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.
Strive while you list (Campian) and cry out of mazes and labyrinths, at length will you, nill you, by the cares must we bring you to the judgement of the Scriptures.
Striue while you list (Campian) and crie out of mazes and labyrinths, at length will you, nill you, by the cares must wee bring you to the iudgement of the Scriptures.
And herein, Campian, you very mucha triumph, when you demand at what time, under what Bishop, by what way, and proceeding, was a new religion spread over the City of Rome, and the whole world: and do not doubt, but that if any change and declining had been, many writers would have made mention of it, or divers, or one at the least. It is hard for us to answer at what time, neither is it necessary to set down the very instant of time. All things were not at once overturned in the Church of Rome, sin and wickedness came to his height by degrees, and by leisure to ripeness; the hairs of our head are not all grey of a sudden, neither doth any thing suddenly come to his maturity, and the growth of every thing appeareth long after. This is manifest in such things, as having small beginning go on forward unto a greater quantity, until they come to perfection; you cannot deny, but there was a great alteration of Religion, in the Church of ⟨p. 172⟩bJerusalem, what then? was the change all at once? show us then how those novelties entered into the Church, what time, what way, who was Bishop, and by what proceedings it increased. You Romanis• condemn the Greek Church, and yet it is nothing so corrupt as yours.c Declare now unto me those circumstances of time in the declining of this Church, which you demand for your own. Point out the time, the Bishop, and the growth of their Apostasy. As the alteration of these Churches was then easy to be discerned when it first began, though now it be very hard to find out those circumstances: so we see plainly a great change in the Church of Rome, yet can we not certainly pronounce the several times of their several declining. Many are manifest, which were too long to rehearse, and those are distinguished according to their times and seasons. The case was with the Church of Rome, as we see it is in a great building: for as a house which is strongly built at the first, continueth so of it self a long time after sound and whole; but if for a time it be left and neglected, it beginneth in some place to decay, and to be full of chinks, which in time wax big by degrees, till they threaten ruin to the posts and roofs themselves, and at length by this means, the whole building is ruinated and falleth down:
And herein, Campian, you very mucha triumph, when you demaund at what time, vnder what Bishop, by what way, and proceeding, was a new religion spread ouer the Citie of Rome, and the whole world: and doe not doubt, but that if any change and declining had been, many writers would haue made mention of it, or diuers, or one at the least. It is hard for vs to answere at what time, neither is it necessarie to set downe the very instant of time. All things were not at once ouerturned in the Church of Rome, sinne and wickednes came to his height by degrees, and by leisure to ripenes; the haires of our head are not all gray of a suddaine, neither doth any thing suddainely come to his maturitie, and the growth of euery thing appeareth long after. This is manifest in such things, as hauing small beginning goe on forward vnto a greater quantitie, vntill they come to perfection; you cannot deny, but there was a great alteration of Religion, in the Church of ⟨p. 172⟩bIerusalem, what then? was the change all at once? shew vs then how those nouelties entred into the Church, what time, what way, who was Bishop, and by what proceedings it increased. You Romanis• condemne the Greeke Church, and yet it is nothing so corrupt as yours.c Declare now vnto me those circumstances of time in the declining of this Church, which you demaund for your owne. Poynt out the time, the Bishop, and the growth of their Apostasie. As the alteration of these Churches was then easie to bee discerned when it first beganne, though now it be very hard to finde out those circumstances: so we see plainely a great change in the Church of Rome, yet can we not certainely pronounce the seuerall times of their seuerall declining. Many are manifest, which were too long to rehearse, and those are distinguished according to their times and seasons. The case was with the Church of Rome, as we see it is in a great building: for as a house which is strongly built at the first, continueth so of it selfe a long time after sound and whole; but if for a time it be left and neglected, it beginneth in some place to decay, and to bee full of chinkes, which in time waxe big by degrees, till they threaten ruine to the posts and roofes themselues, and at length by this meanes, the whole building is ruinated and falleth downe:
aDVR. And why may not Campian trumph, for what impudency is this to cry out that the Church of Rome is full of innumerable heresies; and yet you cannot tell, when one of them ever began, in what Popes time, by what means, how it increased in the Church? WHIT. pag. 477. A good cause would be defended by reasons, not railings. But doth it follow that the Church of Rome is not corrupt, because we cannot tell the moment of time when it began to be corrupt? but being so manifest as it is, what need we search the Histories to show the beginning? what I pray? if you see a man sick of the pestilence, a city corrupt with riot and wickedness, a house ruinous and ready to fall, a ship sinking; will you deny all these, unless one can tell you the time when he began to be sick, the means how the city grew corrupt, who was ownet and in what year the house grew ruinous, and in what da•e the ship began first to leak? And what is the force of your reason and demand other then this? But, do not your own Histories tell when and by whom innovations and corruptions entered? see a few of them. He that first usurped authority over other Churches was Pope Victor, after him Zozimus, Boniface, Celestive, and the• successura. Pope Syricius first forbade Priests marriages. The Manichees first denied the Cup to the people. The Nicene Councell first ordained worshipping of Images. Pope Nicolas the second, first taught: the body of Christ must carnally be handled, broken and eaten. Pope Jnnocent the third, first established the doctrine of Transubstantiation. Boniface the third, that the Pope was the head of all Churches. Gregory the great taught Purgatory first for a certain truth. The Florentine Councell, that the Pope was above Councels. Jnnocent the third, brought in auricular confession. If these were not sufficient I could produce sire hundred more.DVR. And vvhy may not Campian trumph, for what impudencie is this to cry out that the Church of Rome is full of innumerable heresies; and yet you cannot tell, vvhen one of them euer began, in vvhat Popes time, by vvhat meanes, hovv it increased in the Church? WHIT. pag. 477. A good cause would be defended by reasons, not raylings. But doth it follow that the Church of Rome is not corrupt, because wee cannot tell the moment of time when it began to be corrupt? but being so manifest as it is, what need we search the Histories to shew the beginning? what I pray? if you see a man sicke of the pestilence, a citie corrupt with riote and wickednesse, a house ruinous and readie to fall, a shippe sincking; will you deny all these, vnlesse one can tell you the time when he began to be sicke, the meanes how the city grew corrupt, who vvas ovvnet and in vvhat yeare the house grevv ruinous, and in vvhat da•e the shippe began first to leake? And vvhat is the force of your reason and demaund other then this? But, doe not your owne Histories tell vvhen and by vvhom innouations and corruptions entred? see a fevv of them. Hee that first vsurped authoritie ouer other Churches vvas Pope Victor, after him Zozimus, Boniface, Celestiue, and the• successura. Pope Syricius first fo•bad Priests marriages. The Manichies first denied the Cup to the people. The Nicene Councell first ordained vvorshipping of Images. Pope Nicolas the second, first taught: the bodie of Christ must carnally be handled, broken and eaten. Pope Jnnocent the third, first established the doctrine of Transubstantiation. Boniface the third, that the Pope vvas the head of all Churches. Gregorie the great taught Purgatorie first for a certeine truth. The Florentine Councell, that the Pope was aboue Councels. Jnnocent the third, brought in auricular confession. If these vvere not sufficient I could produce sire hundred more.
bDVR. It is not hard to know the heresies of the Jews, for Philastrius, Epiphanius, Josephus, have written of them. WHIT pag. 484. It is as easy to know the heresies of Christians, being more in the Christian Church then ever were in the Church of Jerusalem, and of these also have many books been written.DVR. It is not hard to knovv the heresies of the Ievves, for Philastrius, Epiphanius, Iosephus, haue vvritten of them. WHIT pag. 484. It is as easie to know the heresies of Christians, being more in the Christian Church then euer vvere in the Church of Ierusalem, and of these also haue many bookes been vvritten.
cDVR. You require an easy thing; for the authors of the heresies of the Greek Church, we can easily number out of their stories, Samosatenus, Eutyches, Sergius, Arrius, Nestorius, Macedonius, and such like. WHIT. pag. 486. It is a wonder that you vvill object these heresies unto the Greek Church: when you cannot be ignorant but that moe and more horrible heresies sprung up in the Romish Church, and almost in the middest of Rome: For Valentinus, Marcion, Cerdon, Florentius, Blasius, Tatianus, Novatus, Pelagius, Julianus, Celestinus, and other such did broach most pestiferous heresies in Rome. If you answer the Latin Church condemned these; I can answer so for the Greek Church. And if you think you have objected well in numbering certain heresies of the Greek Church, you may think I have answered aswell in reckoning the heresies of the Latin Church.DVR. You require an easie thing; for the authors of the heresies of the Greeke Church, vve can easily number out of their stories, Samosatenus, Eutyches, Sergius, Arrius, Nestorius, Macedonius, and such like. WHIT. pag. 486. It is a vvonder that you vvill obiect these heresies vnto the Greeke Church: vvhen you cannot bee ignorant but that moe and more horrible heresies sprung vp in the Romish Church, and almost in the middest of Rome: For Valentinus, Marcion, Cerdon, Florentius, Blasius, Tatianus, Nouatus, Pelagius, Julianus, Celestinus, and other such did broach most pestiferous heresies in Rome. If you ansvvere the Latin Church condemned these; I can ansvvere so for the Greeke Church. And if you thinke you haue obiected vvell in numbring certeine heresies of the Greeke Church, you may thinke I haue ansvvered asvvell in reckoning the heresies of the Latin Church.
so the Roman Church in process of ⟨p. 173⟩time declined from her ancient estate, and by the infection of error and superstition daily prevailing, at length she lost the very spirit and life of the Church. Eusebius reporteth, that one Polycrates Bishop of Ephesus, had written of the Church, that she was, whilst the Apostles lived, a chaste and undefiled Virgin. For then they that would have altered the holy pattern of sound doctrine, did it faintly and fearfully, not daring to creep out of their holes.d But after that the Apostles departed unto the heavenly mansions, and none of that age left, that had been hearers of Christ himself, neither any of the Apostles living, then began abominable error to gather strength, and openly in the Churches to advance it self. What more pregnant testimony of antiquity and history can you desire? Whilst the Apostles lived the Church was a Virgin, as soon as they were dead, she became corrupted, and the mischief no doubt in time increased and spread it self ⟨p. 174⟩abroad. But I wonder that thise Polycrates, was either so ignorant or forgetful that he considered not this, that the Pope of Rome was left unto the Church, in the Apostles rooms, to defend this Virgin, and preserve her chastity. Why calleth he the Church a Virgin? Because the Apostles were living, by whom her audacious adversaries were always discouraged and discomforted. But either in this respect the Church now wanteth a Pope, or else she needs him not at all. But Polycrates, although there were none left to preserve the purity of this Virgin, bewaileth her want as you see, which surely had been unadvisedly done, if his opinion had been, that this charge belonged to the Bishop of Rome. The Church then from the Apostles time began to decline, and inclined to the apostasy, which the Apostle did foretell should be, and we see now fulfilled. Then those Wolves of whom the Apostle did forewarn,3 came into the Church and ceased not to destroy the flock. Then those Antichrists, whereof John affirmeth some were in his time,4 began to undertake the work, which after was perfected and accomplished: I might here show you many evident tokens of your Churches Apostasy, out of these your own Chronicles: they are no secrets, but such as any man that will read and observe, may easily discern.
so the Romane Church in processe of ⟨p. 173⟩time declined from her auncient estate, and by the infection of error and superstition daily preuailing, at length shee lost the very spirit and life of the Church. Eusebius reporteth, that one Polycrates Bishop of Ephesus, had written of the Church, that she was, whilest the Apostles liued, a chaste and vndefiled Virgin. For then they that would haue altered the holy paterne of sound doctrine, did it faintly and fearefully, not daring to creepe out of their holes.d But after that the Apostles departed vnto the heauenly mansions, and none of that age left, that had been hearers of Christ himselfe, neither any of the Apostles liuing, then began abhominable error to gather strength, and openly in the Churches to aduaunce it selfe. What more pregnant testimonie of antiquitie and historie can you desire? Whilest the Apostles liued the Church was a Virgin, assoone as they were dead, she became corrupted, and the mischiefe no doubt in time increased and spread it selfe ⟨p. 174⟩abroade. But I woonder that thise Polycrates, was either so ignorant or forgetfull that hee considered not this, that the Pope of Rome was left vnto the Church, in the Apostles roomes, to defend this Virgin, and preserue her chastitie. Why calleth hee the Church a Virgin? Because the Apostles were liuing, by whom her audacious aduersaries were alwaies discouraged and discomforted. But either in this respect the Church now wanteth a Pope, or else shee needes him not at all. But Polycrates, although there were none left to preserue the puritie of this Virgin, bewaileth her want as you see, which surely had been vnaduifedly done, if his opinion had been, that this charge belonged to the Bishop of Rome. The Church then from the Apostles time began to decline, and inclined to the apostasie, which the Apostle did foretell should be, and we see now fulfilled. Then those Wolues of whom the Apostle did forewarne,3 came into the Church and ceased not to destroy the flocke. Then those Antichrists, whereof Iohn affirmeth some were in his time,4 began to vndertake the worke, which after was perfected and accomplished: I might heere shew you many euident tokens of your Churches Apostasie, out of these your owne Chronicles: they are no secrets, but such as any man that will reade and obserue, may easilie discerne.
dDVR. O horrible fact! ó intolerable wickedness! with what face can you thus speak, if you remember how Christ promised his spouse perpetual preservation? Hose. 2.20. Isa, 59.21. Psal. 131.17. and such like WHIT pag. 4•8. If your arguments were as great as your outeries, who could deal with you? That the Church may be corrupted, see these places Matth. 13.25. 1. Cor. 5.6. 2. Cor. 11.3. Isay. 1.21. Gal. 1.6. and 2.1. Further what have I else spoken that Eusebius lib. 3. cap. 32. and Nicephorus lib. 3. cap. 7. & 10. have not before time written? And when I writ these things, I remembered well those promises and many other of that kind. But I know that they belong to the Church of the elect, and hinder not, but that particular Churches may be corrupted by error and false doctrine. DVR. Eusebius doth not anouch these from Polycrates, but from Hegesippus, who called the Church a Virgin, because heretics as yet had not openly opposed her, and corrupted the seats of the Apostles: and did not say that she was corrupted after them. WHIT. pag. 490. The matter is not great which of them spake the words, for whosoever shall wergh the words, shall see that the sense of them is as I have said. And if the Church was ever to remain a chaste and pure Virgin, how foolish should that Hegesippus be in affirming that hitherto she remained a Virgin, or what may his meaning be else then that the Apostles being dead, she began to be corrupted, which the words following prove, when that age was overpassed; then she began to be corrupted with impious error? Yea and when you say that as yet heretics had not assaulted her, nor invaded the tents of the Apostles, either you say nothing, or you grant that after the Apostles time, they did assault her, and prevail against her.DVR. O horrible fact! ó intolerable vvickednes! vvith vvhat face can you thus speak, if you remember hovv Christ promised his spouse perpetuall preseruation? Hose. 2.20. Isa, 59.21. Psal. 131.17. and such like WHIT pag. 48. If your arguments vvere as great as your outeries, vvho could deale vvith you? That the Church may be corrupted, see these places
And since you call us unto Histories,f I will put ⟨p. 175⟩you in mind of one thing related in an ancient story, consider it well whether it touch your Pope, or no, and then answer fully concerning the whole matter. A Council was assembled in Africa, of 217.2 Bishops; whereof Augustine himself was one, the glory and star of Africa: I will set down the story briefly. Zozimus Bishop of Rome sent thither his Legates, which should persuade the Fathers of Africa, that appeals might be made to the Bishop of Rome from all other Bishops. The Legates make relation hereof unto the Fathers, and withal produce a Canon of the Council of Nice, wherein the privilege was recorded: the Fathers wonder at this new decree, and answer the Legates that they never saw any such Canon in any copy Greek or Latin, and that, as they thought, the true and perfect copy of that Council remained with them, which Cecilianus Bishop of Carthage, which was himself present at that Council, had brought into Africa; notwithstanding they determine to send to Constantinople, Alexandria, and Antioch, such as might receive the true and natural copies, from the Bishops of those cities. The Popes Legates would fain have stayed them from sending, but could not. Cyril Bishop of Alexandria, and Atticus of Constantinople deliver unto the messengers the copies with letters to the Fathers of Afric, wherein they do avouch that those copies were most true and sincere.3 Then at length the forgery appeareth in the Canon of the Council of Nice no such thing can be found: so they writ to Celestine then Pope, and command him to surcease from making any such claim ever after ⟨p. 176⟩and not to send abroad his Collectors, lest thereby they may seem to bring the presumptuous smoky pride of the world into the Church of Christ. The Pope for the time yielded not voluntarily, but perforce: for an hundred years after Boniface the second in an Epistle unto Eulalius inveigheth bitterly against Aurelius Bishop of Carthage, which was now President of the African Council, and affirmeth that he and his fellows, whereof Augustine was the chief, were all moved by the devil to withstand the Church of Rome; thus Pope Boniface censureth as schismatics, Aurelius of Carthage, & other the African Bishops, yea and Augustine himself among the rest, because they resisted the Bishop of Rome in that matter:
And since you call vs vnto Histories,f I will put ⟨p. 175⟩you in mind of one thing related in an auncient storie, consider it well whether it touch your Pope, or no, and then answere fully concerning the whole matter. A Councell was assembled in Africke, of 217.2 Bishops; whereof Augustine himselfe was one, the glorie and starre of Africke: I will set downe the story briefly. Zozimus Bishop of Rome sent thither his Legates, which should perswade the Fathers of Africke, that appeales might be made to the Bishop of Rome from all other Bishops. The Legates make relation hereof vnto the Fathers, and withall produce a Canon of the Councell of Nice, wherein the priuiledge was recorded: the Fathers wonder at this new decree, and answere the Legates that they neuer saw any such Canon in any copie Greeke or Latin, and that, as they thought, the true and perfect copie of that Councell remained with them, which Cecilianus Bishop of Carthage, which was himselfe present at that Councell, had brought into Africke; notwithstāding they determine to send to Constantinople, Alexandria, and Antioch, such as might receiue the true and naturall copies, from the Bishops of those cities. The Popes Legates would faine haue stayed them from sending, but could not. Cyrill Bishop of Alexandria, and Atticus of Constantinople deliuer vnto the messengers the copies with letters to the Fathers of Africk, wherin they do auouch that those copies were most true and sincere.3 Then at length the forgery appeareth in the Canon of the Councell of Nice no such thing can be found: so they writ to Celestine then Pope, and command him to surcease from making any such claime euer after ⟨p. 176⟩and not to send abroad his Collectors, lest thereby they may seeme to bring the presumptuous smokie pride of the world into the Church of Christ. The Pope for the time yeelded not voluntarily, but perforce: for an hundred yeeres after Boniface the second in an Epistle vnto Eulalius inueigheth bitterly against Aurelius Bishop of Carthage, which was now President of the African Councell, and affirmeth that hee and his fellowes, whereof Augustine was the chiefe, were all moued by the deuill to withstand the Church of Rome; thus Pope Boniface censureth as schismatikes, Aurelius of Carthage, & other the African Bishops, yea and Augustine himselfe among the rest, because they resisted the Bishop of Rome in that matter:
fDVR. Two things here are, of which you would persuade the Reader, one that the Fathers of the Councell allowed not that which the Pope affected by his Legates: another that the Legates did maliciously produce a forged Canon. What would you do if you could find any thing of weight in any story against us? WHIT pag. 494. They are the things indeed wherein I would instruct the Reader, and what can any story afford us more solid and perspicuous, for whether you respect the a•• bition and fraud not used in former times by the Bishops of Rome, or the authority of the Councell, or that famous sentence given against the Bishops of Rome, there is no man so ignorant and unexperienced, but he will confess that they enacted and decreed a great matter, and of no small importance.DVR. Two things here are, of which you would persvvade the Reader, one that the Fathers of the Councell allovved not that vvhich the Pope affected by his Legates: another that the Legates did malitiously produce a forged Canon. What vvould you doe if you could find any thing of vvaight in any storie against vs? WHIT pag. 494. They are the things indeed wherein I would instruct the Reader, and what can any storie afford vs more solide and perspicuous, for whether you respect the a•• bition and fraud not vsed in former times by the Bishops of Rome, or the authority of the Councell, or that famous sentence giuen against the Bishops of Rome, there is no man so ignorant and vnexperienced, but he will confesse that they enacted and decreed a great matter, and of no smale importance.
as for Eulalius then Bishop of Carthage, he giveth him great thanks because he made friendship with the Church of Rome, that is he willingly permitted the immediate power of the Bishop of Rome over the Church of Africa. These things I have related out of their truest records, and of this kind I could rehearse many more, so little cause have you to promise your self much help out of History.
as for Eulalius then Bishop of Carthage, he giueth him great thankes because he made friendship with the Church of Rome, that is he willingly permitted the immediate power of the Bishop of Rome ouer the Church of Africke. These things I haue related out of their truest records, and of this kind I could rehearse many more, so little cause haue you to promise your selfe much helpe out of Historie.
Hence may be perceived what the purpose and endeavour of the Bishops of Rome have bin these many years, viz. to make themselves Lords of all Churches, which also at length they obtained. But because you ask the question and desire answer, when Rome lost her faith so much commended, and what that, which once was; ceased to be? I may truly affirm that though in many things she had made shipwreck of faith before, yet then did it begin to be the seat of Antichrist, when Phocas the murderer granted unto Boniface the third, that the Church of Rome should be head of all Churches, and the Bishop of Rome should be called Universal Bishop. I will not too curiously search into the moments of times, a mischief creepeth privily, for a time unespied ⟨p. 177⟩of men. But the common opinion which men conceived of those times was, that Gregory the great was the last good, and the first ill Bishop of Rome. He was no better then he should be, and all that succeeded him were stark nought, every one striving to go beyond his predecessor in all lewdness: so that, now a sink of all wickedness hath violently burst into the Church, and hath possessed all the parts thereof. You force me, Campian, to open the sores of your Church, which I had rather not touch, but you are so unreasonable, that you neither spare us nor your selves. Barnard, who was the only religious man, your Church had for many years, how often, and how grievously, doth he bewail, the most desperate estate of your Church?g A shameful contagion sprea•••h over the body of the whole Church: 2the servants of Christ serve Antichrist. From the sole of the foot to the crown of the head nothing is sound. With these and the like speeches used Bernard to bewail and complain of the intolerable wickedness of your Church, which he would never have done without sufficient reason, moving thereunto.3 Aeneas Syluius, afterwards Pope, writeth that charity was waxed cold, and faith utterly gone, and what manner of Church shall we judge this to have been, when she had lost both faith and charity? But it may be you will say that he wrote this of malice unto the Church, and that after he changing his opinion, when of Aeneas he was made Pius, for that was ever his usual speech. Cast away Aeneas & take Pius.
Hence may bee perceiued what the purpose and endeuour of the Bishops of Rome haue bin these many yeares, viz. to make themselues Lords of all Churches, which also at length they obtained. But because you aske the question and desire answere, when Rome lost her faith so much commended, and what that, which once was; ceased to be? I may truly affirme that though in many things she had made shipwracke of faith before, yet thē did it begin to be the seate of Antichrist, when Phocas the murderer granted vnto Boniface the third, that the Church of Rome should be head of all Churches, and the Bishop of Rome should be called Vniuersall Bishop. I will not too curiously search into the moments of times, a mischiefe creepeth priuily, for a time vnespied ⟨p. 177⟩of men. But the common opinion which men conceiued of those times was, that Gregory the great was the last good, and the first ill Bishop of Rome. He was no better then he should be, and all that succeeded him were starke nought, euery one striuing to goe beyond his predecessor in all lewdnes: so that, now a sincke of all wickednes hath violently burst into the Church, and hath possessed all the parts therof. You force me, Campian, to open the sores of your Church, which I had rather not touch, but you are so vnreasonable, yt you neither spare vs nor your selues. Barnard, who was the only religious man, your Church had for many yeares, how often, and how grieuously, doth he bewaile, the most desperat estace of your Church?g A shamefull contagion sprea•••h ouer the body of the whole Church: 2the seruants of Christ serue Antichrist. From the sole of the foote to the crowne of the head nothing is sound. With these and the like speeches vsed Bernard to bewaile and complaine of the intolerable wickednes of your Church, which he would neuer haue done without sufficient reason, mouing thereunto.3 Aeneas Syluius, afterwards Pope, writeth that charity was waxed cold, and faith vtterly gone, and what manner of Church shall we iudge this to haue been, when shee had lost both faith and charity? But it may be you will say that he wrote this of malice vnto the Church, and that after hee changing his opinion, when of Aeneas he was made Pius, for that was euer his vsuall speech. Cast away Aeneas & take Pius.
gDVR. Bernard speaketh not of the doctrine of the Church, but of the manners of the wicked. and in the Church the evil men were ever mixed among the good. WHIT. pag. 504. I wonder what was in your mind, when you confess that the manners of your predecessors were such, as he describeth both heere, and ad Eugen. lib. 4. Amongst these you being their Pastor, walk decked with much precious apparel. If I durst speaze it; these are rather pa••ors for devils then for Christs sheep, Your Court usually receiveth good men, but maketh sew good. There the wicked are not made better, but the good far worse. A number of such places I could allege out of him, neither bewaileth l•ethe mixture of the bad, as you say, but the perishing of the good, and the ru•ne of the Church.DVR. Bernard speaketh not of the doctrine of the Church, but of the manners of the vvicked. and in the Church the euill men were euer mixed among the good. WHIT. pag. 504. I wonder vvhat was in your mind, when you confesse that the manners of your predecessors were such, as he describeth both heere, and ad Eugen. lib. 4. Amongst these you being their Pastor, vvalke decked vvith much pretious apparell. If I durst speaze it; these are rather pa••ors for diuels then for Christs sheepe, Your Court vsually receiueth good men, but maketh sevv good. There the vvicked are not made better, but the good farre worse. A number of such places I could alledge out of him, neither bewail•th l•ethe mixture of the bad, as you say, but the perishing of the good, and the ru•ne of the Church.
What shall I further recite Petrarch, Mantuan, and other Poets both learned and famous, ⟨p. 178⟩which feared not with Satirical verses to inveigh against the Pope and Cardinals and the whole clergy? all things were then so out of order, that all sins might without controlment both be practised and openly blamed. I need not to seek far, remember what Cornelius Bishop of Bicontine, not many years ago, at the Council of Trent spake openly in the presence and audience of the whole Church: whose witness must needs be strong and effectual against you, though of it self it be little worth. Thus he saith,1 Would to God they had not all with one consent turned from religion to superstition, from faith to infidelity, from Christ to Antichrist, from God to Epicurism. Behold the Marks of your Church, su•••stition, infidelity, Antichrist, Epicure, for all this you are not ashamed to affirm that no History either yours or ours hath bewrayed or testified any such matter. But Campian, the more you defend the integrity of your Church, the more you cause us to manifest the corruptions of it.
What shal I further recite Petrarch, Mantuan, and other Poets both learned and famous, ⟨p. 178⟩which feared not with Satiricall verses to inueigh against the Pope and Cardinals and the whole clergie? all things were then so out of order, that all sinnes might without controul••ent both be practised and openly blamed. I need not to seeke farre, remember what Cornelius Bishop of Bicontine, not many yeares agoe, at the Councell of Trent spake openly in the presence and audience of the whole Church: whose witnes must needs be strong and effectuall against you, though of it selfe it bee little worth. Thus he saith,1 Would to God they had not all with one consent turned from religion to superstition, from faith to infidelity, from Christ to Antichrist, from God to Epicurisme. Behold the Marks of your Church, su•••stition, infidelity, Antichrist, Epicure, for all this you are not ashamed to affirme that no Historie either yours or ours hath bewrayed or testified any such matter. But Campian, the more you defend the integrity of your Church, the more you cause vs to manifest the corruptions of it.
Our adversaries, say you, do grant that the Roman Church was once a holy Church. This we confess, and that then it was holy when Paul published those her worthy praise, which you remember; and yet those praises by you mentioned, do not belong to that Church alone, but were given also to other Churches.1 For what if the faith of the Romans were published in the whole world? this was no proper or peculiar privilege of that Church. Hath not the Apostle written as much of the Church of Thessalonica,2 Your faith to wards God is spread in all places? What if he made mention of the Romans without ceasing? 3so did he also incessantly remember the Thessalonians. 4What though he doubted not but he should come unto the Romans in abundance of the blessing of Christ? 5think you his coming into other Churches was less fruitful?6 What if all Churches saluted the Romans, ⟨p. 179⟩and their obedience was every where spoken of? know you not that all the Saints used to salute one another? or suppose you that other Churches were not as obedient to the Apostles as this? But we grant you, that at this time it was holy: what would you more?7 Then also when Paul preached the Gospel there in his favourable restraint. This also we grant: what more?8 And then also when Peter gathered and governed the Church there, calling it Babylon. We deny not this. And though I can be well content that you call Rome Babylon, for I doubt not, but it is the same of whichh John writes so much in the Revelation, the mother of whoredoms, and abominations of the earth; yet I cannot be so easily persuaded thati Peter ⟨p. 180⟩means Rome in this place; here Campian you are always at a nonplus, & could yet never prove that Peter was at Rome. But you take this for granted, and as already proved; which if any man once deny, then like the Mathematicians, you have done, and can go no further. But why may I not reasonably think, that Peter meaneth that Babylon, which once was the chief City of the Assyrians, in which City certainly were many Jews,11 unto whom Peter was appointed Apostle peculiarly. If I should set down that which I could allege in this cause, I fear I should try your patience too much. In the mean time I allow well your confession that Rome is Babylon, and hereafter, at your leisure, you may declare upon what occasion the name of it was altered.
Our aduersaries, say you, doe grant that the Romane Church was once a holy Church. This we confesle, and that then it was holy when Paul published those her worthie praise, which you remember; and yet those praises by you mentioned, doe not belong to that Church alone, but were giuen also to other Churches.1 For what if the faith of the Romanes were published in the whole world? this was no proper or peculiar priuiledge of that Church. Hath not the Apostle written asmuch of the Church of Thessalonica,2 Your faith to wards God is spread in all places? What if hee made mention of the Romanes without ceasing? 3so did he also incessantly remember the Thessalonians. 4What though he doubted not but hee should come vnto the Romanes in abundance of the blessing of Christ? 5thinke you his comming into other Churches was lesse fruitfull?6 What if all Churches saluted the Romanes, ⟨p. 179⟩and their obedience was euery where spoken of? know you not that all the Saints vsed to salute one another? or suppose you that other Churches were not as obedient to the Apostles as this? But we grant you, that at this time it was holy: what would you more?7 Then also when Paul preached the Gospell there in his fauourable restraint. This also wee grant: what more?8 And then also when Peter gathered and gouerned the Church there, calling it Babylon. We deny not this. And though I can be well content that you call Rome Babylon, for I doubt not, but it is the same of whichh Iohn writes so much in the Reuelation, the mother of whoredomes, and abominations of the earth; yet I cannot be so easily perswaded thati Peter ⟨p. 180⟩
hDVR. Saint John speaketh of Rome when it yet abhorred the saith of Christ, a•d persecuted Christians. WHIT. pag. 512. Nay S. J••n described Rome as it was restored and reedified by Antichrist, for when •e w••teth Apoc. 18.•. who seeth not that this cannot be understood of ancient Rome, but of Rome when it was the habitation of Saints rather then Devils, and the hold of the Spirit of God rather then foul spirits.DVR. Saint Iohn speaketh of Rome vvhen it yet abhorred the saith of Christ, a•d persecuted Christians. WHIT. pag. 512. Nay S. J••n described Rome as it was restored and reedified by Antichrist, for when •e w••teth
Now I hope at length you will rest and be satisfied. Nay, but you proceed still unto the ages that succeeded: Then when Clemens governed the Church: then also, when the Heathen Emperors massacred the Bishops of Rome: Even then I confess, Rome was an excellent Church of Christ. Will this content you? Nay further you say; Then also when Damasus, Siricius, Anastasius, Innocentius executed the Apostolic function. This is not to descend by degrees, but to ⟨p. 181⟩leap; for you hasten too fast from the forenamed to these. But how will you persuade us to yield you thus much; Because Calvin (as you say) frankly confesseth, 1that as yet they had not digressed from the doctrine of the Gospel: Do not you, Campian, catch hold of that which no man will give you, nor be too confident of others liberality? Calvin doth not grant that which you take for granted: therefore you must redeliver it. Calvin in that place answereth to your overworn argument of succession, and she weth that the purpose of the Fathers, when they alleged the succession of Bishops, was not to prove those to be true Churches, where Bishops succeeded one another: but this first they assumed as most certain, that from the beginning of the Church unto the ages, whereof they speak, there was no alteration in religion; and thus they opposed to the new broached errors that doctrine which from the times of the Apostles was still preserved in the Church. Calvin then saith not that they hadk altered nothing in any point of faith, but that the Fathers used this argument of succession only in those cases, wherein it might appear they had innovated and altered nothing. Wherefore as we grant that the Church of Rome in the time of these Bishops was the true Church of Christ; but that they in nothing digressed from the doctrine of the Gospel, that Calvin never confessed, and we constantly deny. To say nothing of the rest. Thusl Syricius swerved from the ⟨p. 182⟩doctrine of the Gospel, when he entangled the Ministers of the word with the snares of enforced continency: and this doubtless was no small digression, but a plain departing from them Apostolic doctrine.5 Now at length you make a stay, and pursue the histories of the Church no further: only you demand, when Rome ceased to be as formerly it had bin; unto which question we have sufficiently answered.
Now I hope at length you will rest and be satisfied. Nay, but you proceed still vnto the ages that succeeded: Then when Clemens gouerned the Church: then also, when the Heathen Emperours massacred the Bishops of Rome: Euen then I confesse, Rome was an excellent Church of Christ. Will this content you? Nay further you say; Then also when Damasus, Siricius, Anastasius, Innocentius executed the Apostolike function. This is not to discend by degrees, but to ⟨p. 181⟩leape; for you hasten too fast from the forenamed to these. But how will you perswade vs to yeeld you thus much; Because Caluin (as you say) frankly confesseth, 1that as yet they had not digressed from the doctrine of the Gospell: Doe not you, Campian, catch hold of that which no man will giue you, nor be too confident of others liberalitie? Caluin doth not grant that which you take for granted: therefore you must redeliuer it. Caluin in that place answereth to your ouerworne argument of succession, and she weth that the purpose of the Fathers, when they alleaged the succession of Bishops, was not to proue those to be true Churches, where Bishops succeeded one another: but this first they assumed as most certaine, that from the beginning of the Church vnto the ages, whereof they speake, there was no alteration in religion; and thus they opposed to the new broched errors that doctrine which from the times of the Apostles was still preserued in the Church. Caluin then saith not that they hadk altered nothing in any point of faith, but that the Fathers vsed this argument of succession onely in those cases, wherein it might appeare they had innouated and altered nothing. Wherefore as we grant that the Church of Rome in the time of these Bishops was the true Church of Christ; but that they in nothing digressed from the doctrine of the Gospell, that Caluin neuer confessed, and wee constantly denie. To say nothing of the rest. Thusl Syricius swarued from the ⟨p. 182⟩doctrine of the Gospell, when he intangled the Ministers of the word with the snares of inforced continencie: and this doubtlesse was no small digression, but a plaine departing frō them Apostolike doctrine.5 Now at length you make a stay, and pursue the histories of the Church no further: only you demaund, when Rome ceased to be as formerly it had bin; vnto which question we haue sufficiently answered.
1I•st. lib. 4. cap. 2. s•ct. 3 & Epist. ad Sad•l.
kDVR. Do you acknowledge it to be the Church of Christ, which swerveth and strayeth from the Apostles doctrine▪ what can be spoken more absurdly. WHIT. pag. 513. You that object absurdity to others are most absurd your self, for w•• not the Church of the lewes even then when it abounded with many errors, the Church of God. The Corinthians and Galatians, when they had many ways declined from the doctrine of the Gospel, yet S. Paul saluted them […] Churches, 1 Cor. 1.2. Gal. 1.2. which he would not have done, if he had not acknowledged them to be Churches for all their errors.DVR. Do you acknowledge it to bee the Church of Christ, vvhich swarueth and strayeth from the Apostles doctrine▪ vvhat can be sp•ken more absurdly. WHIT. pag. 513. You that obiect absurditie to others are most absurde your selfe, for vv•• not the Church of the lewes euen then when it abounded with many errors, the Church of God. The Corinthians and Galathians, when they had many waies declined from the doctrine of the Gospell, yet S. Paul saluted them 〈…〉 Churches, 1 Cor. 1.2. Gal. 1.2. which he would not haue done, if he had not acknowledged them to be Churches for all their errors.
lDVR. This error is common to you and many of your fello•es: for Syricius was not the first, we ha•e a direct Canon of the Councell of Carthage, which numbereth this among the Apostolic traditions, Carthag. 1. Can. 2. so hath Clemen• it in his Epistle to S. James the Lords brother. Amongest the Grecians the custom of the Priests wa• not to keep their wives as wives which they bad before their Priest-bood, Epiphan. hrel. 59. And Hierome against Viilantius vigeth this ancient custom of the Church. WHIT. pag. 514. But your Gratian writeth that Syritius was the first maker of this impious law. The which many Priests before him of their own acccrd embraced single life, yet none was compelled by law against his will: and as for the Councell of Carthage, it was held in the time of this Syricius. And so not before him, for your Clemens you know he is of no worth, but a mere counterfeit. That you report of the Grecians is incredible, when as in the Councell of Nice Paphuntius hindered this law, neither would the Grecians ever endure this snare: Hierome indeed produceth an old custom, but no Apostolic, nor yet perpetual custom.
If you make doubt whether it now be the same it was, you may also if you list doubt whether the sun shine at noon. For this is as clear and without question, as that the present city of Rome, is become unlike the ancient flourishing Romans common wealth. And as he could not find Samnius in Samnius, and the other of whom the Epigram speaketh ⟨p. 183⟩wittily, who found nought of Rome in the middest of Rome. So if you would now in the presentn Romish Church, seek for the ancient Church of Rome, you shall never find it, for she hath now lost, not the life only, but the very colour and appearance of the true Church.
If you make doubt whether it now bee the same it was, you may also if you list doubt whether the sunne shine at noone. For this is as cleere and without question, as that the present citie of Rome, is become vnlike the auncient flourishing Romans common wealth. And as hee could not find Samnius in Samnius, and the other of whom the Epigram speaketh ⟨p. 183⟩wittily, who found nought of Rome in the middest of Rome. So if you would now in the presentn Romish Church, seek for the auncient Church of Rome, you shall neuer find it, for shee hath now lost, not the life only, but the very colour and appearance of the true Church.
nDVR. What impudency is this? there was never heresy that assaulted this Church, of which it carried not the victory. As over the Donatists, Jovinian, Pelagius the Britain and others. WHIT. pag. 521. I contempe your reproaches, and stand to that I have said. The Church of Rome which once flourished is now so oppressed with Antichrist, that besides the outward face, image, countenance of a Church, & a vain pomp, there is nothing else left in it. There is no word but it is corrupted with pestiferous leaved, no Sacrament but polluted with sacrilege and corruption, no discipline but Antichristian: I pass not for your Popes chair; your College of Cardinals, the glory of your Bishops, your Priests, Monks, Temples, riches, nothing move me; I search for a living Church, not bare walls, for a man, not a picture, for a body, not a shadow: as for your criumphes you boast of, they are no more proper to the true Church, then the triumphs of old Rome over Pyrrhus, Hannibal, Perses, Antiochus, are to be esteemed the triumphs of Rome now being. Finally as for Pelagius, he triumphed over the whole Popish kingdom. For did he not teach that grace was inbred in nature? and your Popish crew defendeth the same; who seeth not then Pelagius sitting in your triumphant chariot?DVR. VVhat impudencie is this? there vvas neuer heresie that assaulted this Church, of vvhich it caried not the victorie. As ouer the Donatists, Iouinian, Pelagius the Britaine and others. WHIT. pag. 521. I contempe your reproches, and stand to that I haue saide. The Church of Rome vvhich once flourished is novv so oppressed vvith Antichrist, that besides the outvvard face, image, countenance of a Church, & a vaine pompe, there is nothing else left in it. There is no vvord but it is corrupted vvith pestiferous leaued, no Sacrament but polluted vvith sacriledge and corruption, no discipline but Antichristian: I passe not for your Popes chaire; your Colledge of Cardinals, the glorie of your Bishops, your Priests, Monkes, Temples, riches, nothing moue me; I search for a liuing Church, not bare walles, for a man, not a picture, for a body, not a shadow: as for your criumphes you boast of, they are no more proper to the true Church, then the triumphes of old Rome ouer Pyrrhus, Anniball, Perses, Antiochus, are to be esteemed the triumphes of Rome novv being. Finally as for Pelagius, he triumphed ouer the whole Popish kingdome. For did he not teach that grace was inbred in nature? and your Popish crevv defendeth the same; who seeth not then Pelagius sitting in your triumphant chariot?
Seeing therefore all other things fail you, and also Histories themselves, on which you seemed much to rely, help you nothing, what remaineth but one of these two? either must you yield before the battle, or die in the battle. I wish you would once at length take knowledge of that which Nazianzen writeth. We have learned it to be commendable, aswell to yield unto reason, as with reason to overcome.
Seeing therefore all other things faile you, and also Histories themselues, on which you seemed much to relie, helpe you nothing, what remaineth but one of these two? either must you yeeld before the battaile, or die in the battaile. I wish you would once at length take knowledge of that which Nazianzen writeth. We haue learned it to bee commendable, aswell to yeeld vnto reason, as with reason to ouercome.
When that (most excellent men) I revolve in my mind amongst many heresies wherewith I have to do, certain monstrous opinions of such as are fantastically given; I could not but condemn my self of slothfulness and cowardliness, if making trial thereof, I should be afraid of any mans activity and strength: let him be as eloquent as ye would wish, let him be as much exercised as you would desire, yea let him be one that hath throughly studied all sorts of books, yet must he needs be to seek, both for matter and words also when he shall undertake to maintain those his unpossible propositions as follow: for (if he perhaps will give his consent) we will dispute of God, of Christ, of Man, of sin, of Justice, of Sacraments, and of Manners, I will try whether they dare maintain their opinions, & such sayings, as they, lingering after their own lure, have bruited abroad by their writings. God grant they will acknowledge these their owna axioms:* God is the author and cause of sin, willing, prompting, making, commanding, and working it, and their governing the wicked counsels of naughty men.* The adultery of David, and the treason of the Traitor Judas, was as properly the work of God, as the calling of S. Paul was. This monstrous doctrine, whereof Philip, Melanchthon was once ashamed, yet Martin Luther from whose breast Philip sucked the same, as highly extolleth, as though it had been some heavenly oracle, and therefore matcheth his said scholar in a manner with the Apostle S. Paul. I will ⟨p. 185⟩demand also what mind Luther was of whom the English Calvinists affirm to have been a man sent from God to lighten the Word, when he razed out of the Litany used in the Church this verse, O blessed Trinity, and one God have mercy upon us: then in order I will proceed to the person ofo Christ, & demand of them, what these Paradoxes mean, whereas the Catholic Church holdeth that Christ is the Son of God, and God of God.* Calvin saith that Christ is God of himself, and Beza affirmeth that he was not begotten of the substance of the Father: also be it agreed (saith he) that there are in Christ two unions consisting in one substance, the one of the soul with the flesh, and the other of the Divinity with the humanity. That place of S.c John, I and the Father are one, doth not prove that Christ is God of one substance with God the Father:
WHen that (most excellent men) I reuolue in my mind amongst many heresies wherewith I haue to doe, certaine mōstrous opinions of such as are fantasticallie giuen; I could not but condemne my self of slouthfulnes and cowardlines, if making triall thereof, I should bee afraid of any mans actiuitie and strength: let him be as eloquent as yee would wish, let him be as much exercised as you would desire, yea let him be one that hath throughly studied all sorts of books, yet must he needs be to seeke, both for matter and words also when he shall vndertake to maintaine those his vnpossible propositions as follow: for (if he perhaps will giue his consent) we will dispute of God, of Christ, of Man, of sinne, of Iustice, of Sacraments, and of Manners, I will trie whether they dare maintaine their opinions, & such sayings, as they, lingring after their owne lure, haue bruted abroad by their writings. God graunt they will acknowledge these their ownea axiomes:* God is the author and cause of sinne, willing, prompting, making, commaunding, and working it, and their gouerning the wicked counsels of naughty men.* The adultery of Dauid, and the treason of the Traitor Iudas, was as properly the worke of God, as the calling of S. Paul was. This monstrous doctrine, whereof Philip, Melancthon was once ashamed, yet Martin Luther from whose brest Philip suckt the same, as highly extolleth, as though it had been some heauenly oracle, and therefore matcheth his said scholler in a manner with the Apostle S. Paul. I will ⟨p. 185⟩demaund also what mind Luther was of whom the English Caluinists affirme to haue been a man sent from God to lighten the Word, when hee razed out of the Letany vsed in the Church this verse, O blessed Trinitie, and one God haue mercy vpon vs: then in order I will proceed to the person ofo Christ, & demaund of them, what these Paradoxes meane, whereas the Catholike Church holdeth that Christ is the Son of God, and God of God.* Caluin saith that Christ is God of himselfe, and Beza affirmeth that he was not begotten of the substance of the Father: also be it agreed (saith he) that there are in Christ two vnions consisting in one substance, the one of the soule with the flesh, and the other of the Diuinity with the humanity. That place of S.c
aDe Deo. Cal. Inst. lib. 1. cap. 18. lib 2. cap. 4. lib. 3. cap. 23. & 24. Pet. Mart. in 1. Sam. 2. Methanct. in cap. Rom. 8. Wittem. 1524. Sic docet Luther. in asser. 36. & in resol. asser. 36. & in lib. de ser. arbit. Praesat. in anno Phil. In Apol. Eccl. Ang. Vide Ench. pre. an. 1543De Deo. Cal. Inst. lib. 1. cap. 18. lib 2. cap. 4. lib. 3. cap. 23. & 24. Pet. Mart. in 1. Sam. 2. Methanct. in cap. Rom. 8. VVittem. 1524. Sic docet Luther. in asser. 36. & in resol. asser. 36. & in lib. de ser. arbit. Praesat. in anno Phil. In Apol. Eccl. Ang. Vide Ench. pre. an. 1543
*This is most false, not any one of our men have affirmed that God is the author of sin.This is most false, not any one of our men haue affirmed that God is the author of sinne.
*This is false, we do not so compare together.This is false, we do not so compare togither.
oDe Christ. Inst. lib. 1. c. 13. nu. 23. & 24. Beza in Hess. Beza contra Schmidel. lib. de unit. Hypost. dua. in Christ. not.De Christ. Inst. lib. 1. c. 13. nu. 23. & 24. Beza in Hess. Beza contra Schmidel. lib. de vnit. Hypost. dua. in Christ. nat.
*Christ is Son of the Father, but God of himself.Christ is Son of the Father, but God of himselfe.
yea and my soul (* saithd Luther) cannot brook this word (Homovotin.) Proceed ye forward,e Christ from his infancy was not full of grace, but daily increased in gifts of the mind, as other men usually do, and waxed wiser through experience every day more then other, so that in his childhood he was subject tof ignorance, which is all one as if they should say that Christ was corrupted, with the spot and stain of* original sin. But listen and you shall know more pernicious doctrine then this. Christ when he prayed in the garden, and plentifully sweat both water and blood, trembled through fear, and sensibly feeling of eternal damnation, uttered certain speeches without reason, and without consent of the inward spirit, yea speeches without consideration through the vehemency of his grief: the which speeches as unadvisedly spoken, he quickly corrected. Is there any more such stuff? give diligent ear: Christ, when he cried out with a loud voice, hanging on the Cross, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me, was tormented with the flames of hell fire, he let over-slip* himg desperate speeches, being no otherwise affectioned, then if he should have died an eternal ⟨p. 186⟩death; if they have any worse stuff then this, let them empty their gorge. Christ they say, descended into hell, that is, Christ after he was dead, tasted of the pains of hell, no whith less then the damned souls do, saving that he was to be restored again; for as much as by his corporal death, he could have profited us nothing, it was therefore requisite that hisi soul also should strive with eternal death, and in this manner to tolerate the pain, and pay the ransom of our sins. And lest peradventure any man should suspect, that this escaped Calvin by oversight, the saidk Calvin calleth you all forlorn knaves, if any of you, have debated upon this* comfortable doctrine, oh cursed times! oh cursed days! what miserable doctrine have you bred up?
yea and my soule (* saithd Luther) cannot brooke this word (Homouotin.) Proceed yee forward,e Christ from his infancie was not full of grace, but daily encreased in gifts of the mind, as other men vsually doe, and waxed wiser through experience euery daie more then other, so that in his childhood he was subiect tof ignorance, which is all one as if they should say that Christ was corrupted, with the spot and staine of* originall sinne. But listen and you shall know more pernitious doctrine then this. Christ when he praied in the garden, and plentifully sweat both water and blood, trembled through feare, and sensiblie feeling of eternall damnation, vttered certaine speeches without reason, and without consent of the inward spirit, yea speeches without consideration through the vehemencie of his griefe: the which speeches as vnaduisedly spoken, he quickly corrected. Is there any more such stuff? giue diligēt eare: Christ, whē he cried out with a loud voice, hanging on the Crosse, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me, was tormented with the flames of hell fire, he let ouer-slip* himg desperate speeches, being no otherwise affectioned, then if he should haue died an eternall ⟨p. 186⟩death; if they haue any worse stuffe then this, let them emptie their gorge. Christ they saie, descended into hell, that is, Christ after he was dead, tasted of the paines of hell, nowhith lesse then the damned soules doe, sauing that he was to be restored againe; for as much as by his corporall death, he could haue profited vs nothing, it was therefore requisit that hisi soule also should striue with eternall death, and in this manner to tolerate the paine, and paye the ransome of our sins. And lest peraduenture any man should suspect, that this escaped Caluin by ouersight, the said
*This is false, read the answer.This is false, reade the answere.
fLuth. Loss. Hem. Mela. in Evang. de. 1. post. Epist. Marl. in Matt. 26. Call. in Har. Evan Brentius in Luc. par. 2. Hom. 65. & in Catech. an. 1551. & in Joh. Hom. 54.Luth. Loss. Hem. Mela. in Euang. de. 1. post. Epist. Marl. in Matt. 26. Cal. in Har. Euan Brentius in Luc. par. 2. Hom. 65. & in Catech. an. 1551. & in Ioh. Hom. 54.
*This is false, for all ignorance riseth not from original corruption.This is false, for all ignorance riseth not from originall corruption.
*This is false, neither Birutius nor any of our men ever said so.This is false, neither Birutius nor any of our men euer said so.
gCalvin. in Har. Evang. in eand. sent. Loss. in Matth. 26.Caluin. in Har. Euang. in eand. sent. Loss. in Matth. 26.
hSchmidel. conci. de Pass & c•• ua Dom. Aepinus Come. in Psal. 16.Schmidel. conci. de Pass & c•• ua Dom. Aepinus Com. in Psal. 16.
iCalvin. Instit lib. 2. cap. 16. Burn. in Catechis. 1551.
Hath that precious and princely blood, which gushed out of the torn pierced side of that most innocent Lamb Christ Jesus (every little drop of which blood, for the worthiness of the sacrifice, was sufficient to have redeemed a thousand worlds) relieved mankind nothing at all,1 except the man Christ Jesus the mediator between God and man had suffered also the* second death, the death of the soul, the want of grace, which is due only for sin, and detestable blasphemy? In comparison of this madness.3 Bucer shall seem modest, though absolutely he is indeed very impudent in that he taketh this word Infernus in the Creed only to signify Sepulchrum, that is, a grave, by a very over thou art figure Epexegesis, (which is a latter recital, or rather by a foolish and fond figure, which is commonly called Tautologia,) that is an idle and superfluous telling of one•tale often. Of the English sectaries, some are accustomed to hang upon Calvin, whom they make their God, and some to take part with Bucer their great master. Some also mutter in their sleeves against this article, devising with themselves how without causing of an uproar, it may be quite cut out of the Creed, that it molest them no more. That, that also was* attempted in a certain assembly at London, I remember one Richard ⟨p. 187⟩Chenie, a miserable old man, that was amongst them told me, who though he was evilly entreated of thieves abroad, yet did he not repair home into his fathers house. And thus far, as concerning Christ his own person: now what say they of man? marry that thel Image* of God is clean blotted out of a man, so that there is not so much as one spark of goodness remaining in him. His whole nature as touching all the whole faculties of the soul, is so quite altered, that no man not even he that is lately christened, nor any holy virtuous man, is any thing else inwardly, but mere corruption and contagion; but whereto tendeth this? forsooth to no other purpose, but that they who will snatch at heaven, by their only faith, leading their lives in loosest sort, may accuse nature, may despair to attain to virtue, and cast off the burden of the holy Commandments from their backs.
Hath that precious and princely blood, which gushed out of the torne pierced side of that most innocent Lambe Christ Iesus (euery little drop of which blood, for the worthines of the sacrifice, was sufficient to haue redeemed a thousand worlds) reliened mankind nothing at all,1 except the man Christ Iesus the mediator betweene God and man had suffred also the* second death, the death of the soule, the want of grace, which is due only for sinne, and detestable blasphemie? In comparison of this madnes.3 Bucer shall seeme modest, though absolutely he is indeed very impudent in that he taketh this word Infernus in the Creed only to signifie Sepulchrum, that is, a graue, by a very ouer thou art figure Epexegesis, (which is a latter recitall, or rather by a foolish and fond figure, which is commonly called Tautologia,) that is an idle and superfluous telling of one•tale often. Of the English sectaries, some are accustomed to hang vpon Caluin, whom they make their God, and some to take part with Bucer their great master. Some also mutter in their slieues against this article, dewising with themselues how without causing of an vproare, it may be quite cut out of the Creed, that it molest them no more. That, that also was* attempted in a certaine assemblie at London, I remember one Richard ⟨p. 187⟩Chenie, a miserable old man, that was amongst them told mee, who though hee was euilly intreated of theeues abroad, yet did hee not repaire home into his fathers house. And thus farre, as concerning Christ his owne person: now what say they of man? marry that thel Image* of God is cleane blotted out of a mā, so that there is not so much as one spark of goodnes remaining in him. His whole nature as touching all the whole faculties of the soule, is so quite altered, that no man not euen he that is lately christened, nor any holy vertuous man, is any thing else inwardly, but meere corruption and contagion; but whereto tendeth this? forsooth to no other purpose, but that they who will snatch at heauen, by their onlie faith, leading their liues in loosest sort, may accuse nature, may despaire to attaine to vertue, and cast off the burden of the holy Commandements from their backes.
*This is most false, this was never assayed in our Church.This is most false, this was neuer assayed in our Church.
lDe Homine Illyri. in par. lib. de ••t. Pec. col. Inst. lib. 2. ca. 3 Sacer. de cons. ve. Eccl. Aepin. de ••b. & Pecc. Sanct. Rem. contra Cens. Col. De peccato.
. Further vvhat haue I else spoken that Eusebius lib. 3. cap. 32. and Nicephorus lib. 3. cap. 7. & 10. haue not before time vvritten? And vvhen I vvrit these things, I remembred vvell those promises and many other of that kind. But I knovv that they belong to the Church of the elect, and hinder not, but that particular Churches may bee corrupted by error and false doctrine. DVR. Eusebius doth not anouch these from Polycrates, but from Hegesippus, vvho called the Church a Virgin, because heretikes as yet had not openly opposed her, and corrupted the seates of the Apostles: and did not say that shee vvas corrupted after them. WHIT. pag. 490. The matter is not great vvhich of them spake the vvords, for vvhosoeuer shall vvergh the vvords, shall see that the sense of them is as I haue said. And if the Church vvas euer to remaine a chast and pure Virgin, hovv foolish should that Hegesippus be in affirming that hitherto she remained a Virgin, or vvhat may his meaning bee else then that the Apostles being dead, she began to be corrupted, vvhich the vvords follovving proue, vvhen that age vvas ouerpassed; then she began to be corrupted vvith impious error? Yea and vvhen you say that as yet heretikes had not assaulted her, nor inuaded the tents of the Apostles, either you say nothing, or you graunt that after the Apostles time, they did assault her, and preuaile against her.
eDVR. Nay rather if he were living he would wonder at your fo•lie, who are either so ignorant or so forgetful, that you observe not, how Polycrates sent letters to Pope Victor touching the new controversy about the celebration of the Passover. WHIT. pag. 492. It seemeth in policy you pass over this place in silence, without answer; and tell us a tale of another different thing, which affordeth us a strong argument against the tyranny of the Pope: for if the most learned and holy Bishops of the Greek Churches, dissented greatly from the Pope in the celebration of Easter, and would not follow the custom of the Pope and Romish Church, though the Pope sought it by all means, who can doubt, but that this supreme power of the Pope over all Churches under Christ as his Vicar, was unknown and unheard of among them?DVR. Nay rather if hee were liuing hee would wonder at your fo•lie, who are either so ignorant or so forgetfull, that you obserue not, hovv Polycrates sent letters to Pope Victor touching the new cōtrouersie about the cele bration of the Passeouer. WHIT. pag. 492. It seemeth in policie you passe ouer this place in silence, without answere; and tel vs a tale of another different thing, which affordeth vs a strong argument against the tyranny of the Pope: for if the most learned and holy Bishops of the Greeke Churches, dissented greatly from the Pope in the celebration of Easter, and would not follow the custome of the Pope and Romish Church, though the Pope sought it by all meanes, who can doubt, but that this supreame power of the Pope ouer all Churches vnder Christ as his Vicar, was vnknowne and vnheard of among them?
3Act. •0.19.
41. Joh. •.18.1. Ioh. •.18.
meanes Rome in this place; here Campian you are alwaies at a nonplus, & could yet neuer pro•ue that Peter was at Rome. But you take this for granted, and as alreadie prooued; which if any man once deny, then like the Mathematicians, you haue done, and can goe no further. But why may I not reasonably think, that Peter meaneth that Babylon, which once was the chiefe Citie of the Assi•ians, in which Citie certeinly were many Iewes,
vnto whom Peter was appointed Apostle peculiarly. If I should set downe that which I could alleage in this cause, I feare I should trie your patience too much. In the meane time I allow well your confession that Rome is Babylon, and hereafter, at your leisure, you may declare vpon what occasion the name of it was altered.
.•. who seeth not that this cannot be vnderstood of auncient Rome, but of Rome when it was the habitation of Saints rather then Diuels, and the hold of the Spirit of God rather then foule spirits.
iDVR. Yet Oecumenius, Hierome, Eusebius. Tertullian, to say nothing of others, do grant it And to make question of Peters being at Rome, is as if you should doubt, whether ever Romulus, Julius Caeser, or Pompey was there. For if Cyprian, Eusebius, Do•o•heus, Epiphanius, Optatus, Hicrom, and many others may not be believed, what shall ever be certain in any History? WHIT pag. 508. All these testimonies prove nothing that I have either doubted of or denied; for I desire authority of Scriptures, not the opinions of men; I desire every man who desireth salvation to weigh this one thing well. That whereas the whole government & Hierarchy of the Papacy hangeth on this foundation, that S. Peter was Bishop of Rome, yet they have no word in the Scriptures to show that he ever was so: and so the whole Papacy is hanged upon the conjectures of men, as upon a rotten thread; for what if many Histories say he was there, if the Scripture say no such thing, what assurance can be of it for matter of faith, the mind must needs be suspicious and doubtful; it is true that the received opinion is that he was there. But who knoweth not that, that which one delivereth at the first, may increase by fame, and be by many reserved to posterity. At the first an ancient writer mentioned S. Peters apposing of Simon Magus and saith it was at Rome, and him have many followed since: and hence from the common rumours and suspicions of men sprung up the Popes chair•. And who shall then give assurance of faith in this thing, when there is no place of Scripture for it, nay when many places are against it. These specially Galat. 2.7.9. Now if S. Peter should be Bishop of Rome & for so many years, it was against both his order of life and his faith. Act. 28.22.23. Now they could not be so ignorant, if that S. Peter for so many years before had governed that Church: S. Paul abode in Rome two years and thence writ many Epistles, and in them spake of many of the brethren, but never once named S. Peter; supole you he would be two years from his Church? Galat. 2.1.2. But he ought rather to have been at Rome, as a good Bishop ought to be with his flock, unless you can prove he might substitute a Vicar. Besides the Histories themselves are in such variety of opinions, that you can hardly tell whom to follow: some say he came •o Rome in the first year of Claudius the Emperor, some in the second, some in the fou•••, and some in the tenth year: and it may be that none of these is true, sure it is all cannot be true.DVR. Yet Oecumenius, Hierome, Eusebius. Tertullian, to say nothing of others, do graunt it And to make question of Peters being at Rome, is as if you should doubt, whether euer Romulus, Iulius Caeser, or Pompeie was there. For if Cyprian, Eusebius, Do•o•heus, Epiphanius, Optatus, Hicrom, and many others may not be beleeued, vvhat shall euer be certeine in any History? WHIT pag. 508. All these testimonies proue nothing that I haue either doubted of or denied; for I desire authority of Scriptures, not the opinions of men; I desire euery man who desireth saluation to weigh this one thing well. That whereas the whole gouernment & Hierarchy of the Papacie hangeth on this soundation, that S. Peter was Bishop of Rome, yet they haue no word in the Scriptures to shew that he euer was so: and so the whole Papacie is hanged vpon the coniectures of men, as vpon a rotten threed; for what if many Histories say he was there, if the Scripture say no such thing, what assurance can be of it for matter of faith, the mind must needs bee suspicious and doubtfull; it is true that the receiued opinion is that hee was there. But who knoweth not that, that which one deliuereth at the first, may increase by fame, and be by many reserued to posterity. At the first an auncient writer mentioned S. Peters apposing of Symon Magus and saith it was at Rome, and him haue many followed since: and hence from the common rumors and suspi•ions of men sprung vp the Popes chair•. And who shall then giue assurance of faith in this thing, when there is no place of Scripture for it, nay when many places are against it. These specially Galat. 2.7.9. Now if S. Peter should be Bishop of Rome & for so many yeares, it vvas against both his order of life and his faith. Act. 28.22.23. Novv they could not be so ignorant, if that S. Peter for so many yeares before had gouerned that Church: S. Paul abode in Rome tvvo yeares and thence writ many Ep•stles, and in them spake of many of the brethren, but neuer once named S. Peter; supole you hee vvould bee tvvo yeares from his Church? Galat. 2.1.2. But he ought rather to haue been at Rome, as a good Bishop ought to be vvith his flocke, vnlesse you can proue he might substitute a Vicar. Besides the Histories themselues are in such •ariety of opinions, that you can hardly tell vvhom to follovv: some say he came •o Rome in the first yeare of Claud•us the Emperour, some in the second, some in the fou, and some in the tenth yeare: and it may be that none of these is true, sure it is all cannot be true.
DVR. This error is common to you and many of your fello•es: for Syricius vvas not the first, vve ha•e a direct Canon of the Councell of Carthage, vvhich numbreth this among the Apostolike tr•ditions, Carthag. 1. Can. 2. so hath Clemen• it in his Epistle to S. Iames the Lords brother. Amongest the Grecians the custome of the Priests wa• not to keepe their wiues as wiues which they bad before their Priest-bood, Epiphan. h••rel. 59. And Hierome against Vi•ilantius vigeth this auncient custome of the Church. WHIT. pag. 514. But your Gratian writeth that Syritius was the first maker of this impious law. The which many Priests before him of their owne acccrd embraced single life, yet none was compelled by law against his will: and as for the Councell of Carthage, it was held in the time of this Syricius. And so not before him, for your Cleme•s you knovv hee is of no vvorth, but a meere counterfeite. That you report of the Grecians is incredible, vvhen as in the Councell of Nice Paphuntius hindred this lavv, neither vvould the Grecians euer endure this snare: Hierome indeed produceth an old custome, but no Apostolike, nor yet perpetuall custome.
mDVR. What Catholic ever said that marriage was evil? S. Paul teacheth us to take beedo of the Manichees and Gnostics, and other heretics of that sort. WHIT. pag. 516. To your question my answer is easy: your Syricius and Innocent when they feared Ministers from marriage, used those reasons which either condemned marriages simply, or else they conclude nothing. For when they thus reason, Priests may not marry, because they must be the temple and the vessel of the Lord, and the Chapel of the holy Ghost, therefore they ought not to give themselves to chambering and uncleanness, because they ought to be holy: because they shall be polluted with carnal concupiscence, and to the unclean all things are unclean: because they who are in the flesh cannot please God. What I pray you is this else but to affirm that marriages are evil, impure, and wicked? Make these then no Catholics, or else your question is answered. To tie S. Paul to those ancient heretics only, is absurd, as if he delivered not a perpetual doctrine for all times: yea and he hath taxed not those only who condemn marriage, but who forbid them, which cannot be denied but your Pope and Church doth.DVR. VVhat Catholike euer said that marriage was euill? S. Paul teacheth vs to take beedo of the Manichies and Gnostikes, and other heretikes of that sort. WHIT. pag. 516. To your question my ansvvere is easie: your Syricius and Innocent vvhen they feared Ministers from marriage, vsed those reasons vvhich either condemned marriages simplie, or els they conclude nothing. For vvhen they thus reason, Priests may not marrie, because they must be the temple and the vessell of the Lord, and the Chappell of the holy Ghost, therefore they ought not to giue themselues to chambering and vncleannes, because they ought to be holy: because they shall bee polluted vvith carnall concupiscence, and to the vncleane all things are vncleane: because they vvho are in the flesh cannot please God. What I pray you is this else but to affirme that marriages are euill, impure, and vvicked? Make these then no Catholikes, or else your question is ansvvered. To tye S. Paul to those auncient heretikes only, is absurde, as if he deliuered not a perpetuall doctrine for all times: yea and he hath taxed not those only vvho condemne marriage, but vvho forbid them, vvhich cannot be denied but your Pope and Church doth.
