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…

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^d permit those things which are done, not only that they might bee done, as if hee did no whit intermeddle himselfe in those things, nor had nothing at all to do therein, but also doth by his speciall prouidence so gouerne all things, as that nothing in the whole world happeneth against tha•, that he hath willed & decreed: certainly it cānot be denied, that God doth will after a sort those things, which the wicked doe, & that this wil of God is so effectual, that in the wicked actions of men, God doth execute his owne decree. For in sinne two things are to be considered, the action it selfe, and the corruption of the action: which thing your Aquine might teach you, which ⟨p. 196⟩also he learned from Augustine. The action so farre forth as it is a thing and a worke, is good; for God effecteth it: but so farre forth as this selfe same action is vitious, it proceedeth not from God, but from the corrupt nature of man. Although therefore God who worketh all things in all, and against whose will nothing can bee done; doth bring to passe a certaine worke of his in the euill actions of men; yet hee doth those things that are iust, nor ought he any way to be thought to be guiltie of the sinnes of the men themselues: therefore that which a wicked man doth, that, as it is a sinne, and as it hath the proper nature of sinne, the Lord neither willeth nor suggesteth, nor biddeth, nor effecteth; nay he detesteth and reuengeth it, and iudgeth it worthy of euerlasting punishment. But that which is spoken of the thing, that you applie malitiously and vnskilfully, to the qualitie of the thing, that you may conclude, that God, because he is the author and cause of the action, is also the author and cause of whatsoeuer corruption is found in that action. I will not prosecute any long digression, nor ouerwhelme you with that multitude of Scr•ptures, which I could here vse: for I haue not taken vpon me to expound any poynt in the Schooles, but briefely to confute your filthie slaunder.

1. dDVR. Here you, while you, would defend that God is not the author of sin, yet do nothing else but make him the author of sin: for if he do not only permit, but also willeth that man sin, tell me which way, if the will of God be the first and effecting cause of sin, God is not the author of sin. WHIT. pag▪ 535. There is no need that I should expound to you that which you demand for we do not make the will of God to be the first and •ffecting cause of the sin, but of the action, which as it cometh from a wicked man, is vicious, so then not the vvill of God, but the naughtiness of the instrument, is the cause that those things are done wickedly, which the Lord doth rightly.DVR. Here you, while you, vvould defend that God is not the author of sinne, yet do nothing else but make him the author of sinne: for if he do not only permit, but also willeth that man sinne, tell me which way, if the will of God be the first and effecting cause of sinne, God is not the author of sinne. WHIT. pag▪ 535. There is no need that I should expound to you that which you demaund for we do not make the will of God to be the first and •ffecting cause of the sin, but of the action, which as it commeth from a wicked man, is vitious, so then not the vvill of God, but the naughtines of the instrument, is the cause that those things are done vvic•edly, which the Lord doth rightly.

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:

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?

And with this same name, it is certain that many and those very excellent men were in times past offended, in so much as they have wished it had never been heard of. For this name being once brought in, the Churches were at such conflicts between themselves through hatreds and contentions, that the holy Fathers themselves did not a little repent them of that name: nor if a man would have perhaps some name to be taken away, which hath given occasion of many dissentions, is he therefore to be thought to disallow the thing declared by that name.¹ Hierome could not be persuaded to receive the three Hypostases, because he had that new name, Hypostasis, in suspicion: for he was afraid lest there lay some venom under that name: yet he did acknowledge and preach three persons. And now both those terms are received, nor ought any one to be offended with it.

And with this same name, it is certaine that many and those very excellent men were in times past offended, in so much as they haue wished it had neuer been heard of. For this name being once brought in, the Churches were at such conflicts betweene themselues through hatreds and contentions, that the holy Fathers themselues did not a little repent them of that name: nor if a man would haue perhaps some name to be taken away, which hath giuen occasion of many dissentions, is he therefore to be thought to disallow the thing declared by that name.¹ Hierome could not be perswaded to receiue the three Hypostases, because he had that new name, Hypostasis, in suspition: for he was afraide lest there lay some venome vnder that name: yet hee did acknowledge and preach three persons. And now both those tearmes are receiued, nor ought any one to be offended with it.

1. 1Hieron. in Epist. ad Damas.

Go ye forward, say you: go you also forward, Campian, seeing you will needs do so, but it had been better for you rather to give over, than to go on of this fashion. It is better to retire than to run ill. You reproach us now for this, that we say, Christ was not perfect in Grace from his infancy, but that he grew in the gifts of his mind as other men do, and was made wiser every day by experience. I do easily endure you to object many paradoxes against us, seeing you tax the very history of the Gospel with the same fault: for who may hope that he can escape ⟨p. 206⟩your slander, who stick not most audaciously to fly upon the writings of the Gospel: for what do we teach else herein, but that which the Evangelist hath expressed in his writings once or twice? for thus we read in Luke. The Child increased, ¹and was strengthened in the spirit, and he was filled with wisdom, and the grace of God was in him. And again,² Jesus grew ⁱin wisdom, and in stature, and in favour both with God and men. What else can be understood out of these words, but that Jesus did increase both in stature and wisdom, & the more he grew in age, so much the greater progresses had he in the gifts of the holy Ghost: for so our Evangelist had written a little before of John: The Child grew and was strengthened in the spirit. ⁴Do you think that John was presently as soon as he was borne endowed with perfect wisdom and grace of the spirit, so as he had no addition ever made him? But Luke saith that Christ was full of wisdom. I ⟨p. 207⟩do not deny it:⁵ albeit Luke do not say filled, as though he were full of wisdom, but filling, whereby some growth and addition is signified. But to grant that he was full, will you therefore have it that nothing was added afterward? what then do you determine of John, of whom the Angel foretold that he should be full of the holy Ghost from his mothers womb? Wherefore if Christ had this, that at what time he first was made man, absolute & perfect wisdom, and other gifts of the spirit were heaped upon him, certainly he had it not alone; nor am I moved with the authority of the schoolmen, who lest they might seem to think less honourably of Christ, do attribute to him presently all perfections.

And Damascens argument taken from the personal union doth not conclude it,¹ unless we will think that the Deity did infuse all the quality of it self into the humanity of Christ. That which the Evangelist writeth of this progress of wisdom, pertaineth only to the human nature of Christ? And seeing that Christ would assume the whole nature of man,² saving in sin, and lay off that person of God, and empty himself, and take the form of a servant,³ will it be unbeseeming the person of Christ, that we say he was made both wiser and fuller of grace by little and little? He was indeed most full of grace, •nd whatsoever grace any body hath, all that he drew out of this ever remaining fountain of most abundant grace:⁴ but yet this hindereth not, but that Christ, as the Evangelist writeth, might grow in grace: which thing also Ambrose confesseth. For so he saith:^{5 k}According to the flesh certainly he ⟨p. 208⟩was filled with wisdom and grace. Nor do some of your men, Campian, differ from this judgement, lest you should perhaps imagine it to be so horrible, as that it cannot fall upon a Catholic: for I ansenii•• Bishop of Gandava,⁷ who was present at the Conventicle of Trent, professeth that he doth willingly incline to this judgement: and Erasmus (albeit I name him not among writers on your side) doth give his note that it is the truer opinion.

And Damascens argument taken from the personall vnion doth not conclude it,¹

But, say you, they affirm also, that Christ was ignorant of some things. And why may they not affirm it? This (say you) is as much, as if they affirmed that he was defiled with original sin. Now at length you begin to argue very wittily, that our University men may understand your wonderful subtlety in disputing. Would you deal on this manner with us, Campian, if that dispute, which you so often wish, might be permitted you? For what could be spoken more absurdly? Christ was ignorant of something: therefore Christ was defiled with original sin. As if he that is ignorant of something, which may be known, or he which is not endued with the perfect knowledge of all things, it must needs be that he is defiled with sin. Thus then I will return you a like argument:^l The Angels are now ignorant of many things (for ⟨p. 209⟩they know not that day and hour) and Adam, ²before he sinned, was ignorant of many things: (for he did not understand that Satan lay in wait for him) therefore both the Angels are now defiled with sin, and Adam in his greatest innocency was a sinner. You shall never prick us with these goads so, as that we may fear any deadly wound. If you know not that there is an ignorance void of all fault, learn it of Thomas, who will teach you, that negative ignorance, which he terms nescience,³ is not sin, but the privative. If you can conclude that consequent out of our judgement, that Christ was ignorant of somewhat, which he then ought to have known, when he was ignorant of it, then you put us down from this our standing. For it is not a fault not to know those things, which yet may be known, unless it concern us to have them known. For who will blame a Porter, for that he is ignorant of the Mathematics? But concerning Christ, I answer now that unto you, which toucheth this cause nearer. Although he were most pure from all spot of sin, so as nothing could be more uncorrupt; yet he took upon himself the punishment due to sin, that he might deliver us from it. Therefore also he would die, albeit death issued from sin. He then that suffered death for us, which sin brought in; can any thing, which is ours, be unbeseeming him, so as it be not infected with sin? And you can never prove, that ignorance in Christ was any whit more faulty, than death.

Christ as he was a true man, albeit a pure man, so he did never think, imagine or understand all things at once, and he did sleep sometimes. Do you think that Christ while he was sleeping, did comprehend all things in his memory? which though you should affirm, yet I see no reason to believe you. That which Christ spake of that day and hour, (no man knoweth it, ¹nor the Son himself) Cyril writeth ⟨p. 210⟩that Christ spake it of himself, and that he knew not the day of judgement,² as he was man, because it is proper to the humane nature to be ignorant of things to come.

Christ as he was a true man, albeit a pure man, so hee did neuer thinke, imagine or vnderstand all things at once, and he did sleepe sometimes. Do you thinke that Christ while hee was sleeping, did comprehend all things in his memorie? which though you should affirme, yet I see no reason to beleeue you. That which Christ spake of that day and houre, (no man knoweth it, ¹nor the Sonne himselfe) Cyrill writeth ⟨p. 210⟩that Christ spake it of himself, and that he knew not the day of iudgement,² as he was man, because it is proper to the humane nature to bee ignorant of things to come.

1. 1Marc. 13.32.
2. 2Cyril. Thesaur. lib. 9. cap. 4.