A15057:239
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. ...
London: printed by Felix Kyngston for Cuthbert Burby and Edmund Weaver, 1606London: printed by Felix Kyngston for Cuthbert Burby and Edmund Weauer, 1606
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.
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.