A15057:243
A15057:243
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.
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, ⟨p. 203⟩whose iudgement it was euer, that we ought to set downe determinations touching the highest mysteries very warily and with great consideration. Now that the essence is not begotten, the whole auncient Church held, as Basil writeth expresly:1 God is not begotten either of himselfe 〈…〉 of any other. Albeit I do not very wel know, whether these be Beza• words which you recite: surely I remember not that I haue euer read them in Beza, nor can I find them in this place which you quote. But those that follow, are very malitious. Beza said once, that there be two personall vnions in Christ, as you say, the one of the soule with the body, the other of the Godhead with the manhood. Which speech of his Iames Andreas reproued: and indeed not without cause; albeit this doth not follow out of that speech, that there are two persons in Christ, though there bee two personall vnions: but that, because it was written ambiguously, Beza professeth that he would willingly mend it. And what can you desire more? if he haue erred, yet he persisted not in his error, but hath amended his fault:
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 ratherg 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.
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 kAccording 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.
But now, say you, we shall take knowledge of worse things, and here you recite many things concerning Christs swea•e, horror, and sudden outcry. I acknowledge that which you allege, but I see no paradox therein. I am not ignorant what is wont to be given out by you in corners, that Christ is reproached, when we say he was tormented with so great griefs of mind. But it is so far off, Campian, that I do either deny or dissemble those things which you now object, that I do teach and avow them openly and freely. And though the whole nation of Jesuits should set upon me, yet I will never be ashamed to celebrate Christs mercy, which I see to be violated by them with unspeakable injuries. For what think you was it that Christ felt, which brought so great sadness and vexation to him, that it wrung from him a bloody sweat? was it only death,1 which takes away life and sense? Do you think that Christ could be broken so with the fear of that death that he should conceive so much grief in his mind, to make him sweat water and blood, for the desire he had to escape tasting of that cup which he came to drink of? Did Christ so much abhor this death, which the Martyrs have gone unto, joyful and cheerful? That were indeed to cast a greater reproach upon Christ, while ye would avoid the lesser. Wherefore that which raised so great horrors in Christ, was the most bitter wrath of God against mankind, which Christ must needs have suffered for a time. For the whole weight of our sins was imposed upon Christ, which brought with it a most heavy remembrance of Gods wrath. Seeing therefore Christ our Mediator being laden with our sins, ⟨p. 211⟩did suffer the greatness of Gods displeasure, and did alone endure the punishment of our sins, certainly he did quake, as man, and did express those incredible sorrows of his mind many ways. Hence came that speech upon the Cross, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? which he uttered not feignedly, but from his heart; not despairingly, as you wickedly write, but upon the consideration of Gods wrath, which then he was to be subject unto.m This is that Hell, of which Christ while he was alive, and not as you object against Calvin, after he was dead, did taste. And certainly this vexation, which Christ endured at that time, did equal after a sort the very pains of hell.
But these things are reproved by you, because they be not understood. For the Papists with their dull hearts cannot conceive, what Christ performed for us by his death, and what pains he endured for the satisfying of his Father. Therefore they think wrong is done to Christ, when we say he suffered those things which he both would and ought to have suffered for us. For it was necessary not only that Christ should die inn body, but also in his soul wrestle with death, because not only ⟨p. 212⟩mans body, but also his soul had offended God, and deserved everlasting death. And they that speak against this doctrine, being very full of divine comfort, if Calvin do prosecute somewhat eagerly, no good man ought justly to be displeased with him for this cause. But that you cannot abide: and therefore you cry out, Oh wicked days! oh monstrous times! It may be you have seen a monster at Rome, or rather many monsters, which trouble you now with furious thoughts, and urge you to make an outcry. But we University men are not wont much to be moved with the clamours of mad men. For he overcomes in the Schools, not who can cry out most shrilly, but who can dispute most fitly unto the truth. But I pray you, Campian, spare your voice a while, and gather your wits together, and then I trust you will be somewhat milder anon, when you have rested you a little, for I do not hear that this is the ⟨p. 213⟩continual dint of your mind, and I do not doubt but you may be pacified with words. You say that Christ hath contumelious injury offered him by us. Wherefore? because he is by this means too much abased, and much is detracted from his Majesty. Concerning that Nazianzen answers you: Is Christ therefore spoiled of his honour, 2because he is become humble for thy sake? Now how great bitterness of grief Christ felt, learn of Rabanus, 3if haply you regard him. Thus doth he expound those words of Christ, Why hast thou forsaken me: Our Saviour (saith he) spake this, carrying about him our affections, who being in danger think our selves to be forsaken. For his humane nature was forsaken because of sin: but because the Son of God was made our Advocate, he bewails their misery whose fault he took upon him. And Hierome though he did differ from this opinion because of the Arians,
Concerning Christs prayer, wherein he entreated, that that cup might be taken away, thus he writeth: Nevertheless returning to himself, that which he had refused somewhat fearfully in his nature, as man, he ratifieth in his nature as he was God and the Son: Yet not as I will, but as thou wilt, saith he, let not this be done which I speak in my humane affection, but that for which I came down to the earth by thy will. 1And Ambrose useth these words to Gratian: As he took my will, so he took my sorrow. Finally,2 I will annex the judgement of Melchior Canus, to whom you owe much on good cause, that you may know the opinion of a flat Catholic touching this matter. Surely (saith he) it was convenient that the Son of God, being to exhibit himself a sacrifice for sin, should take upon him not only the sorrows of the body, and of the sensitive faculty of the soul, but also the otorments of the spirit, and the grief ⟨p. 214⟩of the will, to the end that that most acceptable sacrifice to God for all our sins, might be by all means broken and bruised. And a little after: He being forsaken of God, and destitute utterly of all comfort, did not rejoice.
Concerning Christs prayer, wherein he entreated, that that cup might be taken away, thus he writeth: Neuerthelesse returning to himselfe, that which he had refused somewhat fearefully in his nature, as man, he ratifieth in his nature as he was God and the Sonne: Yet not as I will, but as thou wilt, saith he, let not this be done which I speake in my humane affection, but that for which I came downe to the earth by thy will. 1And Ambrose vseth these words to Gratian: As he tooke my will, so he tooke my sorrow. Finally,2 I will annexe the iudgement of Melchior Canus, to whom you owe much on good cause, that you may know the opinion of a flat Catholike touching this matter. Surely (saith he) it was conuenient that the Sonne of God, being to exhibite himselfe a sacrifice for sinne, should take vpon him not onely the sorrowes of the bodie, and of the sensitiue facultie of the soule, but also the
You say that Bucer in comparison of this madness was modest, although he were very impudent, who takes Hell in the Creed for the grave. I let pass your reproach, which you lack not in any place, nor am I disposed to extend any longer answer about this Hell. The matter is in some difference among learned men, who albeit they agree not so well among themselves about the thing, yet they agree herein excellent well, in that they affirm that the Papists do very wickedly understand it of Christs descent into Hell. For as for Hell, whether it signify the burial of Christ, as Bucer thought, or that sorrow of mind, wherewith Christ was affected a little before his death, as Calvin would have it; yet we retain the Article, and we teach that Christ did descend into Hell. If that cannot be otherwise understood than thus, that Christ did descend into, I know not what, Limbus Patrum, wherein you suppose the Fathers to have been, and that he did out of that place bring with him an infinite multitude of holy men, I will confess that Bucer did err, and that Calvin made a foul slip. But those your dreams concerning Hell, are worthy to be buried in Hell it self. Now as for that you say, that it was in deliberation in a certain conventicle at London, how that article might be taken out of the Creed, this certainly is the first time that ever I heard of it, neither do I give any credit either to your self, or to your wretched Cheiny, who told you this tale. Although if the ancient Creeds of the Roman and East Church did lack that Article, as he affirmeth, whosoever he is, that in Cyprian's works expounded the Creed with his Commentaries, ⟨p. 215⟩perhaps their fault wasp less, which would imitate the Church of Rome, which you hold cannot err.
You say that Bucer in comparison of this madnes was modest, although hee were very impudent, who takes Hell in the Creed for the graue. I let passe your reproch, which you lacke not in any place, nor am I disposed to extend any longer answere about this Hell. The matter is in some difference among learned men, who albeit they agree not so well among themselues about the thing, yet they agree herein excellent well, in that they affirme that the Papists doe very wickedly vnderstand it of Christs descent into Hell. For as for Hell, whether it signifie the buriall of Christ, as Bucer thought, or that sorrowe of minde, wherewith Christ was affected a little before his death, as Caluin would haue it; yet we retaine the Article, and we teach yt Christ did descend into Hell. If that cannot bee otherwise vnderstood than thus, that Christ did descend into, I know not what, Limbus Patrum, wherein you suppose the Fathers to haue been, and that hee did out of that place bring with him an infinite multitude of holy men, I will confesse that Bucer did erre, and that Caluin made a foule slip. But those your dreames concerning Hell, are worthie to be buried in Hell it selfe. Now as for that you say, that it was in deliberation in a certaine conuenticle at London, how that article might bee taken out of the Creed, this certainly is the first time that euer I heard of it, neither doe I giue any credit either to your selfe, or to your wretched Cheiny, who told you this tale. Although if the ancient Creeds of the Romane and East Church did lacke that Article, as hee affirmeth, whosoeuer hee is, that in Cyprians workes expounded the Creed with his Commentaries,
1Now you make your question concerning man: and you bring us in speaking on this fashion. The image of God is utterly blotted out in man, no spark of good being left: For so, say you, have Illyricus and Calvin taught. I know well the judgement of Illyricus, which I do not think ought to be laid to our charge. For you are not ignorant, Campian, that his opinion touching the image of God, and of the nature of original sin, hath been reproved and confuted by our men: he went somewhat farther than he should; I believe he did it, that he might remove himself farthest off from you, whom he throughly hated. But I would he had amended some things: then certainly had he been a very excellent man. As for Calvin you do him open wrong, whom you join with Illyricus in the fellowship of this judgement: for he writeth directly and flatly contrary to that,2 that you bring him in speaking;q That the image of God was not quite blotted out in man. But this is your fashion, that when you cannot reprove those things which we do say, then you feign those ⟨p. 216⟩things to be said by us, which may easily be reproved. We teach, that man was created and formed so in the beginning, that he was answerable to the image of God in all things. Now that image was a most perfect entireness of all parts, heaped up with all good graces and virtues, which could be incident to the pure nature of man. Whatsoever he did imagine, desire, will, think, or understand, was holy and right, and agreeable to Gods will, yea even to the rule of that law, Thou shalt love God with all thy heart, with all thy soul, with all thy strength, and thy neighbour as thy self. But after that Adam had slid back from God, we say that this image was pitifully corrupted and deformed, that neither the understanding did retain that ancient light, nor the will did love God, nay the whole will was turned from him, neither did there remain entire any faculty either of body or soul. Although therefore we deny not that some relics of that most noble image do remain still, yet we hold that all that which may reconcile and make us acceptable unto God, and be sufficient for us to salvation, is blotted out and extinguished. ⟨p. 217⟩
but yet the fall of Adam did inflict such a blow upon all these faculties which yet remain in us, that neither can our will of it self will any thing, which God may like of, nor our mind think, understand, or judge right and true things without error. Therefore John saith that the light shineth in the darkness,1 but yet the darkness comprehendeth it not. But now those greater things, faith, righteousness, holiness, and perfect virtue, which may lead us unto everlasting felicity, these did not only receive a wound to become weaker, but they did quite perish, and became none, until that they be renewed in us by the holy Ghost and the grace of regeneration. Wherefore thus doth the Lord speak touching man whom he had fashioned after his own image, whom also he knew throughly:2 The wickedness of man was great in the earth, and all the imagination of the thoughts of his hart was only evil continually. And that we might understand that these things were pronounced of mankind as it is in it self, and not only of those wicked men, who lived before the flood, the Lord doth again repeat these things after the flood, what time Noah only with his family were left alive upon the earth:3 Hereafter (saith he) I will not curse the earth any more for mans sake, for the frame of mans heart is evil from his youth. Can you, Campian, judge better and righter of the image of man, than the Lord himself could? If all the thoughts of mans heart be both always and only evil, and the very frame and beginning & fountain as it were of all his thoughts most corrupt, what now is left of that image which was sometime so excellent, which may help any whit to attain happiness? Hitherto belongeth that ⟨p. 218⟩which Christ saith, That which is borne of the flesh, 4is flesh: and that which is borne of the spirit, is spirit. If the whole man be flesh, certainly the whole is unclean. And Paul saith, we were the children of wrath. 5But the Lord doth not hate his own image, nay wheresoever he beholds it, he loveth it entirely. And Paul pronounceth that the whole man every whit is the child of wrath: wherefore that image which may make us acceptable to God, can never now be found in us.
For he saith, not only that we are so hurt and wounded, as that yet some hope of life remaineth, but that we wholly, such as we are in our selves, are obnoxious and subject to everlasting death, as if nature had framed us thereunto. What should I heap up more testimonies of the Scriptures, which are so plentiful through the whole Scripture, that nothing is oftener repeated than the loss of this image? wherefore we judge so of man after sin, before restitution, even as Augustine writeth, whom the very School-men themselves durst not reprove. Natural gifts were corrupted in man by sin, and the supernatural extinguished. But of man regenerate we do not say those things, which you affirm, that nothing is found in him but mere corruption and contagion. For he is endued with the spirit of Christ, he possesseth Christ dwelling in him, he is endued with faith, hope, and charity. But he who hath nothing in him but corruption, it is certain that he is no whit regenerate. For the new man which is created according to God,1 must be reformed after righteousness and true holiness. Indeed that which the regenerate man hath of his own and proper to himself, is vicious. For so the Apostle saw another law in his members rebelling against the law of his mind:2 but those things which he received from God, are contrary to this corruption and contagion; which if any do deny to be good and holy, he may well be held blasphemous ⟨p. 219⟩against the holy Ghost. As for that you both feign that we speak these things, and also express for what cause we speak them, you bewray your wonderful wisdom, which for those things that are not at all, can set down a reason wherefore they be. But we do willingly preach faith, and do easily permit it to be contemned of you. For you that defend nature against grace, and do trust rather to your own power than to Christs mercy, and do make void the promises by precepts, cannot have an honourable opinion of faith.
For he saith, not onely that wee are so hurt and wounded, as that yet some hope of life remaineth, but that we wholy, such as wee are in our selues, are obnoxious and subiect to euerlasting death, as if nature had framed vs thereunto. What should I heape vp more testimonies of the Scriptures, which are so plentiful through the whole Scripture, that nothing is oftner repeated than the losse of this image? wherfore we iudge so of man after sin, before restitution, euen as Augustine writeth, whom the very Schoole-men themselues durst not reprooue. Naturall gifts were corrupted in man by sinne, and the supernaturall extinguished. But of man regenerate wee doe not say those things, which you affirme, that nothing is found in him but meere corruption and contagion. For he is indued with the spirit of Christ, he possesseth Christ dwelling in him, he is indued with faith, hope, and charitie. But he who hath nothing in him but corruption, it is certaine that he is no whit regenerate. For the new man which is created according to God,
You never keep your standing,1 Campian, and you begin the battle like a runaway. For you have a wandering and unstable wit, as it seemeth. You oppose Illyricus to us again in the same cause, whose testimony ought not to be of force against us. For herein I profess my self no less an adversary to him than your self, I had almost said, than to your self. For what an unjust and unreasonable thing is it, that you should tax that opinion as defended by us, which your self knoweth to be condemned by our Churches? Object our own opinion to us, Campian, if you can object any: we are not such, as that we should think whatsoever Illyricus could, as being a man, err in, did any whit concern us. But either Illyricus must needs be drawn into this taxation, or else this place was quite to be left void by you. For beside Illyricus, I think you have no man that thinks so. If you desire to know our opinion of this matter, I confess indeed that that defence of Illyricus did seem ever very absurd to me. For it both smells of the folly of the Manichees, and it maketh two souls in a regenerate man: and which is a greater matter, it destroys the soul. That was always the judgement of the Catholic Church, which I profess to be ours, that the substance of the soul ⟨p. 220⟩was not quite slain by sin, but only charged and infected with vicious qualities: and that sin is no inward substance of the soul, but anr accident.s Basil writeth truly, in that he denieth that sin is any living substance, or endued with a soul,4 but a quality contrary to the virtue of the soul. Augustine: tOriginal sin (saith he) remaineth not substantially, as it were some body or spirit, but it is a certain affection of an evil quality, like a disease. Finally ⟨p. 221⟩Ambrose most plainly:6
Now againe you make recourse to Caluin, whom ⟨p. 204⟩I thought you had quite giuen ouer before. Caluin denieth▪ that the place of Iohn, I and my Father are one, doth shew that Christ is God of the same substance with the Father. What then Campian? was it so hainous an offence, to dissent from the auncient Fathers in the exposition of one place? Did he euer deny that Christ is of the same substance with the Father? you cannot maintaine it. For hee alwaies taught it most constantly, and confuted the Arrians by other innumerable texts of holy Scripture. For what? doe you thinke that he cannot be of the same substance with the Father, vnlesse this place teach it? he that heedfully readeth ouer that dispute of Christ with the Iewes, which Iohn in that chapter setteth downe,1 shal easily perceiue that ratherg an vnity of will and power, then of essence, is signified. Christ affirmeth that no man can take his sheepe out of his hands: & that he may perswade it plainly, he adioyneth, I and my Father are one. I doe not see how you can thereout conclude an vnity of substance, vnlesse you still vnderstand that same word, One, of the substance. What is it then that Christ saith, not of himselfe only, and his Father, but of all the faithfull,3 that they all may be one, as thou O Father art in me, and I in thee? That place in the Epistle of Iohn, These three are one, the Ordinarie Glosse 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 Arrians. Not, I think, for that he did any whit fauour the Arriāt, 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 soule hateth this word, Homoousion. Luther neuer said that: only this he said, if he had hated that word, ⟨p. 205⟩Homoousion, yet he should be no heretike as long as he held the thing it selfe. These are Luthers words: But if my soule did hate that word, Homoousion, and would not vse it, I should not bee an heretike: for who should compell me to vse it, so as I hold the thing, which was determined in a Councell by the Scriptures? hBut howsoeuer he did hate the name, yet he did loue the thing it selfe as his owne soule.
Goe yee forward, say you: goe you also forward, Campian, seeing you will needs doe so, but it had been better for you rather to giue ouer, than to goe on of this fashion. It is better to retire than to runne ill. You reproach vs now for this, that wee say, Christ was not perfect in Grace from his infancie, but that he grew in the gifts of his mind as other men doe, and was made wiser euery day by experience. I doe easilie endure you to obiect many paradoxes against vs, seeing you taxe the very historie of the Gospell with the same fault: for who may hope that he can escape ⟨p. 206⟩your slander, who sticke not most audaciously to fly vpon the writings of the Gospell: for what doe we teach else herein, but that which the Euangelist hath expressed in his writings once or twice? for thus we reade in Luke. The Child increased, 1and was strengthned in the spirit, and he was filled with wisdome, and the grace of God was in him. And againe,2 Iesus grew iin wisdome, and in stature, and in fauour both with God and men. What els can be vnderstood out of these words, but that Iesus did increase both in stature and wisdome, & the more he grew in age, so much the greater progresses had he in the gifts of the holy Ghost: for so our Euangelist had written a little before of Iohn: The Child grew and was strengthned in the spirit. 4Doe you thinke that Iohn was presently as soone as he was borne endewed with perfect wisdome and grace of the spirit, so as he had no additiō euer made him? But Luke saith that Christ was full of wisdome. I ⟨p. 207⟩doe not deny it:5 albeit Luke doe not say filled, as though he were full of wisdome, but filling, wherby some growth and addition is signified. But to grant that he was full, will you therefore haue it that nothing was added afterward? what then doe you determine of Iohn, of whom the Angell foretold that he should be full of the holy Ghost from his mothers wōbe? Wherefore if Christ had this, that at what time he first was made man, absolute & perfect wisdome, and other gifts of the spirit were heaped vpon him, certainly he had it not alone; nor am I moued with the authority of the schoolmen, who lest they might seeme to thinke lesse honorablie of Christ, doe attribute to him presently all perfections.
But, say you, they affirme also, that Christ was ignorant of some things. And why may they not affirme it? This (say you) is as much, as if they affirmed that he was defiled with originall sinne. Now at length you begin to argue very wittely, that our Vniuersitie men may vnderstand your wonderfull subtiltie in disputing. Would you deale on this manner with vs, Campian, if that dispute, which you so often wish, might bee permitted you? For what could be spoken more absurdly? Christ was ignorant of something: therfore Christ was defiled with originall sinne. As if he that is ignorant of something, which may be knowne, or he which is not endued with the perfect knowledge of all things, it must needs be that he is defiled with sinne. Thus then I will returne you a like argument:l The Angels are now ignorant of many things (for ⟨p. 209⟩they know not that day and houre) and Adam, 2before he sinned, was ignorant of many things: (for he did not vnderstand that Satan lay in waite for him) therefore both the Angels are now defiled with sin, and Adam in his greatest innocencie was a sinner. You shall neuer pricke vs with these goades so, as that wee may feare any deadly wound. If you know not that there is an ignorance void of all fault, learne it of Thomas, who wil teach you, that negatiue ignorance, which he termes nescience,3 is not sinne, but the priuatiue. If you can conclude that consequent out of our iudgement, that Christ was ignorant of somewhat, which hee then ought to haue knowne, when he was ignorant of it, then you put vs downe from this our standing. For it is not a fault not to know those things, which yet may bee knowne, vnlesse it concerne vs to haue them knowne. For who will blame a Porter, for that he is ignorant of the Mathematikes? But concerning Christ, I answere now that vnto you, which toucheth this cause neerer. Although he were most pure from all spot of sinne, so as nothing could be more vncorrupt; yet hee tooke vpon himselfe the punishment due to sinne, that he might deliuer vs from it. Therefore also hee would die, albeit death issued from sinne. He then that suffered death for vs, which sinne brought in; can any thing, which is ours, be vnbeseeming him, so as it be not infected with sin? And you can neuer proue, that ignorance in Christ was any whit more faultie, than death.
But these things are reproued by you, because they bee not vnderstood. For the Papists with their dull hearts cannot conceiue, what Christ performed for vs by his death, and what paines hee endured for the satisfying of his Father. Therefore they thinke wrong is done to Christ, when we say he suffered those things which hee both would and ought to haue suffered for vs. For it was necessarie not onely that Christ should die inn bodie, but also in his soule wrastle with death, because not onely ⟨p. 212⟩mans bodie, but also his soule had offended God, and deserued euerlasting death. And they that speak against this doctrine, being very full of diuine comfort, if Caluin doe prosecute somewhat eagerly, no good man ought iustly to bee displeased with him for this cause. But that you cannot abide: and therefore you cry out, Oh wicked daies! oh monstrous times! It may be you haue seene a monster at Rome, or rather many monsters, which trouble you now with furious thoughts, and vrge you to make an outcrie. But we Vniuersitie men are not woont much to bee moued with the clamours of mad men. For he ouercomes in the Schooles, not who can crie out most shrilly, but who cā dispute most sitly vnto the truth. But I pray you, Campian, spare your voyce a while, and gather your wits together, and then I trust you will be somewhat milder anon, when you haue rested you a little, for I doe not heare that this is the ⟨p. 213⟩continuall dint of your minde, and I doe not doubt but you may bee pacified with words. You say that Christ hath contumelious iniurie offered him by vs. Wherefore? because he is by this meanes too much abased, and much is detracted from his Maiestie. Concerning that Nazianzen answers you: Is Christ therefore spoiled of his honour, 2because hee is become humble for thy sake? Now how great bitternes of griefe Christ felt, learne of Rabanus, 3if happely you regard him. Thus doth he expound those words of Christ, Why hast thou forsaken mee: Our Sauiour (saith he) spake this, carrying about him our affections, who being in danger thinke our selues to be forsaken. For his humane nature was forsaken because of sinne: but because the Sonne of God was made our Aduocate, he bewailes their miserie whose fault he tooke vpon him. And Hierome though he did differ from this opinion because of the Arrians,4 yet the very power of truth did wring frō him some confession.
1Now you make your question concerning man: and you bring vs in speaking on this fashion. The image of God is vtterly blotted out in man, no sparke of good being left: For so, say you, haue Illyricus and Caluin taught. I know well the iudgement of Illyricus, which I doe not thinke ought to bee laide to our charge. For you are not ignorant, Campian, that his opinion touching the image of God, and of the nature of originall sinne, hath been reprooued and confuted by our men: he went somewhat farther than he should; I beleeue he did it, that he might remooue himselfe farthest off from you, whom hee throughly hated. But I would he had amended some things: then certainely had he been a very excellent man. As for Caluin you doe him open wrong, whom you ioyne with Illyricus in the fellowship of this iudgement: for he writeth directly and flatly contrarie to that,2 that you bring him in speaking;q That the image of God was not quite blotted out in man. But this is your fashion, that when you cannot reprooue those things which we doe say, then you faine those ⟨p. 216⟩things to be said by vs, which may easily be reprooued. We teach, that man was created and formed so in the beginning, that hee was answerable to the image of God in all things. Now that image was a most perfect entirenes of all parts, heaped vp with all good graces and vertues, which could bee incident to the pure nature of man. Whatsoeuer he did imagine, desire, will, thinke, or vnderstand, was holie and right, and agreeable to Gods will, yea euen to the rule of that law, Thou shalt loue God with all thy heart, with all thy soule, with all thy strength, and thy neighbour as thy selfe. But after that Adam had slid backe from God, we say that this image was pitifully corrupted and deformed, that neither the vnderstanding did retaine that ancient light, nor the will did loue God, nay the whole will was turned from him, neither did there remaine entire any facultie either of bodie or soule. Although therefore we denie not that some reliques of that most noble image do remaine still, yet we hold that all that which may reconcile and make vs acceptable vnto God, and bee sufficient for vs to saluation, is blotted out and extinguished. ⟨p. 217⟩All reason, and iudgement, and vnderstanding, which was some little peece of that image, is not vtterly lost, there is not no will at all left in vs;
but yet the fall of Adam did inflict such a blow vpon all these faculties which yet remaine in vs, that neither can our will of it selfe will any thing, which God may like of, nor our minde thinke, vnderstand, or iudge right and true things without error. Therefore Iohn saith that the light shineth in the darkenes,1 but yet the darkenes comprehendeth it not. But now those greater things, faith, righteousnesse, holinesse, and perfect vertue, which may leade vs vnto euerlasting felicitie, these did not onely receiue a wound to become weaker, but they did quite perish, and became none, vntill that they bee renewed in vs by the holy Ghost and the grace of regeneration. Wherefore thus doth the Lord speake touching man whom hee had fashioned after his owne image, whom also he knew throughly:2 The wickednes of man was great in the earth, and all the imagination of the thoughes of his hart was onely euill continually. And that we might vnderstand that these things were pronounced of mankind as it is in it selfe, and not onely of those wicked men, who liued before the flood, the Lord doth againe repeate these things after the flood, what time Noah onely with his familie were left aliue vpon the earth:3 Hereafter (saith he) I will not curse the earth any more for mans sake, for the frame of mans heart is euill from his youth. Can you, Campian, iudge better and righter of the image of man, than the Lord himselfe could? If all the thoughts of mans heart bee both alwaies and onely euill, and the very frame and beginning & fountaine as it were of al his thoughts most corrupt, what now is left of that image which was sometime so excellent, which may helpe any whit to attaine happines? Hitherto belongeth that ⟨p. 218⟩which Christ saith, That which is borne of the flesh, 4is flesh: and that which is borne of the spirit, is spirit. If the whole man be flesh, certainly the whole is vncleane. And Paul saith, we were the children of wrath. 5But the Lord doth not hate his owne image, nay wheresoeuer he beholds it, hee loueth it entirely. And Paul pronounceth that the whole man euery whit is the child of wrath: wherefore that image which may make vs acceptable to God, can neuer now be found in vs.
You neuer keepe your standing,1 Campian, and you begin the battaile like a runnaway. For you haue a wandring and vnstable wit, as it seemeth. You oppose Illyricus to vs againe in the same cause, whose testimonie ought not to be of force against vs. For herein I professe my selfe no lesse an aduersarie to him than your selfe, I had almost said, than to your selfe. For what an vniust and vnreasonable thing is it, that you should taxe that opinion as defended by vs, which your selfe knoweth to be condemned by our Churches? Obiect our owne opinion to vs, Campian, if you can obiect any: wee are not such, as that we should thinke whatsoeuer Illyricus could, as being a man, erre in, did any whit concerno vs. But either Illyricus must needes be drawne into this taxation, or else this place was quite to be left voide by you. For beside Illyricus, I thinke you haue no man that thinkes so. If you desire to know our opinion of this matter, I confesse indeed that that defence of Illyricus did seeme euer very absurd to me. For it both smels of the follie of the Manichies, and it maketh two soules in a regenerate man: and which is a greater matter, it destroyes the soule. That was alwaies the iudgemēt of the Catholike Church, which I professe to be ours, that the substance of the soule ⟨p. 220⟩was not quite slaine by sinne, but onely charged and infected with vitious qualities: and that sinne is no inward substance of the soule, but anr accident.s Basill writeth truly, in that hee denieth that sinne is any liuing substance, or indued with a soule,4 but a qualitie contrarie to the vertue of the soule. Augustine: tOriginall sinne (saith he) remaineth not substantially, as it were some bodie or spirit, but it is a certaine affection of an euill qualitie, like a disease. Finally ⟨p. 221⟩Ambrose most plainly:6 uHow dwelleth sin in the flesh, seeing it is no substance, but a straying from good? Therfore let vs, if you please, send away the suspition of this error imposed by you vpon vs, to the author himselfe.