An answer to the Ten reasons of Edmund Campian the Jesuit in confidence whereof…An ansvvere to the Ten reasons of Edmund Campian the Iesuit in confidence wherof…
An answer to the Ten reasons of Edmund Campian the Jesuit in confidence whereof he offered disputation to the ministers of the Church of England, in the controversy of faith. Whereunto is added in brief marginal notes, the sum of the defence of those reasons by John Duræus the Scot, being a priest and a Jesuit, with a reply unto it. Written first in the Latin tongue by the reverend and faithful servant of Christ and his Church, William Whitakers, Doctor in Divinity, and the Kings Professor and public reader of Divinity in the University of Cambridge. And now faithfully translated for the benefit of the unlearned (at the appointment and desire of some in authority) into the English tongue; by Richard Stock, preacher in London. ...An ansvvere to the Ten reasons of Edmund Campian the Iesuit in confidence wherof he offered disputation to the ministers of the Church of England, in the controuersie of faith. Whereunto is added in briefe marginall notes, the summe of the defence of those reasons by Iohn Duræus the Scot, being a priest and a Iesuit, with a reply vnto it. Written first in the Latine tongue by the reuerend and faithfull seruant of Christ and his Church, William Whitakers, Doctor in Diuinitie, and the Kings Professor and publike reader of Diuinitie in the Vniuersitie of Cambridge. And now faithfully translated for the benefit of the vnlearned (at the appointment and desire of some in authoritie) into the English tongue; by Richard Stocke, preacher in London. ...
William Whitaker 1548–1595London: printed by Felix Kyngston for Cuthbert Burby and Edmund Weaver, 1606London: printed by Felix Kyngston for Cuthbert Burby and Edmund Weauer, 1606
[40], 326 p. · 97k words · STC 25360 · ESTC S119870
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
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 now, say you, wee shall take knowledge of worse things, and here you recite many things concerning Christs swea•e, horror, and sudden outcrie. I acknowledge that which you alleage, but I see no paradoxe therein. I am not ignorant what is wont to be giuen out by you in corners, that Christ is reproched, when wee say he was tormented with so great griefes of minde. But it is so farre off, Campian, that I doe either denie or dissemble those things which you now obiect, that I doe teach and auow them openly and freely. And though the whole nation of Iesuits should set vpon me, yet I will neuer be ashamed to celebrate Christs mercie, which I see to bee violated by them with vnspeakable iniuries. For what thinke you was it that Christ felt, which brought so great sadnes and vexation to him, that it wrung from him a bloody sweate? was it only death,1 which takes away life and sense? Doe you thinke that Christ could be broken so with the feare of that death that he should conceiue so much griefe in his minde, to make him sweate water and blood, for the desire he had to escape tasting of that cup which hee came to drinke of? Did Christ so much abhorre this death, which the Martyrs haue gone vnto, ioyfull and cheerefull? That were indeede to cast a greater reproch vpon Christ, while ye would auoide the lesser. Wherefore that which raised so great horrors in Christ, was the most bitter wrath of God against mankinde, which Christ must needes haue suffered for a time. For the whole weight of our sinnes was imposed vpon Christ, which brought with it a most heauie remembrance of Gods wrath. Seeing therefore Christ our Mediatour being laden with our sins, ⟨p. 211⟩did suffer the greatnes of Gods displeasure, and did alone endure the punishment of our sinnes, certainly he did quake, as man, and did expresse those incredible sorrowes of his minde many waies. Hence came that speech vpon the Crosse, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? which he vttered not fainedly, but from his heart; not despairingly, as you wickedly write, but vpon the consideration of Gods wrath, which then he was to be subiect vnto.m This is that Hell, of which Christ while he was aliue, and not as you obiect against Caluin, after he was dead, did taste. And certainly this vexation, which Christ endured at that time, did equall after a sort the very paines of hell.
1[Greek or Hebrew]〈non-Latin alphabet〉
mDVR. Christ truly was the Sonne of God, who knew nothing in himself worthy of wrath, and so could not fear the pains of hell. WHIT. pag. 558. You dispute wittily: as if he were not the Sonne of Man also, and sustained the person of sinful men. Neither did he so fear hell, as you imagine: but when the punishment of us all was upon him alone, he must needs as a man be greatly affected and moved with it. For God was exceedingly incensed against us for our sins: Christ interposed himself; and he alone underwent the greatness of that wrath poured upon him, he therefore that saith, Christ felt nothing, diminisheth the greatness of sin, the justice of God, and the merit of Christ. I hat he was not swallowed up of those torments, it must be imputed to the power of his divine nature. DVR. But how could he think himself forsaken of God. who offered himself wholly to God? WHIT. pag. 559. If be did nor feel this defection, why did he say vainly and rashly that he was forsaken? he o••ed himself by his eternal spirit, that is, his Divinity, Hebr. 9.14. Therefore this freewill offering did not hinder, but that he might feel in his mind those sorrows which men should have suffered.DVR. Christ truly was the Sonne of God, who knew nothing in himselfe worthie of wrath, and so could not feare the paines of hell. WHIT. pag. 558. You dispute wittily: as if he were not the Sonne of Man also, and sustained the person of sinfull men. Neither did he so feare hell, as you imagine: but when the punishment of vs all was vpon him alone, he must needs as a man be greatly affected and moued with it. For God was exceedingly incensed against vs for our sinnes: Christ interposed himselfe; and he alone vn•erwent the greatnes of that wrath powred vpon him, he therfore that saith, Christ felt nothing, diminisheth the greatnes of sin, the iustice of God, and the merit of Christ. I hat he was not swallowed vp of those torments, it must be imputed to the power of his diuine nature. DVR. But how could hee thinke himselfe forsaken of God. vvho offered himselfe vvholy to God? WHIT. pag. 559. If be did nor feele this defection, why did hee say vainely and rashly that he was forsaken? he o••ed himselfe by his eternall spirit, that is, his Diuinity, Hebr. 9.14. Therefore this freewill offering did not hinder, but that he might feele in his mind those sorrowes which men should haue suffered.
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,4 yet the very power of truth did wring from him some confession.
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
nDVR. Christ being God and man satisfied the divine justice, not by the greatness and multitude of his punishment, but by the weight of his actions, every one of which is sufficient to be a full price of mans redemption. Neither was it necessary that Christ should undergo the same punishment; which man should have suffered, as if any man would free another from prison, who is cast into it for debt; it is not necessary that be go into prison for him. Besides, who will say that the body of man aid sin? it is man that sinneth, not the body. WHIT. pag. 562. See I pray you what followeth upon your defence, that it was needless that Christ should die at all: for if any action of him being God and man, would have satisfied Gods justice, and wrought mans redemption, in vain did he shed his blood and suffer death But if this be contrary to the decree & justice of God, and not every punishment but extreme sufferings both of body and soul was to be undergone, as Christ suffered in his body the most b••ter •eath, so did he in his soul exquisite and extreme sorrows. And out of your similitude it will follow •s well, that he need not to have descended from heaven to have been made man, or to have suffered any sorrows: and yet who knoweth not, that not only the debtors themselves, but their su••ies must be cast into prison, till the creditor be satisfied? And seeing that in such a surety as this, not the bare payment of money, but a real suffering of grievous pains was necessary, why should we doubt but Christ hath most truly accomplished the part of a surety? Lastly if the body do not sin, why should it suffer the punishment of sin? for is it equal, that the body, which in your judgment doth not sin, should be grievously and eternally punished for sin? And if it be as you say, that the man doth sin, then must the body have a finger in it; for the soul of it self is not a man. And if Christ took mans sin upon him, it was certainly the sin of the whole man, because he hath redeemed the whole.DVR. Christ being God and man satisfied the diuine iustice, not by the greatnes and multitude of his punishment, but by the weight of his actions, euerie one of vvhich is sufficient to be a full price of mans redemption. Neither vvas it necessary that Christ should vndergoe the same punishment; vvhich man should haue suffered, as if any man vvould free another from prison, vvho is cast into it for debt; it is not necessary that be go into prison for him. Besides, who will say that the body of man aid sinne? it is man that sinneth, not the bodie. WHIT. pag. 562. See I pray you what followeth vpon your defence, that it was needlesse that Christ should die at all: for if any action of him being God and man, would haue satisfied Gods iustice, and wrought mans redemption, in vaine did hee shead his blood and suffer death But if this be contrary to the decree & iustice of God, and not euery punishment but extreame sufferings both of body and soule was to be vndergone, as Christ suffered in his body the most bter eath, so did he in his soule exquisite and extreame sorrowes. And out of your similitude it will follow s well, that he need not to haue descended from heauen to haue been made man, or to haue suffered any sorrowes: and yet who knoweth not, that not only the debtors themselues, but their suies must be cast into prison, till the creditor be safied? And seeing that in such a suerty as this, not the bare payment of money, but a reall suffering of grieuous paines was necessary, why should we doubt but Christ hath most truly accomplished the part of a suertie? Lastly if the bodie doe not sinne, why should it suffer the punishment of sinne? for is it equall, that the body, which in your iudgment doth not sinne, should be grieuously and eternally punished for sinne? And if it bee as you say, that the man doth sinne, then must the body haue a finger in it; for the soule of it selfe is not a man. And if Christ tooke mans sinne vpon him, it was certainly the sin of the whole man, because he hath redeemed the whole.
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 otorments of the spirit, and the griefe ⟨p. 214⟩of the will, to the end that that most acceptable sacrifice to God for all our sinnes, might be by all meanes broken and bruised. And a little after: Hee being forsaken of God, and destitute vtterly of all comfort, did not reioyce.
1Ambrosius.
2Melch. Canus. lib. 12. cap. 13.
oDVR. But it followeth not that so he did despair or feel the pains of hell. WHIT. pag. 564. There was no danger, lest Christ might perchance despair, nor is it necessary, that whosoever sustaineth the pains of hell for a while, the same should be overwhelmed with perpetual despair: many of the godly are sometime afflicted with a very deep sense of Gods anger, which they yet overcome through Gods spirit, much more then could Christ overcome all the pains of hell.DVR. But it followeth not that so he did dispaire or feele the paines of hell. WHIT. pag. 564. There was no dāger, lest Christ might perchance despaire, nor is it necessary, that whosoeuer sustaineth the paines of hell for a while, the same should bee ouerwhelmed with perpetuall despaire: many of the godly are sometime afflicted with a very deepe sense of Gods anger, which they yet ouercome through Gods spirit, much more then could Christ ouercome all the paines of hell.
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, ⟨p. 215⟩perhaps their fault wasp lesse, which would imitate the Church of Rome, which you hold cannot erre.
pDVR. Js it a small fault to cross out of the Apostles Creed Christ his descension into hell? It is solid in the Creed of Athanasius, where there is mention of burial, and in the Nicene Creed, when his burial is mentioned, this descension is not expressed. And who seeth not that it was necessary that his soul must descend into the common place of other souls? WHIT. pag. 568. If it be a heinous fact to put out this article, then the Church of Rome (which you say cannot err) is guilty of this, as Ruffinus writeth in exposit. Symb. And it is no strange thing, when in very few ancient Creeds it is to be found. I could produce fifty Creeds, which have it not; in certain it is found, but then saith Ruffinus it must be understood by the precedent article, for it is the same with that, which saith he was buried. And this was Bucers opinion, which the two Creeds of Athanasius and Nice do confirm: for if they be so diversly set down, that in some of them is mention of his burial only, in others only of his descension; it is manifest, that there is one and the same sense in them, and that to be buried is as much as to descend into hell, and this as much as that. Finally it is true his soul went into the common receptacle of souls, but how prove you that that place is in hell? for if his soul went into Paradise, it could not go into hell, unless Paradise be there.DVR. Js it a small fault to crosse out of the Apostles Creed Christ his descension into hell? It is solid in the Creed of Athanasius, where there is mention of buriall, and in the Nicene Creed, when his buriall is mentioned, this descension is not expressed. And who seeth not that it was necessary that his soule must descend into the common place of other soules? WHIT. pag. 568. If it be a haynous fact to put out this article, then the Church of Rome (which you say cannot erre) is guiltie of this, as Ruffinus writeth in exposit. Symb. And it is no strange thing, when in very few auncient Creeds it is to be found. I could produce fiftie Creeds, which haue it not; in certaine it is found, but then saith Ruffinus it must be vnderstood by the precedent article, for it is the same with that, which saith he was buried. And this was Bucers opinion, which the two Creeds of Athanasius and Nice do confirme: for if they be so diuersly set downe, that in some of them is mention of his buriall only, in others only of his descension; it is manifest, that there is one and the same sense in them, and that to be buried is as much as to descend into hel, and this as much as that. Finallie it is true his soule went into the common receptacle of soules, but how proue you that that place is in hell? for if his soule went into Paradise, it could not go into hell, vnlesse Paradise be there.
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⟩All reason, and judgement, and understanding, which was some little piece of that image, is not utterly lost, there is not no will at all left in us;
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;
1Of Man.
2Inslit. lib. 1. cap. 15. sect. 4.
qDVR. But Calvin saith, that the Saints have nothing within but contagion and corruption. For if there be in the Saints no true justice, but all their works are sins, what can be in them besides corruption, and contagion. WHIT. pag. 572. Do you neither fear God, nor reverence man? Show v• any such words of Calvin, if you can: if you cannot, why do you repeat that which Campian most falsely objected at the first? There are in the Saints and the regenerate many excellent virtues and graces of the holy Ghost, as faith, love, hope, patience, &c. who ever said that these were nothing but corruption and contagion? fie, away with you and your slander. As for your argument it is marue love slender, for though the Saints have no justice of their own, which doth perfectly satisfy the Law of God, yet they are endued with many excellent virtues and ornaments of the holy Ghost. If I should reason, because there is no sound learning in you at all, therefore there is nothing but mere ignorance in you, I should conclude the one as truly, as you the other. As for your last slander, that all the works of the Saints are sins; we say no that they are sins, but that by reason of the inherent corruption they are tainted with some spot of sin, and have not that perfection which the law and justice of God requireth. Will you say, that he who is lightly touched with some disease, is nothing else, but the disease? you should certainly stand in need of Physicians and much Physic, if you should thus speak.DVR. But Caluin saith, that the Saints haue nothing within but contagion and corruption. For if there be in the Saints no true iustice, but all their vvorkes are sinnes, vvhat can be in them besides corruption, and contagion. WHIT. pag. 572. Doe you neither feare God, nor reuerence man? Shew v• any such words of Caluin, if you can: if you cannot, why doe you repeate that which Campian most falsely obiected at the first? There are in the Saints and the regenerate many excellent vertues and graces of the holy Ghost, as faith, loue, hope, patience, &c. who euer said that these vvere nothing but corruption and contagion? fie, away vvith you and your slander. As for your argument it is marue lous slender, for though the Saints haue no iustice of their ovvne, vvhich doth perfectly satisfie the Lavv of God, yet they are indued vvith many excellent vertues and ornaments of the holy Ghost. If I should reason, because there is no sound learning in you at all, therefore there is nothing but meere ignorance in you, I should conclude the one as truly, as you the other. As for your last slander, that all the vvorkes of the Saints are sinnes; vve say no that they are sinnes, but that by reason of the inherent corruption they are tainted vvith some spot of sin, and haue not that perfection vvhich the law and iustice of God requireth. Wil you say, that he vvho is lightly touched vvith some disease, is nothing else, but the disease? you should certainly stand in need of Physitions and much Physicke, if you should thus speake.
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.
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.
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,1 must bee reformed after righteousnes and true holines. Indeed that which the regenerate man hath of his owne and proper to himselfe, is vitious. For so the Apostle saw another law in his members rebelling against the law of his minde:2 but those things which he receiued from God, are contrarie to this corruption and contagion; which if any do denie to be good and holy, he may well be held blasphemous ⟨p. 219⟩against the holy Ghost. As for that you both faine that we speake these things, and also expresse for what cause wee speake them, you bewray your wonderfull wisedome, which for those things that are not at all, can set downe a reason wherefore they be. But we doe willingly preach faith, and doe easily permit it to bee contemned of you. For you that defend nature against grace, and doe trust rather to your owne power than to Christs mercie, and doe make voide the promises by precepts, cannot haue an honourable opinion of faith.
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:6uHow dwelleth sin in the flesh, seeing it is no substance, but a straying from good? Therefore let us, if you please, send away the suspicion of this error imposed by you upon us, to the author himself.
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:6uHow 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.
1Of Sin.Of Sinne.
rDVR. The Catholic Church never believed that sin was an accident or quality, but only a privation, for if it were an accident, God should be the cause and author of it. WHIT. pag. 573. But this privation is it not an accidental thing? why then make you a scruple in words, when you understand the sense? An accident is commonly called that which is in some substance, but is no part of it, which may either be absent or present without the corruption of the subject and such a thing every man knoweth sin is. And though I confess that the nature of sin consisteth in a privation; yet it is not a bare privation, as you may learn ou• of your Thomas. For. 1.2. quaest. 82. art. 1. he saith, sin is not a mere privation, but a corrupt habit, like unto a disease, whereby not only health is taken away, but bad humours are brought upon the body. And the School men when they make privation of original justice to be the form of original sin, and the matter to be concupiscence or a corrupt inclination of the faculties of the soul, what do they teach, but that in sin there is some positive thing, as Thomas useth to call it? But why do I endeavour to refel you, for whom Physic is fitter then a refuration? As for your reason it hath no force; for God is not to be accounted the author of all accidencies, but indirectly and by accident. Basil saith, That the root and cause of sin is in our selves, even our freewill.DVR. The Catholike Church neuer beleeued that sinne was an accident or qualitie, but only a priuation, for if it were an accident, God should be the cause and author of it. WHIT. pag. 573. But this priuation is it not an accidentall thing? vvhy then make you a scruple in vvords, vvhen you vnderstand the sense? An accident is commonly called that vvhich is in some substance, but is no part of it, vvhich may either be absent or present without the corruption of the subiect and such a thing euery man knovveth sinne is. And though I confesse that the nature of sinne consisteth in a priuation; yet it is not a bare priuation, as you may learne ou• of your Thomas. For. 1.2. quaest. 82. art. 1. he saith, sinne is not a meere priuation, but a corrupt habit, like vnto a disease, vvhereby not only health is taken avvay, but bad humours are brought vpon the bodie. And the Schoole men vvhen they make priuation of originall iustice to be the forme of originall sinne, and the matter to be concupiscence or a corrupt inclination of the faculties of the soule, vvhat doe they teach, but that in sinne there is some positiue thing, as Thomas vseth to call it? But vvhy do I endeuour to refell you, for vvhom Physike is fitter then a refuration? As for your reason it hath no force; for God is not to be accounted the author of all accidencies, but indirectly and by accident. Basil saith, That the roote and cause of sinne is in our selues, euen our freewill.
As for that you add, that it is a thing commonly held by this filthy sect, that all sins be equal, verily nothing could be spoken more impudently. Pardon me, Campian, if I answer you somewhat sharply: for your unmodest and intolerable impudency wrung that term from me. Are you so far spent that you are not able to charge us with any true crime, but shamelessly to object those things against us, from which we, of all others, are farthest off? For who did ever more vehemently disallow, or more strongly confute this paradox of the Stoics, than our Divines, whom you now pursue? All records of these times may be witnesses hereof, our books, Churches and Schools be witnesses, as also both the civill and Church Discipline may be a witness. Did you think that you could creep into the minds of our University men by these means, by lying so openly, so shamefully, and so boldly? O Rome, what a Campian hast thou returned to us! how much changed from him that he was when thou receivedst him? Art thou wont so to instruct, adorn and polish thy pensioners, as that they retain nothing of their ancient shamefastness? What may I complain of, or to whom should I appeal? surely even to the very same our University men, to whom you your self write: they may convince you by their testimonies. For within these two years our Cambridge men have heard this very matter twice ⟨p. 222⟩propounded and defended in the divinity Schools, That sins are not equal. If neither our own confession, nor the testimony of all mortal men can make enough for the defending of our innocency; be it, that we are Stoics, and heretics, and every thing else.
As for that you adde, that it is a thing commonly held by this filthie sect, that all sinnes be equall, verily nothing could be spoken more impudently. Pardon me, Campian, if I answere you somewhat sharpely: for your vnmodest and intolerable impudencie wrung that terme from me. Are you so far spent that you are not able to charge vs with any true crime, but shamelessely to obiect those things against vs, from which we, of all others, are farthest off? For who did euer more vehemently disallow, or more strongly confute this paradoxe of the Stoiks, than our Diuines, whom you now pursue? All records of these times may be witnesses hereof, our bookes, Churches and Schooles be witnesses, as also both the ciuill and Church Discipline may be a witnesse. Did you thinke that you could creepe into the minds of our Vniuersitie men by these meanes, by lying so openly, so shamefully, and so boldly? O Rome, what a Campian hast thou returned to vs! how much chaunged from him that he was when thou receiuedst him? Art thou wont so to instruct, adorne and polish thy pensioners, as that they retaine nothing of their auncient shamefastnes? What may I complaine of, or to whom should I appeale? surely euen to the very same our Vniuersitie men, to whom you your selfe write: they may conuince you by their testimonies. For within these two yeares our Cambridge men haue heard this very matter twise ⟨p. 222⟩propounded and defended in the diuinity Schooles, That sinnes are not equall. If neither our owne confession, nor the testimonie of all mortall men can make enough for the defending of our innocencie; be it, that we are Stoikes, and heretikes, and euery thing else.
But these are* Calvins words, saith Campian, howsoever with an exception, if they be pondered by God the Judge. What are these the words of Calvin? that he saith sins are equal, but so, if they be weighed by God the Judge? nothing less: for Gods judgements could not be right, if so be he did judge sins to be equal. But mark ye a singular witness. The Fathers of the Council of Trent pronounce a curse on them, who affirm that a just man doth sin either mortally or venially in every good work. To this Calvin answereth that which Solomon saith,2 that man thinketh his own ways right, but God pondereth the hearts. But in the judgement of God nothing is sincere and honest, but that which floweth from the perfect love of him. Calvin speaketh not one word of the equality of sins, nor was there any cause why he should. Only this he intendeth, if the Lord would weigh in his balance the excellentest works of godly men, that he would easily find what to condemn: what is this to the purpose?
But these are* Caluins words, saith Campian, howsoeuer with an exception, if they be pondered by God the Iudge. What are these the words of Caluin? that he saith sinnes are equall, but so, if they be weighed by God the Iudge? nothing lesse: for Gods iudgements could not be right, if so be he did iudge sinnes to be equall. But marke yee a singular witnesse. The Fathers of the Councell of Trent pronounce a curse on them, who affirme that a iust man doth sin either mortally or venially in euery good worke. To this Caluin answereth that which Salomon saith,2 that man thinketh his owne waies right, but God pondereth the hearts. But in the iudgement of God nothing is sincere and honest, but that which floweth from the perfect loue of him. Caluin speaketh not one word of the equalitie of sins, nor was there any cause why he should. Only this he intendeth, if the Lord would weigh in his ballance the excellentest works of godly men, that he would easily find what to cōdemne: what is this to the purpose?
*DVR. Herein Calvin made sins equal, for that he thought all sins to be deadly, and worthy of everlasting punishment. WHIT. pag. 578. Therefore doth Calvin make all sins equal, because he proveth that all sinner are in their own nature deadly? but the Scripture hath taught this most plainly. For if every sin be the transgression of Gods law, and an aversion & defection from God, which is the chiefest good, it must needs in it self deserve eternal death, Rom. 6.21.23. Jam. 2.10. though every sin in Gods justice is odiudged to eternal death, yet it doth not equally deserve it.DVR. Herein Caluin made sinnes equall, for that hee thought all sins to be deadly, and vvorthy of euerlasting punishment. WHIT. pag. 578. Therefore doth Caluin make all sinnes equall, because hee proueth that all sinner are in their owne nature deadly? but the Scripture hath taught this most plainly. For if euery sinne be the transgression of Gods law, and an auersion & defection from God, which is the chiefest good, it must needs in it selfe deserue eternal death, Rom. 6.21.23. Iam. 2.10. though euery sinne in Gods iustice is odiudged to eternall death, yet it doth not equally deserue it.
2Antidote. 6. Sess. in Can. 25.Antidot. 6. Sess. in Can. 25.
As for that, that Thomas Walsingham did object against Wycliffe, it is not much material, he wrote many things against Wycliffe being dead, and let pass no slander which witty malice could devise. While Wycliffe was alive, no adversaries could hurt him, but being dead they condemned him, they plucked him out of his grave, burned his body, when they might without danger devise any thing against that most holy man. Neither can I ever be induced to believe, ⟨p. 223⟩that Wycliffe taught these things, if this imputation depend upon no greater credit than of an adversary. As touching that, that you report of the Duke of Guise, I defend not the fact: he that committed it, suffered punishment greater I wis, than Taverners are wont, that kill pullen when there is no need. I confess that the Guise was a man of admirable fortitude: I would he had been of more clemency. He was flayed, even as you say, by a wicked man, whom if perhaps either hope of impunity or fear of punishment did induce, that being examined, he did accuse very noble and innocent men, it is neither marvellous nor new. Him that he did appeach as the Ringleader of his plot, the King himself did pronounce an innocent: but as for Beza all good men have acquitted him in their judgements long ago.
As for that, that Thomas Walsingham did obiect against Wicliffe, it is not much materiall, he wrote many things against Wicliffe being dead, and let passe no slander which witty malice could deuise. While Wicliffe was aliue, no aduersaries could hurt him, but being dead they condemned him, they plucked him out of his graue, burned his body, when they might without danger deuise any thing against that most holy man. Neither can I euer be induced to beleeue, ⟨p. 223⟩that Wicliffe taught these things, if this imputation depend vpon no greater credit than of an aduersarie. As touching that, that you report of the Duke of Guise, I defend not the fact: he that committed it, suffered punishmēt greater I wis, than Tauerners are wont, that kill pullen when there is no need. I confesse that the Guise was a man of admirable fortitude: I would he had been of more clemencie. He was flaine, euen as you say, by a wicked man, whom if perhaps either hope of impunity or feare of punishment did induce, that being examined, hee did accuse verie noble and innocent men, it is neither marueilous nor new. Him that he did appeach as the Ringleader of his plot, the King himselfe did pronounce an innocent: but as for Beza all good men haue acquitted him in their iudgements long ago.
From Sin you pass your speech to Grace:1 I would rather you your self did make passage: and you hope, that we who are so strict in the matter of sin, will play the Philosophers so gloriously about Gods Grace. Surely we shall think we play the Philosophers very well, if we refer all our Philosophy for the amplifying of the Cross of Christ.2 You also do treat of Grace, but as still you are wont, in few words. But what do you reprove in our Philosophy? because we place Grace out of us only in the favour of God. For you, Campian, would have your men to be persuaded, that we take all Grace from man, and do place it only in the mind of God, like Plato's Idea. But either you know not what you talk of in this place, and that you are ignorant of this Philosophy, or else you suffer not our opinion, being infolded in your slanders, to be manifest. For we make grace to be twofold (that I may omit many distinctions) wherein we do not disallow the Philosophy of your School men. For either Grace declareth the free goodwill and clemency of God toward us, or else it ⟨p. 224⟩signifieth those gifts, which flow out of that mercy of God to us. That they commonly call, Grace making acceptable; and this, Grace freely given. Now for thatx goodwill and favour whereby the Lord embraceth us in Christ, and forgiveth us our sins, and receiveth us into favour; we place it in God: but the effects of this Grace are in us: which effects are these, that we do by the holy Ghost perceive that we are ⟨p. 225⟩loved of God, that we believe in God, and repose all hope of salvation in that mercy of God. We do not therefore take away all grace from man, and place it only in Gods favour: but that first grace, whereby he hath reconciled us to himself in Christ, and wherein our salvation is contained, that alone we place in God; which being felt by us, faith, hope, and charity and other virtues do follow it, which are ours, and resident in us. But we deny that position of yours of infused grace, whereby you defend, that the grace whereby we are justified, is a certain habit situate in our minds within: and we acknowledge no other justifyingy grace, but the great and free mercy of God, whereby he did elect and predestinate us in Christ before all eternity unto life everlasting, and hath called us in time and justified us.z
From Sinne you passe your speech to Grace:1 I would rather you your selfe did make passage: and you hope, that we who are so strict in the matter of sin, will play the Philosophers so gloriously about Gods Grace. Surely we shall thinke we play the Philosophers very well, if we referre all our Philosophie for the amplifying of the Crosse of Christ.2 You also do treate of Grace, but as still you are wont, in few words. But what do you reproue in our Philosophie? because we place Grace out of vs only in the fauouer of God. For you, Campian, would haue your men to be perswaded, that we take all Grace from man, and doe place it only in the mind of God, like Platoes Idea. But either you know not what you talke of in this place, and that you are ignorant of this Philosophie, or els you suffer not our opinion, being infolded in your slanders, to bee manifest. For wee make grace to bee twofold (that I may omit many distinctions) wherein wee doe not disallow the Philosophie of your Schoole men. For either Grace declareth the free goodwill and clemencie of God toward vs, or else it ⟨p. 224⟩signifieth those gifts, which flow out of that mercy of God to vs. That they commonly call, Grace making acceptable; and this, Grace freely giuen. Now for thatx goodwill and fauour whereby the Lord embraceth vs in Christ, and forgiueth vs our sinnes, and receiueth vs into fauour; we place it in God: but the effects of this Grace are in vs: which effects are these, that we do by the holy Ghost perceiue that wee are ⟨p. 225⟩loued of God, that we beleeue in God, and repose al hope of saluation in that mercy of God. We do not therefore take away all grace from man, and place it only in Gods fauour: but that first grace, wherby he hath reconciled vs to himselfe in Christ, and wherin our saluation is contained, that alone wee place in God; which being felt by vs, faith, hope, and charity and other vertues do follow it, which are ours, and resident in vs. But we deny that position of yours of infused grace, whereby you defend, that the grace whereby we are iustified, is a certaine habite situate in our minds within: and we acknowledge no other iustifyingy grace, but the great and free mercy of God, whereby hee did elect and predestinate vs in Christ before all eternitie vnto life euerlasting, and hath called vs in time and iustified vs.
xDVR. I know well your doctrine of imputative justice, than which I know not whether any man can devise one thing more against the Scriptures. WHIT. pag. 582. Thus you speak, like a Jesuit: but what is there that the Scripture doth more celebrate than imputative justice? Rom. 4.3.4.5.6. is a most clear text for it. But what? know you not that our sins were imputed to Christ? and why then may not Christs righteousness be imputed to us in l•ke manner? Think you that Christ had our sins really infused into him? I suppose, you will never say so: seeing then in the one part you are compelled against your will to confess an imputation, why do you not also grant it in the other, specially seeing the Apostle himself propoundeth us this Antithesis, 2. Cor. 5.21. Christ was made sin for us, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him? Therefore we are so made righteousness in Christ, as he was made sin for us, which must necessarily be understood of imputation. And ve••ly whereas our injustice or iniquity is a debt, and Christ hath payed it, then must it of necessity follow, that, that payment is ours no otherwise then only by imputation. Again, I pray you, what can be imagined more absurd, then that the merit• of Saints should be imputed unto us, and Christ his righteousness cannot be? for they who buy indulgences with money, do not doubt but to reap much fruit from the merits of others. It then the merits of Saints, as you think, can make them more just, in whom they are not inherent, what an impious and absurd thing were it to give less power of imputation to the merits and righteousness of Christ? DVR. Charity i• the end of the Law. Rom. 13. For he that loveth his brother hath fulfilled the Law. So that if charity be truly in us, we have true justice: and well said Augustine, Charity begun, is justice begun; charity increased, is justice increased; great charity is great justice; perfect charity is perfect justice. WHIT. pag. 583. All is true you say touching charity. Love your neighbour as the law requireth, and you have fulfilled the second Fable: but this you cannot do; therefore be not brag in the opinion of your charity, which if it were as great as ever any man had, yet it should be far short of that the Law requireth, neither can it make you just. As for Augustine we confess as much as he saith: but this is not the justice which freeth us from the wrath of God, for that never increaseth or groweth, but is ever most absolute and perfect, that is Christ his obedience imputed unto us by faith. Of charity August. Epist. 29. writeth thus. As long as charity may be increased, that verily which is less, is faulty: by that which is faulty, there is none just upon earth.
For grace infused, wherein regeneration and sanctification consisteth, and which the Scriptures call the new man, ⟨p. 226⟩is not strong enough to justify us,a because it never satisfieth the law of God in this life, and ought every day to be restored, and aspire to greater perfection. For so Paul saith,2 Although our outward man perish, yet our inward man is renewed daily: which place Augustine hath very often used in this cause. You see therefore both what grace we place in God, and what we confess to be infused into our hearts. For as for that you say we bark out, that grace is not strong enough for the resisting of sin, therein you go about thorough our sides to wound Paul himself, upon whom this your reproach reboundeth.3 For though he were endued with infused grace, as much as any other, yet he denieth that he could attain, to perfect that which is good:b for that he did not the good which he would, but the evil that he would not: and that when he desired to do good, evil was present with him: finally that the law of his members doth ⟨p. 227⟩so rebel against the law of his mind, that it maketh him captive to the law of sin. Hence you may know how great strength sin hath, which even the Apostle himself, albeit he were endued with singular grace, could not so fully resist, but that sometimes he was both overcome of it, and bound up in it, as Augustine speaketh. If you doubt, Campians, whether the Apostle spake this of himself, I had rather you should take advise of Augustine, 5than of the Masters of Trent, seeing they be very bad interpreters of the Apostle. What should I remember to you David, and the rest of the Fathers, who have taught by their examples, that it is not easy to resist sin? but herein you are like your self, in that you say, that Christ is no otherwise said by us to b• full of grace and truth, but th••, that the Father did very much favour him. I pray you Campian, whence could you gather this? Do we not say that Christ was full of grace so; that from his ⟨p. 228⟩fullness we all receive grace: who of us did ever deny that there was very great and infinite grace in Christ. For they that say that Christ was so full of grace, that all men did declare that he was worthy of the unspeakable favour both of God and men, they do not only hold, that Christ was no otherwise full of grace, but herein that God did very much favour him;
For grace infused, wherein regeneration and sanctification consisteth, and which the Scriptures call the new man, ⟨p. 226⟩is not strong enough to iustifie vs,a because it neuer satisfieth the law of God in this life, and ought euery day to be restored, and aspire to greater perfection. For so Paul saith,2 Although our outward man perish, yet our inward man is renewed daily: which place Augustine hath very often vsed in this cause. You see therfore both what grace we place in God, and what we confesse to be infused into our hearts. For as for that you say wee barke out, that grace is not strong enough for the resisting of sinne, therein you goe about thorough our sides to wound Paul himself, vppon whō this your reproch reboundeth.3 For though he were indued with infused grace, as much as any other, yet he denieth that he could attaine, to perfect that which is good:b for that he did not the good which he would, but the euill that he would not: and that when he desired to do good, euill was present with him: finally that the law of his members doth ⟨p. 227⟩so rebell against the law of his mind, that it maketh him captiue to the law of sin. Hence you may know how great strength sinne hath, which euen the Apostle himselfe, albeit hee were indued with singular grace, could not so fully resist, but that sometimes he was both ouercome of it, and bound vp in it, as Augustine speaketh. If you doubt, Campians, whether the Apostle spake this of himselfe, I had rather you should take aduise of Augustine, 5than of the Masters of Trent, seeing they be very bad interpreters of the Apostle. What should I remember to you Dauid, and the rest of the Fathers, who haue taught by their examples, that it is not easie to resist sinne? but herein you are like your selfe, in that you say, that Christ is no otherwise said by vs to b• full of grace and truth, but th••, that the Father did very much fauour him. I pray you Campian, whence could you gather this? Do we not say that Christ was full of grace so; that from his ⟨p. 228⟩
aDVR. Grace infused and our inherent righteousness, though it be not perfect, yet it is true justice, and doth justify us. WHIT. pag. 58•. By this you overthrow your doctrine of justification: for that justice which doth reconcile us to God ought to be most perfect, that such as neither the law nor God himself can require a more perfect. That which is not perfect, is in it kind corrupt. If then •n imperfect justice can please God, then a corrupt thing will please him, and so should he not be perfectly just: but being most just, that only pleaseth him, which is according to the prescription of the law, most perfect. Luk. 10.27.28. Levit. 18.5.DVR. Grace infused and our inherent righteousnes, though it be not perfect, yet it is true iustice, and doth iustifie vs. WHIT. pag. 58•. By this you ouerthrow your doctrine of iustification: for that iustice which doth reconcile vs to God ought to be most perfect, that such as neither the law nor God himselfe can require a more perfect. That which is not perfect, is in it kind corrupt. If then •n imperfect iustice can please God, then a corrupt thing will please him, and so should he not be perfectly iust: but being most iust, that only pleaseth him, which is according to the prescription of the law, most perfect. Luk. 10.27.28. Leuit. 18.5.
bDVR. S. Paul saith only, that he was assayed and tempted by those motions; but seeing it is not sin, where the consent of the vvill is not, be saith, it was not he that did it, but the flesh, for he doubted not but grace was sufficient for him, whereby be might overcome all these, seeing he had the word of Christ for it. 2. Cor. 12.9. And he shevoeth that by this grace we may overcome our corruptions,
but also they do set out Christs grace to have bin more abundant. For they do confess,1 both that the grace of the spirit was plentiful in Christ without measure, and also they hold that there did an outward grace so shine forth in Christ, that all did love him and did perceive that he was beloved of God, this doth Brentius and Bucer, and all our Divines acknowledge.
but also they doe set out Christs grace to haue bin more abundant. For they doe confesse,1 both that the grace of the spirit was plentiful in Christ without measure, and also they hold that there did an outward grace so shine forth in Christ, that all did loue him and did perceiue that he was beloued of God, this doth Brentius and Bucer, and all our Diuines acknowledge.
What thing therefore (say you) is Justice? 1you make answer to your self, a Relation. If you commence an action against us about Aristotle's Predicaments, certainly we fear not, but we shall have a Philosopher gentle enough in this cause. For though Justice bec a Relation, yet Philosophy will not be cashiered: but that it is a quality you can never prove, either out of the Predicaments, or out of the chiefest Philosophy. But your Theological virtues, faith, hope, and charity, had never any injury offered to them by us: indeed they be so handled by you, that you seem to take them not for Theological, but for Philosophical ⟨p. 229⟩virtues. But the cause that maketh us not to hold, that our righteousness is compounded of these virtues, as you would have it, is this, because they are never so perfect in this life, as throughly to satisfy the law of God: now the law must be satisfied or else we cannot be just. For the Lord doth allow no other righteousness, but the very same which is described in the law, which whosoever cannot attain, are pronounced guilty of eternal death. Therefore if we will be righteous and saved, and free from that horrible curse, such a righteousness must be sought out, than which the law cannot require a more absolute. And where shall we find this? Is it in our virtues, in our faith, in our charity? But these are weak many ways, and want that integrity which the law requireth, & whereunto it propoundeth righteousness. For faith is but begun, & we are always to pray that it may be increased in us. Now if faith be weak,3 other virtues which spring from faith, cannot be perfect. But righteousness must be of that kind, as that nothing at all may be added thereunto. From hence it followeth, that righteousness is not compounded of our virtues, as you unfitly speak, but it must be fetched elsewhere. Seeing therefore we had no such virtue, as might obtain righteousness for us with the Lord, Christ was given us by the Lord, who performed perfect obedience to the law, that by his obedience we might be made righteous. For this obedience of Christ imputed to us, and apprehended by faith,4 is that righteousness of ours, which you enquire after, not heaped up with our virtues, as you would have it, but place in Christ, who is made unto us of God, 5wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption.
What thing therfore (say you) is Iustice? 1you make answere to your selfe, a Relation. If you commence an action against vs about Aristotles Predicaments, certainly we feare not, but we shall haue a Philosopher gentle enough in this cause. For though Iustice bec a Relation, yet Philosophie will not be cashierd: but that it is a quality you can neuer proue, either out of the Predicaments, or out of the chiefest Philosophie. But your Theologicall vertues, faith, hope, and charity, had neuer any iniurie offred to them by vs: indeed they be so handled by you, that you seeme to take them not for Theologicall, but for Philosophicall ⟨p. 229⟩vertues. But the cause that maketh vs not to hold, that our righteousnes is compounded of these vertues, as you would haue it, is this, because they are neuer so perfect in this life, as throughlie to satisfie the law of God: now the law must be satisfied or else we cannot be iust. For the Lord doth allow no other righteousnes, but the very same which is described in the law, which whosoeuer cannot attaine, are pronounced guilty of eternall death. Therfore if we will be righteous and saued, and free from that horrible curse, such a righteousnesse must bee sought out, than which the law cannot require a more absolute. And where shall we find this? Is it in our vertues, in our faith, in our charitie? But these are weake many waies, and want that integrity which the law requireth, & wherunto it propoundeth righteousnes. For faith is but begun, & we are alwaies to pray that it may bee increased in vs. Now if faith be weak,3 other vertues which spring from faith, cannot be perfect. But righteousnesse must be of that kind, as that nothing at all may be added thereunto. From hence it followeth, that righteousnesse is not compounded of our vertues, as you vnfitly speake, but it must be fetcht elsewhere. Seeing therefore wee had no such vertue, as might obtaine righteousnesse for vs with the Lord, Christ was giuen vs by the Lord, who performed perfect obedience to the law, that by his obedience we might be made righteous. For this obedience of Christ imputed to vs, and apprehended by faith,4 is that righteousnes of ours, which you enquire after, not heaped vp with our vertues, as you would haue it, but place in Christ, who is made vnto vs of God, 5wisedome, righteousnesse, sanctification, and redemption.
1Of Justice.Of Iustice.
cDVR. That which is not at all cannot be a real Relation. WHIT. pag. 600. But Christs righteousness is not, not at all. For Christ performed all things which the Law required, therefore was endued with the quality of perfect justice: but that reason which persuadeth us, to confess, that this righteousness of the Law in Christ was a quality, the same compelleth us to think that this righteousness is not a quality inherent in us; for that we never in our own person obeyed the Law. Now what doth let, that that righteousness in Christ cannot be made ours by relation and imputation? for common sense might have taught you this, if a man do pay money in your name, this payment is yours by imputation. If you ask, how that is yours, which is not inherent in you; I say again, which thing the Apostle doth so oft press, it is yours by imputation. Now rub up your Philosophy, if you can, to prove that nothing is made ours by imputation.DVR. That vvhich is not at all cannot bee a reall Relation. WHIT. pag. 600. But Christs righteousnesse is not, not at all. For Christ performed all things vvhich the Lavv required, therefore vvas indued vvith the qualitie of perfect iustice: but that reason which perswadeth vs, to confesse, that this righteousnesse of the Law in Christ was a quality, the same compelleth vs to thinke that this righteousnesse is not a quality inherent in vs; for that vvee neuer in our owne person obeyed the Lavv. Novv vvhat doth let, that that righteousnesse in Christ cannot bee made ours by relation and imputation? for common sense might haue taught you this, if a man do pay money in your name, this payment is yours by imputation. If you aske, how that is yours, vvhich is not inherent in you; I say againe, which thing the Apostle doth so oft presse, it is yours by imputation. Now rub vp your Philosophie, if you can, to proue that nothing is made ours by imputation.
yet the very power of truth did wring frō him some confession.
••
•
•
••
••
2Nazianz.
3Rabanus, in Catena Thoma.
4Hieronym.
sDVR. Basil saith not, that sin is an accident or a quality, but an affection contrary to virtue. WHIT. pag. 575. Then must it be somewhat, for nothing cannot be contrary to virtue.DVR. Basil saith not, that sin is an accident or a quality, but an affection cōtrary to vertue. WHIT. pag. 575. Then must it be somevvhat, for nothing cannot be contrarie to vertue.
tDVR. Augustine vvill accuse you for slandering him, because he spake not of sin, but of concupiscence, which he accounted to be no sin. WHIT. pag. 576. Doth Augustine account concupiscence no sin? why then calleth he it an affection of an evil quality? why doth he compare it to a disease? why doth he demand the question, how concupiscence should remain in the regenerate, whose sins are all remitted, if it were not a sin? his answer proveth it yet more fully. For he saith, concupiscence is remitted in Baptism, not that it should be no sin at all as you would have it, but that it should not be imputed for a sin. If it were no sin, how could it be imputed for a sin? Finally August. cont. Julian. lib. 5 cap. 3. affirmeth that it is a sin, and a punishment of sin, and a cause of sin, and that in the regenerate. It is manifest in the place, that he speaketh of that concupiscence against which the spirit lusteth, and which in without the consent of the vvill. It at any time he deny it to be a sin, it i• not simply, but in opposition to actual sin; for how should that be nothing, which is remitted in Baptism, which Christ satisfied for by his blood? or is God angry with us for nothing? It must therefore needs be sin.DVR. Augustine vvill accuse you for slandering him, because he spake not of sin, but of concupiscence, vvhich he accounted to be no sinne. WHIT. pag. 576. Doth Augustine account concupiscence no sinne? vvhy then calleth he it an affection of an euill quality? vvhy doth he compare it to a disease? vvhy doth he demaund the question, hovv concupiscence should remaine in the regenerate, vvhose sinnes are all remitted, if it vvere not a sinne? his ansvvere proueth it yet more fully. For he saith, concupiscence is remitted in Baptisme, not that it should be no sinne at all as you vvould haue it, but that it should not be imputed for a sinne. If it vvere no sinne, hovv could it be imputed for a sinne? Finally August. cont. •ulian. lib. 5 cap. 3. affirmeth that it is a sinne, and a punishment of sin, and a cause of sinne, and that in the regenerate. It is manifest in the place, that he speaketh of that concupiscence against vvhich the spirit lusteth, and vvhich in vvithout the consent of the vvill. It at any time he denie it to be a sinne, it i• not simplie, but in opposition to actuall sinne; for hovv should that be nothing, vvhich is remitted in Baptisme, vvhich Christ satisfied for by his blood? or is God angry vvith vs for nothing? It must therfore needs be sin.
uDVR. Ambrose his words refel your error. WHIT. pag. 577. Nay they refel your error. For he saith, it is a straying from good. Now this straying is an action, and not a mere privation. And you your selves earnestly defend that sin is an action. If it be an action, then an accident, then no mere privation, thē not nothing.DVR. Ambrose his vvords refell your error. WHIT. pag. 577. Nay they refell your error. For hee saith, it is a straying from good. Novv this straying is an action, and not a meere priuation. And you your selues earnestly defend that sin is an action. If it be an action, then an accident, then no meere priuation, thē not nothing.
DVR. I know vvell your doctrine of imputatiue iustice, than vvhich I know not whether any man can deuise one thing more against the Scriptures. WHIT. pag. 582. Thus you speake, like a Iesuite: but vvhat is there that the Scripture doth more celebrate than imputatiue iustice? Rom. 4.3.4.5.6. is a most cleere text for it. But what? know you not that our sins were imputed to Christ? and why then may not Christs righteousnes be imputed to vs in l•ke manner? Thinke you that Christ had our sinnes really infused into him? I suppose, you will neuer say so: seeing then in the one part you are compelled against your will to confesse an imputation, why do you not also grant it in the other, specially seeing the Apostle himselfe propoundeth vs this Antithesis, 2. Cor. 5.21. Christ vvas made sinne for vs, that we might be made the righteousnes of God in him? Therefore we are so made righteousnes in Christ, as he was made sinne for vs, which must necessarily bee vnderstood of imputation. And ve••ly whereas our iniustice or iniquitie is a debt, and Christ hath payed it, then must it of necessity follow, that, that payment is ours no otherwise then only by imputation. Againe, I pray you, what can bee imagined more absurde, then that the merit• of Saints should be imputed vnto vs, and Christ his righteousnes cannot bee? for they who buy indulgences with money, doe not doubt but to reape much fruit from the merits of others. It then the merits of Saints, as you thinke, can make them more iust, in whom they are not inherent, what an impious and absurd thing were it to giue lesse power of imputation to the merits and righteousnes of Christ? DVR. Charity i• the end of the Law. Rom. 13. For he that loueth his brother hath fulfilled the Lavv. So that if charity be truly in vs, vve haue true iustice: and vvell said Augustine, Charitie begun, is iustice begun; charitie encreased, is iustice encreased; great charity is great iustice; perfect charitie is perfect iustice. WHIT. pag. 583. All is true you say touching charitie. Loue your neighbour as the law requireth, and you haue fulfilled the second Fable: but this you cannot doe; therefore be not brag in the opinion of your charitie, which if it were as great as euer any man had, yet it should be farre short of that the Law requireth, neither can it make you iust. As for Augustine wee confesse as much as hee saith: but this is not the iustice which fre•th vs from the wrath of God, for that neuer increaseth or groweth, but is euer most absolute and perfect, that is Christ his obedience imputed vnto vs by faith. Of charitie August. Epist. 29. writeth thus. As long as charity may be encreased, that verily vvhich is lesse, is faulty: by that vvhich is faulty, there is none iust vpon earth.
yDVR. Why do you not then freely confess that you do place all grace only in the favour of God without us, which favour doth neither amend the wicked, nor purge, nor illuminate, nor enrich them, but only dissemble their old remaining & stinking channel, God winking at it? WHIT. pag. 584. You cease not to trouble us with your ignorance: for doth it follow that we remove all grace from us, because we place justifying grace, which is the mercy of God in Christ, not in us, but in God only? for beside this grace, there is another grace communicated to all the Saints, whereby their souls •re purged and renewed. This consisteth in faith, and in the fruits of faith, which they commonly call Grace infused: therefore that channel of sin doth remain not within them, that have attained true righteousness, as you slander us to teach; but by the power of the holy Ghost it is daily purged out; yet so, that as long as we live there remain some relics of sin & old Adam. For if that channel were so purged, that no blots of sin did remain in us; neither would S. Paul complain of the law of his members, and the body of death, Rom. 7.23.24. Neither should we need the renewing of the spirit, 2. Cor. 4.16.DVR. Why do you not then freely confesse that you doe place all grace only in the fauour of God vvithout vs, vvhich fauour doth neither amend the wicked, nor purge, nor illuminate, nor enrich them, but only dissemble their old remaining & stinking chanell, God winking at it? WHIT. pag. 584. You cease not to trouble vs with your ignorance: for doth it follow that wee remoue all grace from vs, because wee place iustifying grace, which is the mercy of God in Christ, not in vs, but in God only? for beside this grace, there is another grace communicated to all the Saints, wherby their soules •re purged and renewed. This consisteth in faith, and in the fruits of faith, which they cōmonly cal Grace infused: therfore that chanell of sin doth remaine not within them, that haue attained true righteousnes, as you slander vs to teach; but by the power of the holy Ghost it is daily purged out; yet so, that as lōg as we liue there remaine some reliques of sin & old Adam. For if that chanel were so purged, that no blots of sinne did remaine in vs; neither would S. Paul complaine of the law of his members, and the body of death, Rom. 7.23.24. Neither should wee neede the renuing of the spirit, 2. Cor. 4.16.
zDVR. But what place of Scripture doth distinguish justification from sanctification? S. Paul doth not, 1. Cor. 6.11. Rom. 6.13. That also is a strange thing, that faith should justify us and not sanctify us: but more strange that Christ should impute his righteousness to us, that we may be just, and yet not holy and sanctified. WHIT. pag 586. Who can read the Scripture, specially the Epistle to the Romans, and not find these two distinguished? for in the first part of it he treateth of justification, in the latter of sanctification; what is more manifest then that he writeth, Rom 8.30. whom he hath called, those he hath justified; whom he hath justisted, those he hath glorified. Now this glorification signifieth the glorious renovation, which is begun here, and perfected in another life, as your Thomas upon this place hath observed. Again, 1. Cor. 1.30. Is not here justification and sanctification distinguished? justification and sanctification are inseparable, yet must they be distinguished: which because you do not, you place justification in sanctification Your place out of the Epistle to the Corinthians, doth plainly distinguish them. Your second place showeth that a kind of justification is in sanctification: but it is not that perpect justice, by which we are justified before God, but only an imperfect one. As for your wonders and strange things, they come from your ignorance: for we have never separated these two, but affirm that he who is by faith partaker of Christ his righteousness, must needs have the old man crucified, and the body of sin destroyed in him, that he may no longer serve sin.DVR. But vvhat place of Scripture doth distinguish iustification from sanctification? S. Paul doth not, 1. Cor. 6.11. Rom. 6.13. That also is a strange thing, that faith should iustifie vs and not sanctifie vs: but more strange that Christ should impute his righteousnes to vs, that vve may be iust, and yet not holy and sanctified. WHIT. pag 586. Who can reade the Scripture, specially the Epistle to the Romanes, and not find these two distinguished? for in the first part of it he treateth of iustification, in the latter of sanctification; vvhat is more manifest then that he vvriteth, Rom 8.30. vvhom he hath called, those hee hath iustified; vvhom hee hath iustisted, those hee hath glorified. Now this glorification signifieth the glorious renouation, which is begun heere, and perfected in another life, as your Thomas vpon this place hath obserued. Againe, 1. Cor. 1.30. Is not heere iustification and sanctification distinguished? iustification and sanctification are inseparable, yet must they be distinguished: which because you do not, you place iustification in sanctification Your place out of the Epistle to the Corinthes, doth plainly distinguish them. Your second place sheweth that a kind of iustificatiō is in sanctification: but it is not that perpect iustice, by which we are iustified before God, but only an imperfect one. As for your wonde•s and strange things, they come from your ignorance: for we haue neuer sepa•ated these two, but affirme that he who is by faith partaker of Christ his righteou•nes, must needs haue the old man crucified, and the body of sinne destroyed in him, that he may no longer serue sinne.
fulnes we all receiue grace: who of vs did euer deny that there was very great and infinit grace in Christ. For they that say that Christ was so full of grace, that all men did declare that hee was worthy of the vnspeakeable fauour both of God and men, they doe not only hold, that Christ was no otherwise full of grace, but herein that God did very much fauour him;
. he •aith, he did that which he hated. Why did he hate it, unless it were worthy hatred? Now nothing is worthy hatred, but sin. And vers. 19. he addeth, he did the evil, which he would not. Then he sinned: for to be tempted with evil, is not to do that a man would not: but to be tempted and to overcome them, is to do that a man both should and would do. And vers. 23. he saith, he was led captive to the law of sin. How can he be a captive and not be overcome? Believe the Apostle then, and he could not resist sin always by all his grace. But you say his will did not give consent: be it so, yet those motions are sin against the tenth Commandment. For
. he showeth that he speaketh of concupiscence without consent. For lusts with consent, subduing the will, the Philosophers confessed to be sin. For the place you allege
. the sufficiency of Gods grace is but so much, that he should not be swallowed up of temptations. The godly fall often, but God lifteth them up again. For the other place,
. you are deceived by the corrupt Latin translation. For in the Greek it is, I thank God by Jesus Christ: you read it as if asking the question, who should deliver him from the body of death; he had answered himself; The grace of God by Jesus Christ, when he giveth thanks to God, as if he had said; Though this body of death be troublesome unto me, because it compelleth me to serve sin, yet I rest in that hope, which I have placed in Christ.
DVR. S. Paul saith only, that hee vvas assayed and tempted by those motions; but seeing it is not sinne, vvhere the consent of the vvill is not, bee saith, it vvas not hee that did it, but the flesh, for hee doubted not but grace vvas sufficient for him, vvhereby be might ouercome all these, seeing he had the vvord of Christ for it. 2. Cor. 12.9. And he shevoeth that by this grace vvee may ouercome our corruptions, Rom. 7.25. WHIT. pag. 594. But the Apostle sheweth that he was not only tempted by these, but ouercome. Rom. 7.15. he •aith, he did that vvhich he hated. Why did he hate it, vnlesse it were worthie hatred? Now nothing is worthy hatred, but sinne. And vers. 19. he addeth, hee did the euill, vvhich he vvould not. Then he sinned: for to be tempted with euill, is not to do that a man would not: but to be tempted and to ouercome them, is to do that a man both should and would do. And vers. 23. he saith, he was led captiue to the lavv of sinne. How can he be a captiue and not be ouercome? Beleeue the Apostle then, and he could not resist sinne alwaies by all his grace. But you say his will did not giue consent: bee it so, yet those motions are sinne against the tenth Commandement. For Rom. 7.7. he sheweth that he speaketh of concupiscence without consent. For lusts with consent, subduing the will, the Philosophers confessed to be sinne. For the place you alleage 2. Cor. 12.9. the sufficiencie of Gods grace is but so much, that hee should not bee swallowed vp of temptations. The godly fall often, but God lifteth them vp againe. For the other place, Rom. 7.25. you are deceiued by the corrupt Latin translation. For in the Greeke it is, I thanke God by Iesus Christ: you reade it as if asking the question, vvho should deliuer him from the body of death; he had answered himselfe; The grace of God by •esus Christ, when he giueth thankes to God, as if hee had said; Though this body of death be troublesome vnto me, because it compelleth me to serue sin, yet I rest in that hope, which I haue placed in Christ.
5August. de verb. Apost. Serm. 5 & alibi. Gal. 5.17.August. de verb. Apost. Serm. 5 & •libi. Gal. 5.17.
