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…

WILLIAM WHITAKERS. The answer to the eighth Reason, which is the Paradoxes of our adversaries.

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

Hierome said that he would not have any man to be patient, if he were suspected of heresy. And therefore, Campian, in so much the worser part do I take it, that these which you term Paradoxes, being so false, so many, and so horrible, be now by you objected against us. And certainly you that have ever exceeded all other Papists in impudency and audaciousness, have in this place in very ⟨p. 192⟩deed surpassed your self: for unless you had quite and clean put off both all religion of God, and reverence toward men, and now of late made shipwreck of your own conscience, and cast off utterly all humanity, you would never have admitted so much impiety into your self, as to upbraid us with these monstrous opinions. But I perceive what you intend: for you hope that by slandering boldly, as he being most like you, was wont to say, somewhat would always clean fast. For sith you lack true imputations, whereby you might oppugn our Churches, it remained that either you should leave off writing, which had been your honestest way, or at lest devise some slanders, which you would cast like unomed darts upon us; which thing is both in it self very filthy, and also a sure argument of your desperateness. But now if I shall so wipe away these your Paradoxes and impossibilities, that all men may perceive, they were ascribed to us by you most falsely and most impudently; I do crave not only of all men of our Universities, but also of all Christians, that have care of true religion, and of their own salvation, that they will not suffer themselves to be misled by any lies and impostures of the adversary, from that holy doctrine which they have learned. Wherefore I will set upon these your monsters, Campian, that after I have stopped your mouth, being full of blasphemy, both the glory of God, which is in hand, and our innocency, which is oppugned, may be preserved from your violence. You say, the disputation shall be, if they please, of God, of Christ, of Man, of Sin, of Righteousness, of the Sacraments, of Manners. But we are ready to dispute with you not only about these, but also about other points, which are now in difference: of the Scripture, of the Church, of the Bishop of Rome, of Transubstantiation, of Freewill, of Indulgences, of Purgatory, and of the rest of your doctrines.

HIerome said that hee would not haue any man to bee patient, if hee were suspected of heresie. And therefore, Campian, in so much the worser part do I take it, that these which you terme Paradoxes, being so false, so many, and so horrible, be now by you obiected against vs. And certainlie you that haue euer exceeded all other Papists in impudency and audaciousnes, haue in this place in very ⟨p. 192⟩deed surpassed your selfe: for vnlesse you had quite and cleane put off both all religion of God, and reuerence toward men, and now of late made shipwracke of your owne conscience, and cast off vtterly all humanity, you would neuer haue admitted so much impietie into your selfe, as to vpbraide vs with these monstrous opinions. But I perceiue what you intend: for you hope that by slaundering boldly, as he being most like you, was wont to say, somewhat would alwaies cleane fast. For sith you lacke true imputations, whereby you might oppugne our Churches, it remained that either you should leaue off writing, which had been your honestest way, or at lest deuise some slaunders, which you would cast like vnomed darts vpon vs; which thing is both in it selfe very filthy, and also a sure argument of your desperatenes. But now if I shall so wipe away these your Paradoxes and impossibilities, that al men may perceiue, they were ascribed to vs by you most falsly and most impudently; I do craue not only of all men of our Vniuersities, but also of all Christiās, that haue care of true religion, and of their owne saluation, that they will not suffer themselues to be misled by any lies and impostures of the aduersarie, from that holy doctrine which they haue learned. Wherefore I will set vpon these your monsters, Campian, that after I haue stopt your mouth, being ful of blasphemy, both the glory of God, which is in hand, and our innocency, which is oppugned, may be preserued from your violence. You say, the disputation shall be, if they please, of God, of Christ, of Man, of Sinne, of Righteousnes, of the Sacraments, of Manners. But we are readie to dispute with you not only about these, but also about other points, which are now in difference: of the Scripture, of the Church, of the Bishop of Rome, of Transubstantiation, of Freewill, of Indulgences, of Purgatorie, and of the rest of your doctrines.

God (say you) is the willing, ¹suggesting, efficient, commanding, and working author and cause of sin, and such a one as therein governeth the impious counsels of the wicked. It is an horrible thing and not to be uttered, Campian, that any one should make God the author of sin: such an one were worthy to be smitten instantly by the Lord, with a thunderbolt into the deepest pit of hell. If^a Calvin, or Martyr, or Philip, or Luther, or any of us do affirm it, I do not deny but we are all guilty of horrible blasphemy and impiety. If I would largely prosecute this whole cause, which you do but touch, I should make no end: therefore I will declare in few words, both what we teach, and wherein you lie. We profess, not only that God is good, but also goodness it self; yea good in himself & in his own essence: in whom there is no evil; from whom nothing but good can come: who is so good, that all his doings be very good, and that not so much as any of his thoughts can be evil. These things we speak, these things we teach, these things we believe with our harts, and confess with our mouths. Seeing therefore God is so perfectly good, ⟨p. 194⟩that all his things be in a certain excellent manner good, it hath been in times past inquired and most gravely disputed, whence that evil sprung, which had spread so far, & what might be the cause of this evil. This question Augustine often handled, because of the Manichees,³ and therein also Thomas of Aquine employed himself much and diligently. We say that this evil was brought in by the^b Devil, who although he were made good in the beginning by the Lord, yet by his freewill he made defection from the Lord and sinned; •nd did persuade, and was the author unto man, to commit sin: from hence, whatsoever is sin either in the devils, or in men, did wholly flow, and not any the least piece of it had being from God, whom we do maintain by infinite testimonies of Scripture to be the author of no^c sin; and so do teach it in our schools and Churches.

Now then, Campian, with what face dare you, seeing you know these to be our doctrines, impute unto us such a slander not to be uttered, in so much as you affirm that we speak and think things flat contrary? But you say Calvin and Martyr have taught this ⟨p. 195⟩this thing. Nay rather they are wholly bent upon this, that they maintain, that can by no means be. It would be long to set down their words. I do beseech the Reader, to read with an attentive and peaceable mind, these same very places, which Campian hath abused unto slander. And if they do not both deny most plainly that God is the author and cause of sin; and also if they do not prove that they do most truly deny this, which they deny, I will submit my self to any punishment. But yet there is doubtless somewhat, which these men say, and which Campian doth attribute to them: what that is, let us consider.

Now then, Campian, with what face dare you, seeing you know these to bee our doctrines, impute vnto vs such a slāder not to be vttred, in so much as you affirme that we speake and thinke things flat contrary? But you say Caluin and Martyr haue taught this ⟨p. 195⟩this thing. Nay rather they are wholy bent vpō this, that they maintaine, that can by no meanes bee. It would be long to set down their words. I do beseech the Reader, to reade with an attentiue and peaceable mind, these same very places, which Campian hath abused vnto slander. And if they doe not both deny most plainly that God is the author and cause of sin; and also if they do not proue that they do most truly deny this, which they deny, I will submit my selfe to any punishment. But yet there is doubtlesse somewhat, which these men say, and which Campian doth attribute to them: what that is, let vs consider.

There was a certain inveterate opinion among men, that whatsoever sin was committed by any, all that was done, God only permitting, and not willing it: now they did separate this permission utterly from all will of God, so as they affirmed that God did no way will those things which he had permitted. But now seeing the Lord is to be held to^d permit those things which are done, not only that they might be done, as if he did no whit intermeddle himself in those things, nor had nothing at all to do therein, but also doth by his special providence so govern all things, as that nothing in the whole world happeneth against tha•, that he hath willed & decreed: certainly it cannot be denied, that God doth will after a sort those things, which the wicked do, & that this will of God is so effectual, that in the wicked actions of men, God doth execute his own decree. For in sin two things are to be considered, the action it self, and the corruption of the action: which thing your Aquine might teach you, which ⟨p. 196⟩also he learned from Augustine. The action so far forth as it is a thing and a work, is good; for God effecteth it: but so far forth as this self same action is vicious, it proceedeth not from God, but from the corrupt nature of man. Although therefore God who worketh all things in all, and against whose will nothing can be done; doth bring to pass a certain work of his in the evil actions of men; yet he doth those things that are just, nor ought he any way to be thought to be guilty of the sins of the men themselves: therefore that which a wicked man doth, that, as it is a sin, and as it hath the proper nature of sin, the Lord neither willeth nor suggesteth, nor biddeth, nor effecteth; nay he detesteth and revengeth it, and judgeth it worthy of everlasting punishment. But that which is spoken of the thing, that you apply maliciously and unskilfully, to the quality of the thing, that you may conclude, that God, because he is the author and cause of the action, is also the author and cause of whatsoever corruption is found in that action. I will not prosecute any long digression, nor overwhelm you with that multitude of Scriptures, which I could here use: for I have not taken upon me to expound any point in the Schools, but briefly to confute your filthy slander.

There was a certaine inueterate opinion among men, that whatsoeuer sinne was committed by any, all that was done, God only permitting, and not willing it: now they did separate this permission vtterly from all will of God, so as they affirmed that God did no way will those things which he had permitted. But now seeing the Lord is to be held to

Now answer me, Campian, do you think that that which any one doth, how wicked soever, is done whether God will or no? If you hold that any thing is done against Gods will, what providence or omnipotency do you leave him? For he which permits that to be done, which he would by no means have to be done, it is certain that he is not endued with so great power, as that he can forbid that which he would not have done. Wherefore you must need• confess that all things which are done, are done by the will of God; not that God doth will, that is, ⟨p. 197⟩^eallow the sins of men, but because by this means he doth exercise his judgement and execute his decree, which he both willeth and alloweth. God can use evil instruments well, and bring to pass by wicked men, those things which agree with his will and liking. Now whatsoever things God doth by evil instruments, those he neither doth nor alloweth, as they be evil things, but as they be his good and holy judgements: so as although he both willeth those things which be done, & doth move the wills of men, and doth exercise in evil instruments, though unknown to the instruments themselves, an effectual power, and doth govern the wicked counsels of impious men, that they can do nothing which he willeth not; yet both men are wicked, albeit they do those things which the Lord willeth; and the Lord is holy, howsoever he willeth those things which the wicked do. This may be made manifest by examples; but I had rather you should hear Augustine than me. When the Father (saith he) delivered the Son, ²and the Lord his body, and Judas the Lord by treachery, why is God just in this delivery, and man guilty, but because in one thing which they did, the cause was not one for which they did it? Again, In that the wicked sin, it is their own: in that in sinning they do this or that, it comes from the power of God, who divides the darkness as he seeth good. And in another place: It skilleth much (saith he) what will agreeth to man, and what to God, and to what end each one referreth his will, so as it may be allowed or ⟨p. 198⟩disallowed. For God fulfilleth certain of his wills, being surely good, by the evil wills of evil men:

as by the ill willed Jews, through the good will of the father, Christ was slain, which was so great a good, that the Apostle Peter, what time he would not have had it done, is termed Satan by him who was willing to be slain. And elsewhere: God (saith he) hardened Pharaoh by just judgement, ¹and Pharaoh hardened himself by his own free will. And that you may plainly perceive there is nothing taught by us touching the will of God, but that which the Church of Christ long since hath taught, I will annex some other sentences which the same Augustine hath written in another place: Great are (saith he) the works of the Lord distinguished into all his wills, ²so as after a wonderful and unutterable manner that is not done without his will, which also is not done against his will: because it should not be done, if he did not suffer it, neither certainly doth he suffer it unwilling, but willing. And again: God worketh in the hearts of men to incline their wills whither so ever he will, ³whether to good according to his mercy, or unto evil, according to their merits. And that certainly in his judgement sometime open, sometime secret, but always just. I can use infinite testimonies in this matter, but I think, not very needful. I will raise up out of your own schoole Hugo de Sancto victore, who shall most clearly approve our opinion with his own words. For thus he writeth:⁴ His will is never idle, so as that is not done, which he willeth: neither in a word can any thing be done at any time which he willeth not. And a little after:⁵ The will of God is ever fulfilled, and wicked men are not therefore excused, because the will of God is performed in them and by them, for that they are not directed by their own will, to fulfil the will of God, but by his secret providence.

as by the ill willed Iewes, through the good will of the father, Christ was slain, which was so great a good, that the Apostle Peter, what time he would not haue had it done, is termed Satan by him who was willing to be slaine. And elsewhere: God (saith he) hardened Pharao by iust iudgement,

Do you perceive at length (Campian) that no new paradox is defended in our Churches, which ⟨p. 199⟩was not both received in times past in the Churches of Christ, and is also defended as the truth it self? For that which you add, As the calling of Paul, so also Davids adultery, and Judas his treachery, were the proper work of God: from whence you drew these positions I know not. These works of God not one of our writers do so compare together, as that we should say that God wrought alike in David and Judas to the committing of heinous offences, as he did in Paul for his effectual conversion. Indeed the Lord wrought both in this and in them, but not after one and the like manner: he did inspire inwardly the heart of Paul by his spirit, and endued his mind with true faith, which he lacked before: but to David and Judas he did cast in no new kind of impiety or inclination of will, nor did he stir up new motions unto sinning (God forbid that any Christian should so much as think it:) but they running of their own accord, and stirred up by and of themselves, be did so hold and bend, that they unwitting to themselves, and not imagining any such thing, did execute Gods decree. For by this adultery of David the Lord did both chastise David, in that he did punish sin with sin, as he is wont, and also he made a way open for his purposes in time succeeding. Like hereunto is that of Absalom: he defiled Davids Concubines:¹ the heinousness of which offence cannot be uttered: yet this way the Lord had decreed to take punishment of David. But the treachery of Judas, if you respect the covetousness and perfidiousness of the man, did so displease God, that never any thing did offend him more: and yet the Lord used both Judas treachery and the Priests cruelty for the finishing of that work of our salvation, and he would have these wretched instruments to effect that divine work. Therefore the Apostles do testify that all these did nothing else but ⟨p. 200⟩those things which the hand and counsel of the Lord did decree to be done.² And yet there is not here any monstrous thing, whereof either Philip Melanchthon or any other ought to be ashamed, unless perhaps the holy doctrine of the Scripture seem monstrous to you.

As for that that you demand with what mind Luther did take away this verse from the Church prayers, O holy Trinity, one God, have mercy upon us, certainly you are too suspicious. If Luther did think erroneously touching the Trinity, convince him: his books are in mens hands, and they are read by you, as it seemeth, very diligently. Allege, if you can, any one word, injurious either to the Trinity or Unity. For if out of all his writings, which are innumerable, you can draw no probable inkling of this suspicion, why do you make question about one verse taken away from the Church prayers? which whether it be taken away or no, I know not: and though it be taken away, yet how appears it that it was taken away by him? But Luther's condition is very hard, who must stand unto, both what he hath written, and what he hath not written. And these are those our paradoxes concerning God, which you could carp at in the books of all our writers, which have come forth in a manner infinitely. The matter is safe and sound: the adversary hath viewed over all of them, and yet hath found nothing.

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

By and by you proceed to the person of Christ,¹ and you demand what these words of Calvin mean; Christ i• the Son of God, God of God, God of himself▪ What reprove you here Campian? what, that he said, Christ is the Son of God? or for that he termed him God of God? or else, that he affirmeth him to be God of himself? But which of these assertions is it, that is not holy, not granted, not agreeable to the Catholic faith? which if you deny, you do not ⟨p. 201⟩convince any Paradox of ours, but you bewray your own heresy. But this is the point, unless I be deceived, wherein you have found, I know not what, knot, as it were in a rush. The Nicene Fathers do profess Christ to be God of God, to the end they may teach that the Son is of the same substance with the Father. This saying, some afterward catched at so, as that they did maintain that Christ is not God by himself and of himself, but that he received it of his Father: wherein they quite took away the Divinity of Christ. For unless he be God of himself, he cannot be God at all. For that he may be God, he must needs be God of himself. Wherefore howsoever those Fathers did say that Christ is God of God, yes Calvin maintaineth that it is most firmly to be believed, that Christ hath this, to be God of himself, unless we will rob Christ of his Divinity. To be the Son, he received that indeed of the Father: for he is the Son of the Father. To be God, he hath that of^f himself, because he is God by himself. What say you now Campian? God of God, is with Calvin, God of himself: and say you so indeed? hath not Calvin admonished you of this, that the name of God is to be taken for the Father, when as Christ is termed the Son of God? That therefore which the Nicene Fathers deliver, that Christ is God of God, that is so to be understood, that we should confess the Son ⟨p. 202⟩to be begotten of the Father, and not that we should attribute the name of God only to the Father: for we must look to it, that we do not so determine the Son to be of the Father, as that we should deny him to be God of himself. And these things Calvin hath interpreted most diligently and most holily, nor hath he set forth any one word at all different from the faith of the Scriptures and of the Catholic Church. Remember that sentence of Augustine:

Christ in respect of himself is termed God, ¹but in respect of the Father he is termed the Son: wherein you may acknowledge the opinion of the ancient Church.

Christ in respect of himself is termed God, ¹but in respect of the Father he is termed the Sonne: wherein you may acknowledge the opinion of the auncient Church.

1. 1Hom. de Temp. 38.

Now you set upon Beza: for like to the fashion of mad dogs, you stand not in one place, but fly hither and thither, and upon whomsoever you light, you bite him shrewdly with your venomous teeth. Beza saith (as you say) he is not begotten of the essence of the Father. Why are you angry with Beza, if he say the same things, which are wont to be said & maintained by your own selves? For you cannot be ignorant, what your Lombard teacheth touching the essence of God, which both he, and the school men that have followed him do affirm, neither to get, nor to be begotten. For that essence is not begotten by essence, but person by person. If Beza would imitate these, in saying that Christ was begotten not of the essence but of the person of the Father, why do you reprove him? and yet we may not imagine that the essence is separated from the person, as if the essence of the Son were another from the essence of the Father: (for there is but one simple essence of the Deity) but forasmuch as person is distinguished from essence; albeit not in the thing, yet by relation; and sith tho Ancient were wont to speak after this manner, that they said Christ was begotten of the person of the Father, rather then of his essence: it is no marvel that the same form of speech did like Beza best, ⟨p. 203⟩whose judgement it was ever, that we ought to set down determinations touching the highest mysteries very warily and with great consideration. Now that the essence is not begotten, the whole ancient Church held, as Basil writeth expressly:¹ God is not begotten either of himself […] of any other. Albeit I do not very well know, whether these be Bezoar words which you recite: surely I remember not that I have ever read them in Beza, nor can I find them in this place which you quote. But those that follow, are very malicious. Beza said once, that there be two personal unions in Christ, as you say, the one of the soul with the body, the other of the Godhead with the manhood. Which speech of his James Andreas reproved: and indeed not without cause; albeit this doth not follow out of that speech, that there are two persons in Christ, though there be two personal unions: but that, because it was written ambiguously, Beza professeth that he would willingly mend it. And what can you desire more? if he have erred, yet he persisted not in his error, but hath amended his fault:

Now you set vpon Beza: for like to the fashion of mad dogges, you stand not in one place, but flie hither and thither, and vpon whomsoeuer you light, you bite him shrewdly with your venomous teeth. Beza saith (as you say) he is not begotten of the essence of the Father. Why are you angrie with Beza, if he say the same things, which are wont to be said & maintained by your owne selues? For you cannot be ignorant, what your Lombard teacheth touching the oslence of God, which both he, and the schoole men that haue followed him do affirme, neither to get, nor to be begotten. For that essence is not begotten by essence, but person by person. If Beza would imitate these, in saying that Christ was begotten not of the essence but of the person of the Father, why doe you reproue him? and yet we may not imagine that the essence is separated from the person, as if the essence of the Sonne were another from the essence of the Father: (for there is but one simple essence of the Deity) but for asmuch as person is distinguished frō essence; albeit not in the thing, yet by rolation; and sith tho Ancient were wont to speake after this manner, that they said Christ was begotten of the person of the Father, rather then of his essence: it is no maruel that the same forme of speech did like Beza best,

with what face therefore can you upbraid him with that, which fell from him but once ere he was aware, seeing he corrected it after? And touching the person of Christ, Beza every where teacheth those things, than which nothing can be more true and sincere: nor is there any of us that is wont to affirm or defend that which you object concerning those two personal unions. For we confess but one person, constituted of the two natures, as also we acknowledge but one personal union: for although Christ did assume both body and an humane soul; yet these parts are not so personally joined together in Christ, as that they do make any person separate from his Godhead, lest we should imagine that Christ consisteth of two persons.

with what face therefore can you vpbraide him with that, which fell from him but once ere he was aware, seeing he corrected it after? And touching the person of Christ, Beza euery where teacheth those things, than which nothing can be more true and sincere: nor is there any of vs that is wont to affirme or defend that which you obiect concerning those two personall vnions. For we confesse but one person, constituted of the two natures, as also we acknowledge but one personall vnion: for although Christ did assume both body and an humane soule; yet these parts are not so personally ioyned together in Christ, as that they do make any person separate from his Godhead, lest we should imagine that Christ consisteth of two persons.

Now again you make recourse to Calvin, whom ⟨p. 204⟩I thought you had quite given over before. Calvin denieth▪ that the place of John, I and my Father are one, doth show that Christ is God of the same substance with the Father. What then Campian? was it so heinous an offence, to dissent from the ancient Fathers in the exposition of one place? Did he ever deny that Christ is of the same substance with the Father? you cannot maintain it. For he always taught it most constantly, and confuted the Arians by other innumerable texts of holy Scripture. For what? do you think that he cannot be of the same substance with the Father, unless this place teach it? he that heedfully readeth over that dispute of Christ with the Jews, which John in that chapter setteth down,¹ shall easily perceive that rather^g an unity of will and power, then of essence, is signified. Christ affirmeth that no man can take his sheep out of his hands: & that he may persuade it plainly, he adjoineth, I and my Father are one. I do not see how you can thereout conclude an unity of substance, unless you still understand that same word, One, of the substance. What is it then that Christ saith, not of himself only, and his Father, but of all the faithful,³ that they all may be one, as thou O Father art in me, and I in thee? That place in the Epistle of John, These three are one, the Ordinary Gloss doth thus expound, that is, witnessing of the same thing. ⁴But Erasmus doth much more vehemently find fault with the old Fathers, because they abused these words, I and the Father are one, against the Arians. Not, I think, for that he did any whit favour the Arriant, but because he thought it was done by the Fathers with no great reason. But you say, that, that word, Homoousion, was odious to Luther. For he saith, my soul hateth this word, Homoousion. Luther never said that: only this he said, if he had hated that word, ⟨p. 205⟩Homoousion, yet he should be no heretic as long as he held the thing it self. These are Luther's words: But if my soul did hate that word, Homoousion, and would not use it, I should not be an heretic: for who should compel me to use it, so as I hold the thing, which was determined in a Council by the Scriptures?