was injurious to the Apostles, a blasphemous, a wicked, and an ungodly man. That Beza affirmeth not these things, I protest and a•ow: let any man that will, see the place; if it be otherwise, let me be accounted very infamous. For as for those first words, that Hierome was damned aswell a• the devil, either they are by malicious cavilling fetched out of some other place, as all the rest are, or altogether forged, as the most. In the place alleged, there is no such thing: Concerning that he saith of Injury and Blasphemy, I will set down Beza his own words, that all men may know your impudency. Even Hierome, 1saith Beza, if it be true that Erasmus upon this place saith of him, is not only injurious to the Apostle, in that he findeth want of moderation, in this speech, wherein rather appeareth his Divine courage but also is openly blasphemous, in that even in Christ himself he hath found some sign of imperfection. Thus far Beza: the matter of his complaint, is about S. Pauls sharp answer unto the high Priest, in which Hierome, (as Erasmus testifieth) in his Dialogues against Pelagius, findeth some want of moderation, & not only ⟨p. 132⟩so, but even in Christ himself, he looketh for some imperfection of piety; which reports of Hierome, if it be true as Erasmus affirmeth, why might not Beza justly esteem him, in the one injurious to the Apostle, in the other so blasphemous against Christ? For what can be devised more unworthy the Apostle then that in his answer to the high Priest, he should show too much spleen, or what could be spoken more blasphemous against Christ, than that the grace, wherewith he was endued, was imperfect. But Beza further reprehendeth Hieromes exceeding boldness, in wresting the Scriptures, wherein he hath most just cause of complaint: for either Hierome wrested the Scriptures, or they are so weak and easy of themselves, as they may be any way turned. And truly he must be very desperate, that should defend Hieromes interpretations. Gregorius Massonius esteemeth more of Calvin, then of a thousand Augustines:
but more impudent then your selfe, in all my life, did I neuer know any. There is no end of your lying, you feare no mens censure, there is neither faith nor truth in any thing you speake. Euen now you set vpon Beza with a fresh lye. He (you say) hath written that Hierome is as surely damned, as the diuell, because he was iniurious to the Apostles, a blasphemous, a wicked, and an vngodly man. That Beza affirmeth not these things, I protest and a•ow: let any man that will, see the place; if it be otherwise, let me be accounted very infamous. For as for those first words, that Hierome was damned aswell a• the diuell, either they are by malicious cauelling fetched out of some other place, as all the rest are, or altogether forged, as the most. In the place alledged, there is no such thing: Concerning that he saith of Iniury and Blasphemy, I will set downe Beza his owne words, that all men may know your impudency. Euen Hierome, 1saith Beza, if it be true that Erasmus vpon this place saith of him, is not only iniurious to the Apostle, in that hee findeth want of moderation, in this speech, wherin rather appeareth his Diuine courage but also is openly blasphemous, in that euen in Christ himselfe he hath found some signe of imperfection. Thus far Beza: the matter of his complaint, is about S. Paules sharpe answere vnto the high Priest, in which Hierome, (as Erasmus testifieth) in his Dialogues against Pelagius, findeth some want of moderatiō, & not only ⟨p. 132⟩so, but euen in Christ himself, he looketh for some imperfection of piety; which reports of Hierome, if it be true as Erasmus affirmeth, why might not Beza iustly esteeme him, in the one iniurious to the Apostle, in the other so blasphemous against Christ? For what can bee deuised more vnworthy the Apostle then that in his answere to the high Priest, he should shew too much spleene, or what could be spoken more blasphemous against Christ, thē that the grace, wherewith he was indued, was imperfect. But Beza further reprehendeth Hieromes exceeding boldnes, in wresting the Scriptures, wherein he hath most iust cause of complaint: for either Hierome wrested the Scriptures, or they are so weake and easie of themselues, as they may be any way turned. And truly he must be very desperate, that should defend Hieromes interpretations. Gregorius Massonius esteemeth more of Caluin, then of a thousand Augustines:
1Beza in annot. novi Testam. in Act. Apost. cap. 23.Beza in annot. noui Testam. in Act. Apost. cap. 23.
Luther is not moved though a thousand Austens, Cyprians, Churches▪ be against him. The answer is ready: whosoever speaketh truth, in that respect, is more to be esteemed, then a great multitude that could not discern the truth. They therefore that have observed the errors of the Fathers, either those you have named, or the rest, which here also you reckon up, Optatus, Athanasius, Hilary, Cyril, Epiphanius Basil, Vincentius, Fulgentius, Lee, and Gregory of Rome, and have admonished the Readers of them; are so far from malapertness herein; as that contrary, they have performed a work, for the Church needful, profitable, and acceptable to all good and godly men. For as the true expositions of Scriptures, are to be expounded to the Churches, so are the contrary to be rejected.1 Hierome saith well, it is the worst kind of teaching, to deprave sentences of Scripture, and to draw them perforce to serve our turns. Wherefore we profess with Augustine; All writers and their sayings must be ⟨p. 133⟩ijudged, according to the holy Scriptures, the authority whereof is more excellent, then the whole nature of man is able to conceive: not that I disallow the opinions of the most worthy Fathers, but I follow those that come nearest unto the Scriptures, and when the Scripture it self is manifest, I embrace it before them all. Whereas then we consider the sayings of the Fathers, and examine them by the light of Scriptures, we do here nothing unwonted, nothing boldly or arrogantly; but you have always been fliers of the light of Scriptures, as Tertullian speaketh:3 and therefore do so diligently provide for lurking holes in the Fathers, that you may always have some place of refuge. For seeing Scriptures fail you, what remaineth, but that you seek aide from any, even the meanest?
Luther is not moued though a thousand Austens, Cyprians, Churches▪ be against him. The answere is ready: whosoeuer speaketh truth, in that respect, is more to be esteemed, then a great multitude that could not discerne the truth. They therfore that haue obserued the errors of the Fathers, either those you haue named, or the rest, which heere also you recken vp, Optatus, Athanasius, Hilarie, Cyrill, Epiphanius Basil, Vincentius, Fulgentius, Lee, and Gregory of Rome, and haue admonished the Readers of them; are so farre from malepertnes herein; as that cōtrary, they haue performed a work, for the Church needfull, profitable, and acceptable to all good and godly men. For as the true expositions of Scriptures, are to bee expounded to the Churches, so are the contrary to bee reiected.1 Hierome saith well, it is the worst kind of teaching, to depraue sentences of Scripture, and to draw them perforce to serue our turnes. Wherefore we professe with Augustine; All writers and their sayings must bee ⟨p. 133⟩iiudged, according to the holy Scriptures, the authority wherof is more excellent, then the whole nature of man is able to conceiue: not that I disallow the opinions of the most worthy Fathers, but I follow those that come nearest vnto the Scriptures, and when the Scripture it selfe is manifest, I embrace it before them all. Whereas then we consider the sayings of the Fathers, and examine them by the light of Scriptures, we do here nothing vnwonted, nothing boldly or arrogantly; but you haue alwaies been fliers of the light of Scriptures, as Tertullian speaketh:3 and therefore do so diligently prouide for lurking holes in the Fathers, that you may alwaies haue some place of refuge. For seeing Scriptures faile you, what remaineth, but that you seeke aide from any, euen the meanest?
1Hierom. Paul. August.
iDVR. That trial must not be made by Apostate Monks, but by lawful Pastors and doctors. WHIT. pag. 372. And why not I pray you? is it because they are Monks? I think not: or because they have departed from you? That is the matter; as it none might touch, read, & examine the scriptures, but those who have plight their troth to you, never to assent to the Scriptures, though they directly contradict popish doctrine we would willingly hearken to lawful Pastors, examining & interpreting the Scriptures, such as you have none. Because with you examinations must not be made by the rule of the scriptures, but after the will of the Pope, and all your Pastors have tied themselves to the judgement of the Romish Antichrist: that, yt which they see, they will not see, if it displease ye Pope, by whose spirit they are guided.DVR. That trial must not be made by Apostate Monks, but by lawfull Pastors and doctors. WHIT. pag. 372. And why not I pray you? is it because they are Monkes? I thinke not: or because they haue departed frō you? That is the matter; as it none might touch, reade, & examine the scriptures, but those who haue plight their troth to you, neuer to assent to the Scriptures, though they directly cōtradict popish doctrin we would willingly harkē to lawfull Pastors, examining & interpreting the Scriptures, such as you haue none. Because with you examinatiōs must not be made by the rule of ye scriptures, but after the wil of the Pope, and all your Pastors haue tyed thēselues to the iudgemēt of the Romish Antichrist: that, yt which they see, they wil not see, if it displease ye Pope, by whose spirit they are guided.
But you tell us, why we do so much avoid the Fathers. I had rather you would tell us why you do so carefully avoid the Scriptures. For (say you) they that cannot away with set times of Fasting, must needs be offended with Basil, Naziancene, Leo, and Chrysostom, which have published excellent Sermons of Lent. Christ ordained no set and ordinary fasts in the Gospel,k Lent was appointed long after, and the manner of ⟨p. 134⟩observing it in those times, was not one & the same in all Churches. We both allow and use public and Christian fasts which are fitted to the time and the Churches occasions: as for your appointed, and yearly solemn fasts, we do with good reason reject them, because they are full of superstition, and injurious unto Christian liberty. Our judgement of fasting is the same which Augustine hath taught:2 I find it not set down in any Commandment of the Lord, or his Apostles, what days we ought to fast, what not. Augustine then knew not these your set yearly ceremonies of fasting, not your Lenten fast, which hath a certain time and number of days prescribed. Further (you say) they that have set their souls to sale for gold, lust, excess, and worldly ostentation how can they be but most opposite to Basil, Chrysostom, Hierome, and Augustine, whose books of the profession of Monks are in every mans hands? what will you censure all to be covetous, lustful, gluttonous, or ambitious that are not Monks? back with that foot you were best, for fear of your head: for neither the Pope, nor his Cardinals and Bishops, hold it either necessary, or convenient for them to lay aside, their abundant wealth, continual pleasures, their dainty fare, their kingly honour, and thrust themselves into a Monastery; whosoever liveth after their fashion, cannot be well affected to Basil, nor any man that is holy.l For they are altogether so drowned in sensuality and excess, making themselves drudges unto their ambitions, banquets, and delights. And to conclude: in the ⟨p. 135⟩whole course of their lives, so behaving themselves, as becometh better sensual and voluptuous persons, proceeding out of the gardens of Epicures, then grave teachers out of Christs School. Who knoweth not that the whole world crieth shame upon you, and hath done continually and most deservedly?
But you tell vs, why we do so much anoid the Fathers. I had rather you would tell vs why you doe so carefully auoide the Scriptures. For (say you) they that cannot away with set times of Fasting, must needs be offended with Basil, Naziancene, Leo, and Chrysostome, which haue published excellent Sermons of Lent. Christ ordeined no set and ordinary fasts in the Gospell,k Lent was appointed long after, and the manner of ⟨p. 134⟩obseruing it in those times, was not one & the same in all Churches. We both allow and vse publike and Christian fasts which are fitted to the time and the Churches occasions: as for your appointed, and yearely solemne fasts, we do with good reason reiect them, because they are full of superstition, and iniurious vnto Christian liberty. Our iudgement of fasting is the same which Augustine hath taught:2 I find it not set downe in any Commandement of the Lord, or his Apostles, what daies we ought to fast, what not. Augustine then knew not these your set yearely ceremonies of fasting, not your Lenten fast, which hath a certeine time and number of daies prescribed. Further (you say) they that haue set their soules to sale for gold, lust, excesse, and worldly ostentation how can they be but most opposite to Basil, Chrysostome, Hierome, and Augustine, whose bookes of the profession of Monkes are in euery mans hands? what will you censure all to be couetous, lustfull, gluttonous, or ambitious that are not Monkes? backe with that foot you were best, for feare of your head: for neither the Pope, nor his Cardinals and Bishops, hold it either necessary, or conuenient for them to lay aside, their abundant wealth, continuall pleasures, their dainty fare, their kingly honor, and thrust themselues into a Monasterie; whosoeuer liueth after their fashion, cannot be well affected to Basil, nor any man that is holy.l For they are altogether so drowned in sensuality and excesse, making themselues drudges vnto their ambitions, banquets, and delights. And to conclude: in the ⟨p. 135⟩whole course of their liues, so behauing themselues, as becommeth better sensuall and voluptuous persons, proceeding out of the gardens of Epicures, then graue teachers out of Christs Schoole. Who knoweth not that the whole world crieth shame vpon you, and hath done continually and most deseruedly?
kDVR. Who hath but so much as saluted the Fathers, and knoweth not this to be safe? for the observation of Lent is most ancient and ordained by the Apostles. WHIT. pag. 371. I deny it not to be most ancient, but not instituted by the Apostles; for Apollonius writeth that Montanus first made laws for let and certain fasts; and Tertullian when he was become a Montanist, writeth as much in his book wherein he defendeth the fasts of Montanus. Again, the Apostles never put any religion in choice and change of meats, Rom. 14.17. Coll. 2 16. Tit. 1.1•. and so ordained not Lean. Lastly the Churches of the Apostles differed much in this fast, both in their times, & in their kinds of meat; as Eusebius & Socrates record; which would never have bin if it had bin Apostolical, at least as Papists do affirm, who take in for a truth, that those Churches would faithfully persist in the Apostles decrees.DVR. Who hath but so much as saluted the Fathers, and knoweth not this to be salfe? for the obseruation of Lent is most auncient and ordained by the Apostles. WHIT. pag. 371. I deny it not to be most auncient, but not instituted by the Apostles; for Apollonius writeth that Montanus first made lawes for let and certaine fasts; and Tertullian when hee was become a Montanist, writeth as much in his booke wherein he defendeth the fasts of Montanus. Againe, the Apostles neuer put any religion in choise and change of meats, Rom. 14.17. Coll. 2 16. Tit. 1.1•. and so ordeined not Lene. Lastly the Churches of the Apostles differed much in this fast, both in their times, & in their kinds of meat; as Eusebius & •ocrates record; which would neuer haue bin if it had bin Apostolical, at least as Papists do affirme, who take in for a truth, that those Churches would faithfully persist in the Apostles decrees.
2August. Epist. 86.
lDVR. When you are overcome by the truth, you slander our lives, and speak evil of our persons. WHIT. pag. 377. I do not slander you, nor detract from you, the world hath understood long ago what manner of men you were. If you be grown better I should be glad of it. But I know men have judged otherwise of this order, and such as did not hate your Monastical life. For the Romish Cardinals and Priors did write thus to the Pope himself. There is another abuse amongst the orders of religious men, for many are so deformed and out of order, that they are a great scandal to the people, and hurt much by their example. We think that all orders ought to be abolished.
you for all that blush not to lay those things to our charge, which are well enough known to be your own fault; your Prelates and Monks, whose goodly order and strait rule of severe discipline, (you report) differ as much from other men, as the Tarrentines were wont to affirm that they excelled all others, who giving themselves wholly over to pleasures, (while the most took great pains and always did something whereby to live) thought their life the only true life. Such is and hath bin your life, that others must seem not to live, if that be to live which you have esteemed. But what need I answer you any more of fasting and Monkish orders, which have not one Monk in your whole Church any thing resembling those of ancient time, neither do you observe the old manner of fasting? but you go on, and upbraid us with fouler matters. They that have brought a bondage upon mans will, which have taken away Christian funerals, which have burned Saints relics can they (say you) be well pleased with Augustine? we (Campion) have wronged no Saints, we have neither burned their relics, nor taken away their funerals:m only we could not suffer any profane superstition, injurious to the Majesty and glory of God; and for this we have the direction of God himself, being our pattern whom we follow, and Augustine also herein consenteth with us: But we have ⟨p. 136⟩captivated the will of man, and then (you say) how can we be well affected unto Augustine? well enough, why not? for (say you) he writ three books of free will. A most witless and ridiculous collection: Augustine writ three books of freewill, ergo Augustine affirmeth that men have freewill. If that reason be currant, then this also: Augustine writ a book of two souls against the Manichees; also a book of lying; another of the quantity of the soul; ergo Augustine defendeth two souls in a man; ergo he praised lying; ergo he attributeth greatness & quantity to the soul. I pray you what difference is there? I grant Augustine writ those books you mention, but they overthrow not our opinion, who affirm that the will of man is in bondage: & if ever you had perused those books, you would never have affirmed it, nor once named the books in this matter.
you for all that blush not to lay those things to our charge, which are well inough knowne to bee your owne fault; your Prelates and Monkes, whose goodly order and straite rule of seuere discipline, (you report) differ as much from other men, as the Tarrentines were wont to affirme that they excelled all others, who giuing themselues wholy ouer to pleasures, (while the most tooke great paines and alwaies did something whereby to liue) thought their life the only true life. Such is and hath bin your life, that others must seeme not to liue, if that be to liue which you haue esteemed. But what need I answere you any more of fasting and Monkish orders, which haue not one Monke in your whole Church any thing resembling those of auncient time, neither do you obserue the old manner of fasting? but you goe on, and vpbraide vs with fouler matters. They that haue brought a bondage vpon mans will, which haue taken away Christian funerals, which haue burned Saints reliques can they (say you) be well pleased with Augustine? we (Campion) haue wronged no Saints, we haue neither burned their reliques, nor taken away their funerals:m only we could not suffer any prophane superstition, iniurious to the Maiestie and glorie of God; and for this we haue the direction of God himselfe, being our patterne whom we follow, and Augustine also herein consenteth with vs: But we haue ⟨p. 136⟩captiuated the will of man, and then (you say) how can we be well affected vnto Augustine? well inough, why not? for (say you) he writ three bookes of free will. A most witles and ridiculous collection: Augustine writ three bookes of freewill, ergo Augustine affirmeth that men haue freewill. If that reason be currant, then this also: Augustine writ a booke of two soules against the Manichees; also a booke of lying; another of the quantity of the soule; ergo Augustine defendeth two soules in a man; ergo he praised lying; ergo he attributeth greatnes & quantity to the soule. I pray you what difference is there? I graunt Augustine writ those bookes you mention, but they ouerthrow not our opinion, who affirme that the will of man is in bondage: & if euer you had perused those bookes, you would neuer haue affirmed it, nor once named the bookes in this matter.
mDVR. Therefore you have taken away the relics of the Saints, and the funerals of Christians, as superstitions and injurious to the majesty of God. WHIT. pag. 370. Are you so without judgement, that you cannot distinguish betwixt things and the superstitious use of them? It is not these not any comely burial we dislike, but Popish pompcions funerals and impious worshipping of relics.DVR. Therefore you haue taken away the reliques of the Saints, and the funerals of Christians, as superstitions and iniurious to the maiestie of God. WHIT. pag. 370. Are you so vvithout iudgement, that you cannot distinguish betvvixt things and the superstitious vse of them? It is not these not any comely buriall vve dislike, but Popish pompcions funerals and impious vvorshipping of reliques.
Augustine writ these books against the Manichees, wherein he disputeth not of mans freewill, which is the point in controversy, but of the cause of sin which proceeded from freewill, and he entitled those books of freewill, because in them he intendeth to show, that the original and beginning of sin is to be found in mans freewill, not in God. This you might easily have learned out of his retractations; for thus he writeth.1 The discourse was undertaken for them that deny sin to have his original from the free action of our will, affirming, that from this would follow, that God himself the author of nature is culpable. And so proceedeth, utterly denying, that he had any purpose in those books, to speak of that will, which is made free by Gods grace. And whatsoever in these books passed his pen, which seemed to favour the Pelagians, then Patrons of freewill, as you are now, all that he carefully collecteth out of the whole work, and cleareth it from their cavils. Have we any cause to be offended with Augustine, which in this question is ⟨p. 137⟩not against us? And that you may plainly perceive, how indiscreetly you alleged these books of freewill, mark what he writeth of the will of man in those same books:n Hold thou fast (saith Augustine) this principal of piety, 3that no good thing happens unto thee, either when thou thinkest or understandest, or any way imaginest, which is not from God. And this was Augustine's constant opinion of freewill: after that being stirred by the Pelagians, he throughly understood the question, viz. that he judged it, to be utterly lost and gone.o Man (saith he) by abusing his freewill lost both it and himself.5
Augustine writ these bookes against the Manichees, wherein he disputeth not of mans freewill, which is the point in controuersie, but of the cause of sinne which proceeded from freewill, and he entituled those bookes of freewill, because in them he intendeth to shew, that the originall and beginning of sinne is to be found in mans freewill, not in God. This you might easily haue learned out of his retractations; for thus he writeth.1 The discourse was vndertaken for them that deny sin to haue his originall from the free action of our will, affirming, that from this would follow, that God himselfe the author of nature is culpable. And so proceedeth, vtterly denying, that he had any purpose in those bookes, to speake of that will, which is made free by Gods grace. And whatsoeuer in these books passed his pen, which seemed to fauour the Pellegians, then Patrons of freewill, as you are now, all that he carefully collecteth out of the whole worke, and cleareth it from their cauils. Haue we any cause to be offended with Augustine, which in this question is ⟨p. 137⟩not against vs? And that you may plainly perceiue, how indiscreetly you alledged these bookes of freewill, marke what hee writeth of the will of man in those same bookes:n Hold thou fast (saith Augustine) this principall of piety, 3that no good thing happens vnto thee, either when thou thinkest or vnderstandest, or any way imaginest, which is not from God. And this was Augustines constant opinion of freewill: after that being stirred by the Pellagians, he throughly vnderstood the question, viz. that he iudged it, to be vtterly lost and gone.o Man (saith he) by abusing his freewill lost both it and himselfe.5
1Retract. lib. 1.1. q.
nDVR. Whereto tendeth this but to bewray your ignorance? all Catholics believe that the will of man, though free, is able to do nothing to merit heaven by, but by the grace of God. And you are ignorant that the freedom of will consisteth in this, that by no necessity it is carried to either part. WHIT. pag. 382. Pelagians in former time believed as much. But as Pelagius affirmed that the will was only helped with grace, and not made good by grace: so you teach that no new will is infused, but the natural is helped, and as it were unloosed by grace; which is not much from Pelagianism: for both of you defend that the liberty of will remaineth in mans corrupt nature, that it need not be given him from above, but only by the help of grace, to be drawn out of certain difficulties, in which the corruption of sin had left it. And as for my ignorance I confess it, and think it more learned then your knowledge; for if those who do things necessarily, do them not freely, then neither God nor the devil worketh not freely; for God worketh well, and the devil evil, necessarily. So you see necessity is not opposed to freewill: for not necessity, but force and compulsion taketh away the freedom of the will.DVR. Wherto tendeth this but to bewray your ignorāce? all Catholikes beleeue that the will of man, though free, is able to do nothing to merit heauen by, but by the grace of God. And you are ignorant that the freedome of will consisteth in this, that by no necessitie it is carried to either part. WHIT. pag. 382. Pelagians in former time beleeued as much. But as Pelagius affirmed that the will was only helped with grace, and not made good by grace: so you teach that no new will is infused, but the natural is helped, and as it were vnloosed by grace; which is not much from Pelagianisme: for both of you defend that the liberty of wil remaineth in mans corrupt nature, that it need not be giuen him from aboue, but only by the helpe of grace, to be drawne out of certeine difficulties, in which the corruption of sinne had left it. And as for my ignorance I confesse it, and thinke it more learned then your knowledge; for if those who do things necessarily, do them not freely, then neither God nor the diuel worketh not freely; for God worketh well, and the diuell euill, necessarily. So you see necessity is not opposed to freewill: for not necessity, but force and compulsion taketh away the freedome of the will.
3Delibere Arbit. 61.2. cap. 20.
oDVR. The meaning of the place is this, that man so lost his freewill, that be lost himself; yet so as no man in his right wits will deny, but he is a man still. WHIT. pag. 384. You grant as much as we desire: for as man lost himself, and yet remained a man, but not such as he was, good, just, holy, endued with perfection, but clean changed: so the free will of man was lost, not that no will remained, but that it was changed from good to evil; for we say not there is remaining no freewill at all; but no good will: as we affirm not, there is no man at all remaining, but no good man.
But yet further you urge Augustine against us, for (say you) they that make their captious devises, the rule of their faith, must not they be offended with Augustine, which hath an excellent Epistle against Manicheus? An Epistle (Campian) do you call it? it was ever accounted a book: but what is there in that Epistle (as you call it) against us? in which he professeth himself to agree with Antiquity, unity, perpetual succession, and with that Church, which alone amongst so ⟨p. 138⟩many heresies, hath attained unto the name Catholic by prescription. We also agree with that Church, which hath all these. And yet to these must be added (as Augustine saith in the same place) sincere wisdom and truth; else all the other bind us not; for they are of no value without that wisdom; but this wisdom and truth, though without these, is of it self to be preferred before all things: so saith Augustine, 1if the truth appear manifestly, so as it cannot be doubted of, it alone is more to be esteemed then pall those reasons, that keep me in the Catholic Church. Thus then Augustine setteth more by the truth it self alone, and sincere wisdom, then all those things you mention, Antiquity Unity, Succession, and we perceiving this truth and wisdom so manifestly in our Churches, that none, that will see the truth, can doubt whether we hold the truth or no; do willingly give you free liberty to brag, whilst you list, of antiquity, unity, & succession, without the truth. There is then, as you see, no cause, why we should be angry with Augustine, either now or before.
But yet further you vrge Augustine against vs, for (say you) they that make their captious deuises, the rule of their faith, must not they bee offended with Augustine, which hath an excellent Epistle against Manicheus? An Epistle (Campian) do you call it? it was euer accounted a booke: but what is there in that Epistle (as you call it) against vs? in which he professeth himselfe to agree with Antiquity, vnity, perpetuall succession, and with that Church, which alone amongst so ⟨p. 138⟩many heresies, hath attained vnto the name Catholike by prescription. We also agree with that Church, which hath all these. And yet to these must be added (as Augustine saith in the same place) sincere wisdome and truth; else all the other bind vs not; for they are of no value without that wisdome; but this wisdome and truth, though without these, is of it selfe to bee preserred before all things: so saith Augustine, 1if the truth appeare manifestly, so as it cannot be doubted of, it alone is more to be esteemed then pall those reasons, that keepe me in the Catholike Church. Thus then Augustine setteth more by the truth it selfe alone, and sincere wisdome, then all those things you mention, Antiquity Vnity, Succession, and we perceiuing this truth and wisdome so manifestly in our Churches, that none, that will see the truth, can doubt whether we hold the truth or no; do willingly giue you free liberty to bragge, whilest you list, of antiquity, vnity, & succession, without the truth. There is then, as you see, no cause, why we should be angry with Augustine, either now or before.
1Cont. Fundam. cap. 4.
pDVR Augustine affirmeth, that these cannot be without the truth. WHIT. pag. 387. Nay Augustine showeth the contrary: for if truth cannot be separated from these, he had spoken very unfitly, when he said, he preferred the truth before all these. If you can take or rightly challenge the possession of truth, in the next place you may inquire of Antiquity, Unity, & Succession.DVR Augustine affirmeth, that these cannot be without the truth. WHIT. pag. 387. Nay Augustine sheweth the contrarie: for if truth cannot be separated from these, he had spoken very vnfitly, when he said, he preferred the truth before all these. If you can take or rightly challenge the possessiō of truth, in the next place you may inquire of Antiquity, Vnity, & Succession.
But at length you leave Augustine, and call out Optatus, Bishop of Miletum; of whom you say, you desire to know, what our opinion is. I verily think he was a good Father, and very like unto Augustine, and I take the things to be true, which many worthy men have said in his commendation. But he disproved the Donatists by the communion of the Catholic Church. Why should he not? or what doth that concern us? Augustine also observed the same course, and it was a good motive, that the communion of the Church should be objected to the schismatical Donatists, which seditiously without cause, separated themselves from the Church. But we deny your Church to be Catholic, and therefore you cannot thus convince us, though Optatus might thereby confute the Donatists. It must first appear, that it is the ⟨p. 139⟩Church, before we can be convicted of schism. Theq Church of Rome was then the preserver of Religion, the maintainer of the true faith, and shined like a star in the sight of all other Churches: no marvel then though the most holy Fathers, esteemed much the reverence of this Church, & urged the heretics with the example of it,2 as a great prejudice unto them. Hence it is, that sometimes they allege the decrees and succession of the Bishops of Rome, thereby proving that the heresies, by them refuted, were not heard of, in the most famous and honourable Church. But since that time the course of the Church is turned, and the Sea of Rome hath declined and degenerated from her sincere faith, to detestable falsehood. Restore us (Campian) the old Church of Rome, and we will never separate our selves from her: but of that Church you have nothing left, but the walls and old rubbish, yet still you brag of the name of the Catholic Church. And whereas you mention Altars, on which the members of Christ are carried, and Chalices containing his blood, I know well many things concerning Altars, are to be found in the ancient Fathers, which Altars in Africa, were not of stone, butr wooden, as you may see in Augustine's ⟨p. 140⟩Epistle to Boniface: and I grant the members of Christ, and hiss blood are received in the holy mysteries, but after a heavenly and spiritual manner,5 appropriate unto our most holy faith. As for your devouring of flesh, Optatus was not acquainted with it, and the ancient Church of Christ, not so much as ever dreamed of so great a monster.
But at length you leaue Augustine, and call out Optatus, Bishop of Miletum; of whom you say, you desire to know, what our opinion is. I verily thinke he was a good Father, and very like vnto Augustine, and I take the things to be true, which many worthy men haue said in his commendation. But he disproued the Donatists by the communion of the Catholike Church. Why should he not? or what doth that cōcerne vs? Augustine also obserued the same course, and it was a good motiue, that the communion of the Church should be obiected to the schismaticall Donatists, which seditiously without cause, separated themselues from the Church. But wee deny your Church to be Catholike, and therefore you cannot thus conuince vs, though Optatus might therby confute the Donatists. It must first appeare, that it is the ⟨p. 139⟩Church, before we can be conuicted of schisme. Theq Church of Rome was then the preseruer of Religion, the maintainer of the true faith, and shined like a starre in the sight of all other Churches: no maruell then though the most holy Fathers, esteemed much the reuerence of this Church, & vrged the heretikes with the example of it,2 as a great preiudice vnto them. Hence it is, that sometimes they alledge the decrees and succession of the Bishops of Rome, therby prouing that the heresies, by them refuted, were not heard of, in the most famous and honorable Church. But since that time the course of the Church is turned, and the Sea of Rome hath declined and degenerated from her sincere faith, to detestable falshood. Restore vs (Campian) the old Church of Rome, and we will neuer separate our selues from her: but of that Church you haue nothing left, but the walles and old rubbish, yet still you bragge of the name of the Catholike Church. And whereas you mention Altars, on which the members of Christ are carried, and Chalices containing his blood, I know well many things concerning Altars, are to be found in the auncient Fathers, which Altars in Africa, were not of stone, butr woodden, as you may see in Augustines ⟨p. 140⟩Epistle to Boniface: and I graunt the members of Christ, and hiss blood are receiued in the holy mysteries, but after a heauenly and spiritual manner,5
qDVR. So indeed Calvin answereth, but it will not serve your turn: for Opratus proveth himself to be in the Catholic Church, because he joined himself to Saint Peters chair. WHIT pag. 388. And what call you Peters chair? the external seat, or the succession of Bishops? you shall never prove it, and the contrary I cen easily object out of Optatus himself. Optatus calleth Syritius Bishop of Rome his fellow, and the companion of other Bishops who held a sound and Catholic judgement. With all those Syricius agreed in one society and fellowship, by their letters sent one to another as witnesses of their consenting in doctrine and lawful ordination: Optatus then proveth that he was a Catholic, because he kept the Catholic confession and conjunction with Syrrcius and other Bishops. Finally his argument was good against the Donatists, who did separate themselves from the communion of the Catholic Church, while they consented not with these Churches, where the doctrine of the Apostles and a lawful ordination of Bishops did ever flourish. But it is nothing to us and you.DVR. So indeed Caluin answereth, but it will not serue your turne: for Opratus proueth himself to be in the Catholike Church, because he ioyned himselfe to Saint Peters chaire. WHIT pag. 388. And what call you Peters chaire? the externall seate, or the succession of Bishops? you shall neuer proue it, and the contrary I cen easily obiect out of Optatus himselfe. Optatus calleth Syritius Bishop of Rome his fellow, and the companion of other Bishops who held a sound and Catholike iudgement. With all those Syricius agreed in one society and fellowship, by their letters sent one to another as witnesses of their consenting in doctrine and lawfull ordination: Optatus then proueth that he was a Catholike, because he kept the Catholike confession and coniunction with Syrrcius and other Bishops. Finally his argument was good against the Donatists, who did separate themselues from the communion of the Catholike Church, while they consented not with these Churches, where the doctrine of the Apostles and a lawfull ordination of Bishops did euer flourish. But it is nothing to vs and you.
2Irenaeus. August.
rDVR. What difference is there? the Donatists overthrew wooden Altany, and you Altars of stone. WHIT pag. 389. They troubled sacred tables by their sacrilege: not reproving the administration of the Sacrament, but the ordination of Bishops, which yet was lawful: we have cast down Altars wickedly erected for the wicked Mass and profane Idolatry. Is there no difference, think you?DVR. VVhat difference is there? the Donatists ouerthrew vvoodden Altany, and you Altars of stone. WHIT pag. 389. They troubled sacred tables by their sacriledge: not reprouing the administration of the Sacrament, but the ordination of Bishops, which yet was lawfull: we haue cast downe Altars wickedly erected for the wicked Masse and prophane Idolatry. Is there no difference, thinke you?
They sing (say you) in their Churches, the Creed of Athanasius, but they favour him not; and why? because he praiseth Antony the Hermit. You speak wisely; ast though we were so envious, that we could not with patience endure any man to be praised: nay there is somewhat else.2 He with his Synod of Alexandria, humbly appealed unto the sentence of the Apostolic Sea: this Epistle is all counterfeit, compacted of many lies, and monstrous flattery. Prudentius I grant as au Poet, sometimes called upon the Martyrs, whose acts he describes in verse, and the superstitious ⟨p. 141⟩custom of praying to Saints had now taken deep root in the Church: which as a Tyrant haled sometimes the holy Fathers into the same error. As for Vigillantius and Jovinian, against whom Hirr•••• writeth most bitterly; if they taught those things that are laid to their charge, we maintain them not. That* Ambrose should be careful, to commend and set forth the praises of his friends Geruasius and Protasius, we willingly permit. Neither do we wholly mislike Gregory, with whom surely you have more cause to be offended, then we. But whereas he said that Images were lay-mens books, he neither learned inx the school of the holy Ghost, nor foundy it in the ⟨p. 142⟩books of the Fathers that were before him; and thus at length, have you finished this long catalogue of the Fathers. The reason I would fain know, that moved you to go thorough them on this manner. For what? are you so blockish your self to think, or hope you, that any others will like of this kind of reasoning: viz. Luther, Calvin and their confederates, do write that Irenaus, Tertullian, Cyprian, Chrysostom, Augustine, Hierome, Ambrose, Gregory, Basil, and Nazi•• zen, do otherwhiles err in some questions in this or that book, and they saw not the true meaning of some Scripture, but were sometimes deceived, that is, they were men: therefore they banish, reject and condemn all these Fathers? Is this your meaning, Campian? why then do you your selves, being very often by plain authorities of the Fathers convinced, deny flatly that you are tied to the authority of any father, and from them you appeal to the judgment of the Church? Would you not think your self hardly dealt withal, if hence I should infer, that you disallow the Fathers whole volumes?
They sing (say you) in their Churches, the Creed of Athanasius, but they fauour him not; and why? because he praiseth Antony the Hermit. You speake wisely; ast though we were so enuious, that we could not with patience endure any man to be praised: nay there is somewhat else.2 He with his Synode of Alexandria, humblie appealed vnto the sentence of the Apostolike Sea: this Epistle is all counterfeit, compacted of many lies, and monstrous flattery. Prudentius I grant as au Poet, sometimes called vpon the Martyrs, whose acts he describes in verse, and the superstitious ⟨p. 141⟩custome of praying to Saints had now taken deepe roote in the Church: which as a Tyrant haled sometimes the holy Fathers into the same error. As for Vigillantius and Iouinian, against whom Hirr•••• writeth most bitterly; if they taught those things that are laid to their charge, we maintaine them not. That* Ambrose should be carefull, to commend and set sorth the praises of his friends Geruasius and Protasius, we willingly permit. Neither doe we wholy mislike Gregory, with whom surely you haue more cause to be offended, then we. But wheras he said that Images were lay-mens bookes, hee neither learned inx the schoole of the holy Ghost, nor foundy it in the ⟨p. 142⟩books of the Fathers yt were before him; and thus at length, haue you finished this longe catalogue of the Fathers. The reason I would faine know, that moued you to go thorough them on this manner. For what? are you so blockish your selfe to thinke, or hope you, that any others will like of this kind of reasoning: viz. Luther, Caluin and their confederates, doe write that Irenaus, Tertullian, Cyprian, Chrysostome, Augustine, Hierome, Ambrose, Gregory, Basil, and Nazi•• zen, do otherwiles erre in some questions in this or that booke, and they saw not the true meaning of some Scripture, but were sometimes deceiued, that is, they were men: therefore they banish, reiect and condemne all these Fathers? Is this your meaning, Campian? why then do you your selues, being verie often by plaine authorities of the Fathers cōuinced, deny flatly that you are tyed to the authority of any father, and from them you appeale to the iudgment of the Church? Would you not thinke your self hardly dealt withal, if hence I should inferre, that you disallow the Fathers whole volumes?
tDVR. But do you think Hermits are worthy of any praise, whom Athanasius praised in the person of Antony? WHIT. pag. 391. Grant we well approve of the old Hermits, yet may we think bad enough of your Monks, as we have done and profess it for just causes, seeing they differ both so much in manners and judgements. Antonius the Hermits grandfather was wont to say, that it was as dangerous for a Monk to go out of his hermitage, as for fishes to leave the water. If you praise Antony so much, why do you not follow him? why do you swarm in all cities and famous places, and do not rather live in some remote wilderness, as fishes swim in the Sea? so should you be more like to Antony, and free these parts from great damage.DVR. But doe you thinke Hermits are worthy of any praise, whom Athanasius praised in the person of Antony? WHIT. pag. 391. Graunt vve vvell approue of the old Hermits, yet may we thinke bad enough of your Monkes, as vve haue done and professe it for iust causes, seeing they differ both so much in manners and iudgements. Antonius the Hermits grandfather vvas vvont to say, that it was as dangerous for a Monke to go out of his hermitage, as for fishes to leaue the water. If you praise Antony so much, vvhy do you not follovv him? vvhy do you svvarme in all cities and famous places, and doe not rather liue in some remote wildernesse, as fishes swim in the Sea? so should you be more like to Antony, and free these parts from great damage.
2Athan. Ep. ad Fel. 2.
uDVR. Because he was a Poet, forgot he to be a Christian? or did he any thing in verse, which infinite & learned •athers have not done before in prose? WHIT. pag. 392. Who knoweth not that Poets were wont to weigh what the verse required, more then what piety called for, and to follow the elegance of poetry more then the streight doctrine of the Scriptures? And such liberty of Poets men commonly find no great fault with: yet see how foolish it is to avow poetical exornations for reasons in the controversies of religion. And if Prudentius followed so many Fathers, why name you not one of them▪ For 300. years after Christ there was no such custom in the Church, which you affirm so infinite a number of Fathers used: and it rose up in the Church but a little before Prudentius days; but both this and all other superstitions must be corrected by the authority of the word.DVR. Because he was a Poet, forgate hee to be a Christian? or did he any thing in verse, which infinit & learned •athers haue not done before in prose? WHIT. pag. 392. Who knovveth not that Poets vvere vvont to vveigh vvhat the verse required, more then vvhat piety called for, and to follovv the elegancy of poetry more then the streight doctrine of the Scriptures? And such liberty of Poets men commonly find no great fault vvith: yet see hovv foolish it is to auovv poeticall exornations for reasons in the controuersies of religion. And if Prudentius follovved so many Fathers, vvhy name you not one of them For 300. yeares after Christ there vvas no such custome in the Church, vvhich you affirme so infinite a number of Fathers vsed: and it rose vp in the Church but a little before Prudentius daies; but both this and all other superstitions must be corrected by the authority of the vvord.
. once to haue made m•otion of him in all his writings: neither euer doth Nazianzene.
⟨p. 128⟩
certaine man, I know not who, of late daies published, gesseth, that the Diuell is Antichrist, and faineth many other things:
•••
6Hippolyt.
eDVR. Why do you reject this book of Hippolyte as counterfeit? Hierome affirmeth, that he was a Bishop, and hath written many Commentaries upon the Scriptures. WHIT. pag. 367. Will it therefore follow that this book is not counterfeit? nay it is the rather forged, because Hierom doth not number it amongst his books. Hippolytus was a very worthy man, of whom Eusebius. Hierom, Theodoret, Nicephorus have made very honourable mention. But this book is childish in the beginning, and in the whole altogether unanswerable to his eloquence and judgement.DVR. VVhy do you reiect this booke of Hippolyte as counterfeite? Hierome affirmeth, that he was a Bishop, and hath written many Commentaries vpon the Scriptures. WHIT. pag. 367. Will it therefore follow that this booke is not counterfeit? nay it is the rather forged, because Hierom doth not number it amongst his bookes. Hyppolitus was a very worthy man, of whom Eusebius. Hierom, Theodoret, Nicephorus haue made verie honorable mention. But this booke is childish in the beginning, and in the whole altogether vnanswerable to his eloquence and iudgement.
DVR. VVhen you are ouercome by the truth, you slander our liues, and speake euill of our persons. WHIT. pag. 377. I do not slander you, nor detract from you, the world hath vnderstood long agoe what manner of men you vvere. If you be grovvne better I should be glad of it. But I knovv men haue iudged othervvise of this order, and such as did not hate your Monasticall life. For the Romish Cardinals and Priors did vvrite thus to the Pope himself. There is another abuse amongst the orders of religious men, for many are so deformed and out of order, that they are a great scandale to the people, and hurt much by their example. VVe thinke that all orders ought to be abolished.
DVR. The meaning of the place is this, that man so lost his freewill, that be lost himselfe; yet so as no man in his right wits will deny, but he is a man still. WHIT. pag. 384. You graunt as much as we desire: for as man lost himselfe, and yet remained a man, but not such as he was, good, iust, holy, indued with perfection, but cleane changed: so the free will of man was lost, not that no wil remained, but that it was changed from good to euill; for we say not there is remaining no freewill at all; but no good wil: as we affirme not, there is no man at all remaining, but no good man.
5Enchir. 3.
appropriate vnto our most holy faith. As for your deuouring of flesh, Optatus was not acquainted with it, and the auncient Church of Christ, not so much as euer dreamed of so great a monster.
sDVR. Optatus writeth that the body of Christ dwelleth upon the Altar. WHIT. pag. 390. I answer that the sacrament of the body of Christ is after a sort Christs body, and the name of the thing is given to the sign,, as is usual in all Sacraments. For the body of Christ is no where properly but in heaven at the right hand of his Father, where it shall remain to the end of the world.DVR. Optatus writeth that the body of Christ dwelleth vpon the Altar. WHIT. pag. 390. I answere that the sacrament of the body of Christ is after a sort Christs body, and the name of the thing is giuen to the signe,, as is vsuall in all Sacraments. For the body of Christ is no where properly but in heauen at the right hand of his Father, where it shall remaine to the end of the world.
5Epist. 50.
▪
*DVR. It seemeth you have nothing to answer to Ambrose at all. WHIT. pag. 393. Have I answered nothing, when a few lines before I affirmed that this superstition had got great footing in the Church? was it not answer enough to show I allowed not the corrupt judgement of some Fathers? What gain you by this, if we profess freely that some Fathers were infected with the errors of the time, who yet kept sound doctrine in the fundamental points; whereas notorious corruption hath spread it self over your whole Church & consumed it, & the beginnings of corruptions in them, is grown to an height in you without hope of cure?DVR. It seemeth you haue nothing to answere to Ambrose at all. WHIT. pag. 393. Haue I answered nothing, when a few lines before I affirmed that this superstition had got great footing in the Church? was it not answere enough to shew I allowed not the corrupt iudgement of some Fathers? What gaine you by this, if we professe freely that some Fathers were infected with the errors of the time, who yet kept sound doctrine in the fundamentall points; whereas notorious corruption hath spread it selfe ouer your whole Church & cōsumed it, & the beginnings of corruptions in them, is growne to an height in you without hope of cure?
xDVR. Answer me, in what school did you learn to break down Images? not in the schools of Christians, but of Jews. WHIT. pag. 395. I learned it out of the school of the holy Ghost, Deut 5.8. Josh. 24.23. where we are taught to worship one God with religious worship, and to cast out of the Church, to break and burn the Images of men, though never so holy. Moses beat the Calf to powder, & the holy Ghost commended Hez•••a for breaking asunder the brazen Serpent, though it was set up by God• authority, when the Israelites abused it to super•••ion; how much more ought we to destroy profane Images & monuments of cursed idolatry? Epiphanius being taught in this school rent the veil which was hung up in the temple, having painted innt the picture of Christ or some Saint. As also Serenus Bishop of Massilia, who took down & broke the Images of his time. I have learned this then not out of the schools of the Jews, •innike• and Idolaters, but out of the schools of Christians, which may not be polluted with Images.DVR. Answere me, in vvhat schoole did you learne to breake downe Images? not in the schooles of Christians, but of Iewes. WHIT. pag. 395. I learned it out of the schoole of the holy Ghost, Deut 5.8. Iosh. 24.23. where wee are taught to worship one God with religious worship, and to cast out of the Church, to breake and burne the Images of men, though neuer so holy. Moses beate the Calfe to powder, & the holy Ghost commended Hez•••a for breaking asunder the brazen Serpent, though it was set vp by God• authority, when the Israelits abused it to super•••ion; how much more ought we to destroy prophane Images & monuments of cursed idolatrie? Epiphanius being taught in this schoole rent the vaile which was hung vp in the temple, hauing painted innt the picture of Christ or some Saint. As also Serenus Bishop of Massilia, who tooke downe & broke the Images of his time. I haue learned this then not out of the schooles of the Iewes, •innike• and Idolaters, but out of the schooles of Christians, which may not be polluted with Images.
yDVR You show your ignorance or impudency, when you know not, or deny that which is every whereto be read among the Fathers, as in Theodoret, Domasen, Augustine, Gregory Nissen. Metaphrastes, Athanasius and others. WHIT. pag. 399. These testimonies do rather show your rashness & desire to deceive; for they are partly faired, as that of Gregory Nissen and Athanasius, & partly not to the purpose by them I understand that Images were made, but they prove not that they were placed in the churches & worshipped. Your reason concludeth not, There were Images among the Christians before the times of Gregory: therefore they placed them in their churches to teach the people, and to be worshipped of them with holy worship.DVR You shevv your ignorance or impudency, vvhen you knovv not, or deny that vvhich is euery vvhereto be read among the Fathers, as in Theodoret, Domasen, Augustine, Gregory Nissen. Metaphrastes, Athanasius and others. WHIT. pag. 399. These testimonies do rather shew your rashnes & desire to deceiue; for they are partly faired, as that of Gregory Nissen and Athanasius, & partly not to the purpose by them I vnderstand that Images were made, but they proue not that they were placed in the churches & worshipped. Your reason concludeth not, There were Images among the Christiās before the times of Gregory: therfore they placed them in their churches to teach the people, and to be worshipped of them with holy worship.
