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.
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,
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.
And this is ourd righteousness, even ⟨p. 230⟩Christe himself, whosef righteousness and innocency being ascribed unto us, doth bring assured remission of sins, and true righteousness. This the Divines call the first justice, after which followeth another, compounded of these virtues of yours. For with that remission of sins, which dependeth on Christs obedience, faith, and hope, & charity are joined, which make us just also after a sort, but inchoatively not perfectly.
And this is ourd righteousnes, euen ⟨p. 230⟩Christe himselfe, whosef righteousnes and innocencie being ascribed vnto vs, doth bring assured remission of sinnes, and true righteousnes. This the Diuines cal the first iustice, after which followeth another, compounded of these vertues of yours. For with that remission of sinnes, which dependeth on Christs obedience, faith, and hope, & charity are ioyned, which make vs iust also after a sort, but inchoatiuely not perfectly.
dDVR. The Scripture plainly witnesseth, that as we are made sinners by Adam, so we are made just by Christ. Rom. 5. WHIT. pag. 602. You understand not the Apostle. For though we be just in Christ, as we were sinners in Adam, yet not after the same manner. In Adam we sinned, and had his sin by propagation derived to us: but the justice of Christ, thought it was communicated unto us by imputation, ye […] •as it not so derived unto us. The Apostle would only teach and say this, as Adam was the author of sin, so Christ was the author of righteousness.DVR. The Scripture plainly witnesseth, that as vve are made sinners by Adam, so vve are made iust by Christ. Rom. 5. WHIT. pag. 602. You vnderstand not the Apostle. For though we bee iust in Christ, as we were sinners in Adam, yet not after the same manner. In Adam we sinned, and had his sinne by propagation deriued to vs: but the iustice of Christ, thought it was communicated vnto vs by imputation, ye 〈…〉•as it not so deriued vnto vs. The Apostle would only teach and say this, as Adam was the author of sin, so Christ was the author of righteousnesse.
eDVR. Answer me I pray you, why the Apostles and Christ do so oft exhort us to the obedience of the law? and never bid us apprehend the righteousness of Christ by faith? as Luk. 10. Matth. 25. WHIT. pag. 603. Christ and his Apostles do exhort us to the obedience of the law, not to the end we may deserve everlasting life by our works, but because it is our duty to walk in that race of piety wherein we are placed, that we walking in those good works, and insisting in that way which the Lord hath propounded to us, may come at length to that most happy mark For albeit we never come to a mark unless we go the right way, yet the way is not the cause of the mark. Now whereas you say that we are no where commanded to apprehend Christ righteousness by faith, you bewray your miserable ignorance. Peruse therefore better these famous places for proof of that the Scriptures do command us this. Rom. 4.5. Rom. 5.19. Rom. 1.17. Gal. 2.16. Gal. 3.14. Jon. 3 18. Joh. 5.24. Act. 10.43. As for the cause for which Christ in Matth. 25. saith he vvill make mention of works in the day of judgement, it is for that as James (chap. 2.18.) saith, works do make show & proof of faith. But in that very place vers. 34. before Christ mentioneth those works of the Saints, he toucheth the true and proper causes of salvation. 1. Gods adoption in Christ [Greek or Hebrew] possess by the right of inheritance. For that which one possesseth by the right of inheritance, he doth not deserve it by his merits. 2. The eternal election of God, when he saith that it is a kingdom prepared for them from the foundations of the world. Now if your opinion be this, that God did prepare them this kingdom, because he did foresee their great good works, your own Thomas is an adversary against you. Thom de verit. quast. 6. art. 2. & Thom. 1. part quaest. 23. art 1.DVR. Answere me I pray you, why the Apostles and Christ do so oft exhort vs to the obedience of the law? and neuer bid vs apprehend the righteousnes of Christ by faith? as Luk. 10.
fDVR. Christ is called by S. Paul our righteousness: so in the same place he saith, that he is our wisdom, and our sanctification. WHIT pag. 609. That wisdom, and righteousness, & sanctification, which S. Paul affirmeth Christ to be made unto us, are not resident in us as qualities, nor are they otherwise ours, than as we do embrace and possess whole Christ by faith.DVR. Christ is called by S. Paul our righteousnes: so in the same place hee saith, that he is our vvisdome, and our sanctification. WHIT pag. 609. That vvisdome, and righteousnes, & sanctification, vvhich S. Paul affirmeth Christ to be made vnto vs, are not resi•ent in vs as qualities, nor are they othervvise ours, than as vve doe embrace and possesse vvhole Christ by faith.
I have declared to you in few words our opinion touching righteousness, sith you make inquiry, what it is. But your virtues cannot so clothe the soul round about, as that no naked thing may appear. For all our righteousnesses, are likeg filthy clouts,2⟨p. 231⟩and those not only defiled, but also torn and rent in many pieces.3 Christ himself must be put upon us, that we may be found in him, not having our ownh righteousness which is of the law, but that which is by the faith of Christ; namely the righteousness that is of God through faith. For God was in Christ and reconciled the world unto himself, not imputing their sins to them. With this clothing our souls must be clothed, that they may be beautified and gloriously adorned: neither are we ashamed of that word, upon which you play, when we say that our righteousness is a covering of the fault. For so doth the Prophet David pronounce him to be a blessed man,5 whose iniquities be forgiven, & whose sins are covered. And this pardon we apprehend only by faith: now this faith is not feigned, nor dead, nor separate from other virtues, nor void of good works, but it is of that nature, that it worketh by love. It is therefore faith alone, which justifieth, that is, which embraceth Christs obedience ⟨p. 232⟩wherein our righteousness consisteth; but yet this faith which justifieth, is never alone: for it is ever accompanied with hope, and charity, and doth not suffer it self to be disjoined from it. For as the heat alone of the fire doth set the wood on fire, and yet this heat is not alone, but continually joined with the light: so faith alone of it self doth justify, albeit it can never be quite alone.
I haue declared to you in few words our opinion touching righteousnes, sith you make inquiry, what it is. But your vertues cannot so cloath the soule round about, as that no naked thing may appeare. For all our righteousnesses, are likeg filthie clouts,2⟨p. 231⟩and those not only defiled, but also torne and rent in many peeces.3 Christ himselfe must be put vpon vs, that we may be found in him, not hauing our owneh righteousnes which is of the law, but that which is by the faith of Christ; namely the righteousnes that is of God through faith. For God was in Christ and reconciled the world vnto himselfe, not imputing their sinnes to them. With this cloathing our soules must be cloathed, that they may be beautified and gloriously adorned: neither are wee ashamed of that word, vpon which you play, when we say that our righteousnes is a couering of the fault. For so doth the Prophet Dauid pronoūce him to be a blessed man,5 whose iniquities be forgiuē, & whose sins are couered. And this pardon we apprehēd only by faith: now this faith is not feined, nor dead, nor separate from other vertues, nor void of good workes, but it is of that nature, that it worketh by loue. It is therefore faith alone, which iustifieth, that is, which embraceth Christs obedience ⟨p. 232⟩wherin our righteousnes consisteth; but yet this faith which iustifieth, is neuer alone: for it is euer accompanied with hope, and charity, and doth not suffer it selfe to be disioyned from it. For as the heate alone of the fire doth set the wood on fire, and yet this heate is not alone, but continually ioyned with the light: so faith alone of it self doth iustifie, albeit it can neuer be quite alone.
gDVR. Jf you speak of that justice, which we get to our selves without the help of Christ, you say truly: but if of that which Christ hath purchased for us by his blood, and poured into our harts, you do an intolerable juturie unto Christ. WHIT. pag 610. I speak of that righteousness which every regenerate man hath by the help of Christ. For do you think the Prophet wanted the help of Christ? yet he professeth his righteousness is impure and imperfect: if you think he did speak of their works which are not regenerate, you must deny that he was regenerate, who confesseth the imperfection of his works. Of this righteousness Beruard doth understand it, Serm. 5. de verbis Isay And all the godly have thus confessed of them clues. Psal. 130.3. Dan. 9.7. Ezra. 9.15. Job. 9.3.28. 1. Joh. 1.8. & 1. Joh. 2.7.DVR. Jf you speake of that iustice, vvhich vve get to our selues vvithout the helpe of Christ, you say truly: but if of that which Christ hath purchased for vs by his blood, and powred into our harts, you doe an intollerable iuturie vnto Christ. WHIT. pag 610. I speake of that righteousnes which euerie regenerate man hath by the help of Christ. For do you thinke the Prophet wanted the helpe of Christ? yet he professeth his righteousnes is impure and imperfect: if you thinke hee did speake of their workes which are not regenerate, you must deny that hee was regenerate, who confesseth the imperfection of his workes. Of this righteousnesse Beruard doth vnderstand it, Serm. 5. de verbis Isay And all the godly haue thus confessed of them clues. Psal. 130.3. Dan. 9.7. Ezra. 9.15. Iob. 9.3.28. 1. Ioh. 1.8. & 1. Ioh. 2.7.
Now seeing that all our righteousness and happiness, do consist in the pardon of sins, we also teach that this ought to be most certainly persuaded to us and known of us, so as our souls may rest therein as in a most safe and quiet haven. For being justified by faith, we have peace toward God, through our Lord Jesus Christ. Now what could this peace be, it we were always distracted with a doubtful hope & thoughts, and tossed as it were with waves hither and thither about our salvation? Albeit therefore our consciences are set upon oftentimes by many terrors, so as they cannot be so secure in this life, as if we did already enjoy the endless joy of heaven; yet we say that this faith ought to depend most certainly and strongly upon the promises of God, so as we may expel all doubting about the grace of God, our adoption, and salvation. For true faith cannot agree with unbelief. It is the property of this to distrust Gods promises, but the property of that is to overcome and drive away all doubting; as much as may be. But if faith be full of doubting, wherein doth it go beyond unbelief? let us believe the Apostle, who both knew very well, and hath described exactly the nature of true faith. He propoundeth Abraham unto un, in whom we may behold a most notable image of true faith. What did he? did he stagger? was he in suspense with himself? did he doubt? nay in him all things were contrary:1 he against hope did believe under hope: he was not weak in the faith: he did ⟨p. 233⟩not discourse against the promise of God through unbelief: he was strengthened in the faith: he was fully persuaded, that God which had promised, could perform it. And this faith was imputed to him for righteousness.2 This was Abraham's faith: shall ours be unlike it? but he is our Father, we his children, and children should be like their father. The conclusion is made now against you Campian, that by faith we arei made certain of our salvation, and that your variable and suspicious faith is liker to infidelity than to faith.4kBasil saith excellently: What is the property of faith? a full or certain persuasion void of all doubting. But what mean I to convince you by testimonies of the ancient, whom the very Catechism of Trent doth confute?6 The word belief (saith it) as the holy Scriptures teach, hath the force of most certain consent.
Now seeing that all our righteousnes and happines, do consist in the pardon of sinnes, we also teach that this ought to be most certainly perswaded to vs and knowne of vs, so as our soules may rest therin as in a most safe and quiet hauen. For being iustified by faith, wee haue peace toward God, through our Lord Iesus Christ. Now what could this peace be, it we were alwaies distracted with a doubtful hope & thoughts, and tossed as it were with waues hither and thither about our saluation? Albeit therefore our consciences are set vpon oftentimes by many terrors, so as they cannot be so secure in this life, as if wee did alreadie enioy the endlesse ioy of heauen; yet we say that this faith ought to depend most certainly and strongly vpon the promises of God, so as wee may expell all doubting about the grace of God, our adoption, and saluation. For true faith cannot agree with vnbeliefe. It is the propertie of this to distrust Gods promises, but the property of that is to ouercome and driue away all doubting; as much as may be. But if faith be full of doubting, wherein doth it go beyond vnbeliefe? let vs beleeue the Apostle, who both knew very well, and hath described exactly the nature of true faith. He propoundeth Abraham vnto vn, in whom wee may behold a most notable image of true faith. What did he? did he stagger? was hee in suspense with himselfe? did he doubt? nay in him al things were contrary:1 he against hope did beleeue vnder hope: he was not weake in the faith: hee did ⟨p. 233⟩not discourse against the promise of God through vnbeliefe: he was strengthned in the faith: hee was fully perswaded, that God which had promised, could performe it. And this faith was imputed to him for righteousnes.2 This was Abrahams faith: shal ours bee vnlike it? but he is our Father, wee his children, and children should bee like their father. The conclusion is made now against you Campian, that by faith wee arei made certaine of our saluation, and that your variable and suspicious faith is liker to infidelity than to faith.4kBasil saith excellently: What is the propertie of faith? a full or certaine perswasion void of all doubting. But what meane I to conuince you by testimonies of the auncient, whom the very Catechisme of Trent doth confute?6
iDVR. You can never show out of Gods word, that forgiveness of all sins is given to them, who apprehend the righteousness of Christ by saith. WHIT. pag. 618. This that you deny to be showed in the Scriptures, is most plainly taught in them, as Joh. 3.16. Act. 10.43. Act. 13.39. DVR. But we know not whether we be endued with true faith. WHIT. pag. 620. Indeed it cannot be denied, that many are deceived with a feigned faith: but they who are endued with true faith, they do know that they have true faith: so did Paul 2. Tim. 1.12. know for himself & in 2. Cor. 13.5. he biddeth other learn to know it. So a Christian may know that he hath true faith, & that by the spirit that he hath given us, as 1. Joh. 3.24.DVR. You can neuer shew out of Gods word, that forgiuenes of all sinnes is giuen to them, vvho apprehend the righteousnes of Christ by saith. WHIT. pag. 618. This that you deny to be shewed in the Scriptures, is most plainly taught in them, as Ioh. 3.16. Act. 10.43. Act. 13.39. DVR. But vve know not vvhether vve be endued vvith true faith. WHIT. pag. 620. Indeed it cannot be denied, that many are deceiued with a fained faith: but they who are indued vvith true faith, they do know that they haue true faith: so did Paul 2. Tim. 1.12. know for himself & in 2. Cor. 13.5. he biddeth other learne to know it. So a Christiā may know that he hath true faith, & that by the spirit that he hath giuen vs, as
Wherefore he believeth, to whom any thing is certain and assured without doubting. Now we ⟨p. 234⟩believe everlasting life, therefore it ought to be most certain & assured to us without any doubting. I require now nothing more, the Catechism of the Council of Trent, ratified by the authority of the Pope and Council, teacheth me that a man ought to be certain of his salvation.
Wherefore he beleeueth, to whom any thing is certaine and assured without doubting. Now we ⟨p. 234⟩beleeue euerlasting life, therefore it ought to be most certaine & assured to vs without any doubting. I require now nothing more, the Catechisme of the Councell of Trent, ratified by the authoritie of the Pope and Councell, teacheth me that a man ought to be certaine of his saluation.
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.
Matth. 25
. WHIT. pag. 603. Christ and his Apostles do exhort vs to the obedience of the law, not to the end wee may deserue euerlasting life by our workes, but because it is our duty to walke in that race of piety wherein vvee are placed, that vvee walking in those good workes, and insisting in that vvay vvhich the Lord hath propounded to vs, may come at length to that most happy mark For albeit we neuer come to a marke vnlesse we goe the right way, yet the way is not the cause of the marke. Novv vvhereas you say that we are no where commanded to apprehend Christ righteousnes by faith, you bewray your miserable ignorance. Peruse therefore better these famous places for proofe of that the Scriptures do commaund vs this.
. saith he vvill make mention of vvorkes in the day of iudgement, it is for that as Iames (chap. 2.18.) saith, works do make shevv & proofe of faith. But in that very place vers. 34. before Christ mentioneth those vvorkes of the Saints, he toucheth the true and proper causes of saluation. 1. Gods adoption in Christ 〈non-Latin alphabet〉 possesse by the right of inheritance. For that which one possesseth by the right of inheritance, hee doth not deserue it by his merits. 2. The eternall election of God, vvhen hee saith that it is a kingdome prepared for thē from the foūdations of the world. Novv if your opinion be this, that God did prepare them this kingdome, because he did foresee their great good vvorkes, your ovvne Thomas is an aduersarie against you. Thom de verit. quast. 6. art. 2. & Thom. 1. part quaest. 23. art 1.
hDVR. Saint Paul calleth the righteousness of the law, that which is gotten by the doctrine of the law without the help of Grace: And the justice of faith, not any apprehended by faith, but because they come unto it by faith. WHIT. pag. 613. In examining the place we shall see of what justice S. Paul speaketh: first he denieth that to be any part of justice, whatsoever he had gloriously done when he was a Pharisee; that though he was then according to the justice of the Law without reproof, & endued with many good qualities, yet he accounted all loffe for Christs sake. vers. 4.5.6.7. And lest any should think that he attributed any thing to his works oftener faith; he addeth that he rejecteth these also, neither ascribed his justification unto them. Adding in the 8. verse. that he accounted all things loss. Not the other, but these also I contemn: and upon this inferreth. vers. 9. Not having my own righteousness, which is of the law▪ but that which is through the faith of Christ. When then he excludeth all kind of works, he must needs understand the justice of Christ.DVR. Saint Paul calleth the righteousnes of the law, that which is gotten by the doctrine of the lavv without the helpe of Grace: And the iustice of faith, not any apprehended by faith, but because they come vnto it by faith. WHIT. pag. 613. In examining the place we shall see of what iustice S. Paul speaketh: first he denieth that to bee any part of iustice, whatsoeuer he had gloriously done when he was a Pharisie; that though he was then according to the iustice of the Law without reproofe, & indued with many good qualities, yet he accounted all loffe for Christs sake. vers. 4.5.6.7. And lest any should thinke that he attributed any thing to his workes ofter faith; he addeth that he reiecteth these also, neither ascribed his iustification vnto them. Adding in the 8. verse. that hee accounted all things losse. Not the other, but these also I contemne: and vpon this inferreth. vers. 9. Not hauing my owne righteousnes, which is of the law▪ but that which is through the faith of Christ. When then he excludeth all kind of workes, hee must needs vnderstand the iustice of Christ.
4Basil. in [Greek or Hebrew].Basil. in 〈non-Latin alphabet〉.
kDVR. That which you bring out of Basil and the Tridentime Catechism doth overthrow your self: & what certainty can a man have of his justification, when as S. Paul saith. 1. Cor. 4.4. I know nothing by my self, yet am I not thereby justified. And the like hath Job. cap. 9.15.20. WHIT pag. 622. If they attribute to faith a most certain persuasion without doubting, as they do, do they not confirm our doctrine, that a man may be certain of his salvation. For those temptations which come from the flesh, though they may shake it, yet they cannot overthrow it. As for S. Paul doth he deny himself to be justified, doth he doubt of his salvation? Read the end of the eight to the Romans, and you shall find him so certain of his justification and salvation, as that you Papists are glad to answer, that he had it by an extraordinary revelation of the spirit. And do you now make him doubting of his salvation? But you understand not Saint Paul in the place you allege: for he doth not not deny that he is justified; but he saith that thereby he is not justified, because he knoweth nothing by himself. Job also though he dare not trust to his own works and innocency, yet he showeth himself to be certain of his own salvation. Job 19.26.DVR. That which you bring out of Basil and the Tridentime Catechisme doth ouerthrow your selfe: & what certaintie can a man haue of his iustification, vvhen as S. Paul saith. 1. Cor. 4.4. I knovv nothing by my selfe, yet am I not thereby iustified. And the like hath Iob. cap. 9.15.20. WHIT pag. 622. If they attribute to faith a most certaine persvvasion without doubting, as they do, do they not cōfirme our doctrine, that a man may be certaine of his saluation. For those temptations which come frō the flesh, though they may shake it, yet they cannot ouerthrow it. As for S. Paul doth hee denie himself to be iustified, doth he doubt of his saluatiō? Reade the end of the eight to the Romans, and you shall find him so certaine of his iustification and saluation, as that you Papists are glad to ansvvere, that he had it by an extraordinary reuelation of the spirit. And do you novv make him doubting of his saluation? But you vnderstand not Saint Paul in the place you alleadge: for he doth not not deny that he is iustified; but he saith that thereby he is not iustified, because he knovveth nothing by himselfe. Iob also though he dare not trust to his owne workes and innocency, yet he shevveth himselfe to be certaine of his ovvne saluation. Iob 19.26.
