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.
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.
But are you not yet quiet, but still question farther, for (say you) how can a man be sure lof his future perseverance? That may be certain, Campian, by faith, which if it be true cannot utterly decay.2 The Apostle termeth faith them ground of things that are hoped for, & the evidence of things that are not seen. Now how are those things extant which be hoped for, or demonstrated which are not seen, if faith be not perpetual? But they which are endued with this faith, they do now after a sort enjoy those good things, which are yet hoped for, & they do contemplate those things, which cannot be seen with mens ⟨p. 235⟩eyes. So that faith admits us being alive here, and as the Apostle saith,
certain that we shall one day be there, we seem now after a sort to live and converse in heaven. But all these things would be fading and light, if saith could not persevere. Therefore
Paul had a most certain persuasion, that neither life nor death, nor things present, nor things to come, nor any other creature can separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus.
But such as do not persevere, they may be separated: but these cannot be separated, therefore they persevere. And for this cause the pledge of our adoption, even the holy Ghost himself is given to us, who assureth us most certainly that we are the sons of God, so as now we do not doubt to call God Father.
we know that we shall be like him. Knowledge is certain, & consisteth on assured principles: to doubt is the property of opinion, not of knowledge. Hear Cyprian:
Let such a man fear to die, who not being borne again of water and the spirit, is thrall to the fire. Let him fear to die, that thinketh not he hath his part in Christs Cross and Passion.
Chrysostom upon these words of the Apostle, Into this grace wherein we stand, writeth thus: The grace of God hath no end, it
⟨p. 236⟩
knoweth no full point, but it maketh progress unto greater. And anon after, saith he, we must be fully assured not only of things given, but also of things to be given as well as of things given already. And Augustine:
But are you not yet quiet, but stil question farther, for (say you) how can a man be sure lof his future perseuerance? That may be certaine, Campian, by faith, which if it be true cannot vtterly decay.2 The Apostle termeth faith them ground of things that are hoped for, & the euidence of things that are not seene. Now how are those things extant which bee hoped for, or demonstrated which are not seene, if faith bee not perpetuall? But they which are endued with this faith, they doe now after a sort enioy those good things, which are yet hoped for, & they do contemplate those things, which cannot be seene with mens ⟨p. 235⟩eies. So that faith admits vs being aliue here, and as the Apostle saith,4 walking by faith and not by sight, into the very possession of heauen, so as because vve aren certaine that wee shall one day bee there, wee seeme now after a sort to liue and conuerse in heauen. But all these things would be fading and light, if saith could not perseuere. Thereforeo Paul had a most certaine perswasion, that neither life nor death, nor things present, nor things to come, nor any other creature can seperate vs from the loue of God which is in Christ Iesus. 7But such as doe not perseuere, they may be separated: but these cannot bee separated, therefore they perseuere. And for this cause the pledge of our adoption, euen the holy Ghost himselfe is giuen to vs, who assureth vs most certainely that we are the sonnes of God, so as now we do not doubt to call God Father.8 But how dare such a one call him Father, who thinketh that he may be sometime not his sonne? for the Saints may professe with the Apostle,9 we know that we shall bee like him. Knowledge is certaine, & consisteth on assured principles: to doubt is the property of opinion, not of knowledge. Heare Cyprian: 10Let such a man feare to die, who not being borne againe of water and the spirit, is thrall to the fire. Let him feare to die, that thinketh not hee hath his part in Christs Crosse and Passion. 11Chrysostome vpon these words of the Apostle, Into this grace wherein we stand, writeth thus: The grace of God hath no end, it ⟨p. 236⟩knoweth no full point, but it maketh progresse vnto greater. And anone after, saith he, we must be fully assured not only of things giuen, but also of things to be giuen as well as of things giuen alreadie. And Augustine:
lDVR. Who could ever be certain of his own perseverance to the end, without the peculiar revelation of God? WHIT. pag. 626. In this speech you cut in sunder the sinews of Gods everlasting decree. For seeing Gods predestination is certain and unchangeable, it doth cause our calling, justifying, and glorifying to be as certain as it self. For is it in your power to dissolve and break in sunder that golden chain of the Apostle? Rom. 8.30. and to whom can his own perseverance be doubtful, seeing God testifieth his perpetual good will towards us, as these scriptures fully teach. Jer. 32 40. Joh. 13. 1. Luc 22.32. Job. 17.20.21. Matth. 21.22. Rom. 8.9. Joh. 14.16. Joh. 10.28. Phil. 2.6. Rom. 11.29. 1. Joh. 3.9. Matth. 24.24.DVR. VVho could euer be certaine of his ovvne perseuerance to the end, vvithout the peculiar reuelatiō of God? WHIT. pag. 626. In this speech you cut in sunder the sinevves of Gods euerlasting decree. For seeing Gods predestination is certaine and vnchangeable, it doth cause our calling, iustifying, and glorifying to be as certaine as it selfe. For is it in your povver to dissolue and breake in sunder that golden chaine of the Apostle? Rom. 8.30. and to vvhom can his owne perseuerance be doubtfull, seeing God testifieth his perpetual good wil towards vs, as these scriptures fully teach. Ier. 32 40. Ioh. 13. 1. Luc 22.32. Iob. 17.20.21. Matth. 21.22. Rom. 8.9. Ioh. 14.16. Ioh. 10.28. Phil. 2.6. Rom. 11.29. 1. Ioh. 3.9. Matth. 24.24.
mDVR. No man ever doubted but that all those things which we believe are most certain. But you ought to show that every ode ought to believe that he shall persevere in that faith to his end, Saint Paul she weth that certain had made shipwreck of faith. 1. Tim. 1.19. WHIT. pag. 627. The question is not whether things believed be certain or no: for that the Devils do certainly know; which is as much as you Papists do believe, by your own confession, and so you confess your selves to be void of true faith But the faith, the Apostle speaketh of, doth not only believe those things are true in themselves, but that they are partakers of them. Therefore he saith, it is the ground of things hoped for, because it enjoyeth those good things which are prepared for another life by a certain & an approved hopes and the evidence of things not seen, because it now beholdeth things that are hid from our eyes. The perseverance then of the faithful is so certain, that they may think they have the possession of those things which they shall receive in another world. Now the faith S. Paul speaketh of, is not a justifying faith, but only true and sound doctrine, of which Hym•naeus and Alexander had made shipwtacke.DVR. No man euer doubted but that all those things which vve beleeue are most certaine. But you ought to shevv that euery ode ought to beleeue that he shall perseuere in that faith to his end, Saint Paul she vveth that certaine had made shipvvracke of faith. 1. Tim. 1.19. WHIT. pag. 627. The question is not vvhether things beleeued be certaine or no: for that the Diuels do certainly knovv; vvhich is as much as you Papists doe beleeue, by your ovvne confession, and so you confesse your selues to bee void of true faith But the faith, the Apostle speaketh of, doth not only beleeue those things are true in themselues, but that they are partakers of them. Therefore he saith, it is the ground of things hoped for, because it enioyeth those good things vvhich are prepared for another life by a certaine & an approued hopes and the euidence of things not seene, because it novv beholdeth things that are hid from our eies. The perseuerance then of the faithfull is so certaine, that they may thinke they haue the possession of those things vvhich they shall receiue in another vvorld. Novv the faith S. Paul speaketh of, is not a iustifying faith, but only true and sound doctrine, of vvhich Hym•naeus and Alexander had made shipvvtacke.
nDVR. 1. Cor. 10. He that standeth let him take heed lest he fall. Phil. 2. work out your salvation which fear:the like. Heb. 4. WHIT. pag. 633. 1. You have falsified, 1. Cor. 10. for Pauls words are, he that thinketh he standeth let him take heed lest he fall. Wherein you go against even your own authentical Latin translation. Blush you not at this? 2. The very Saints themselves are diligently to be admonished, to fly carnal security, to be ware of Sathans assaults, and to be in continual care. And yet this hind•eth not, but that they are in the mean while most certain of their salvation. For although Paul (Act. 27) sailing, did not doubt a whit whether he should come safe to land, yet he let pass nothing, which it behooved a man careful of his safety, to care for and to do.DVR. 1. Cor. 10. He that standeth let him take heed lest he fall. Phil. 2. vvorke out your saluation vvhich feare:the like. Heb. 4. WHIT. pag. 633. 1. You haue falsified, 1. Cor. 10. for Paules vvords are, he that thinketh he standeth let him take heed lest hee fall. Wherein you go against euen your ovvne authenticall Latin translation. Blush you not at this? 2. The very Saints themselues are diligently to be admonished, to flie carnal securitie, to be ware of Sathans assaults, and to be in cōtinual care. And yet this hind•eth not, but that they are in the meane vvhile most certaine of their saluation. For although Paul (Act. 27) sayling, did not doubt a whit whether he should come safe to land, yet he let passe nothing, vvhich it behooued a man carefull of his safetie, to care for and to do.
oDVR Will you say that the Apostle speaketh in the person of all t•e elect. WHIT. pag. 629. The Apostle proveth it, speaking •n their person; what shall separate us (not me only) from the love of Christ. And again, I am persuaded that nothing shall separate us (not me only) from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus. Therefore he speaketh of all those who are predestinated.DVR Will you say that the Apostle speaketh in the person of all t•e elect. WHIT. pag. 629. The Apostle proueth it, speaking •n their person; vvhat shall separate vs (not me only) from the loue of Christ. And againe, I am persvvaded that nothing shall separate vs (not me only) from the loue of God which is in Christ Iesus. Therefore he speaketh of all those vvho are predestinated.
1because therefore (saith he) the promise is firm not according to our merits, but according to his mercy, no man ought with fearfulness to preach (the kingdom of Christ in his Saints) whereof he ought not to doubt. But Augustine is wholly ours. For as you did lately conclude, that Augustine did allow free will, because he wrote three books of free will, so may I reason after the same manner, that Augustine did think of perseverance, as we do, because he wrote one book of the good of perseverance. To this I will join Bernard, whose golden words these be,2 My conscience is troubled, but it is not over troubled, because I will remember the wounds of the Lord. But I will allege no more testimonies. Faith is either perpetual, or else it is none at all: either it perseveres to the last breath, or else that which is esteemed for faith, is but some fancy.
1because therefore (saith he) the promise is firme not according to our merits, but according to his mercy, no man ought with fearefulnes to preach (the kingdome of Christ in his Saints) whereof he ought not to doubt. But Augustine is wholy ours. For as you did lately conclude, that Augustine did allow free will, because hee wrote three bookes of free will, so may I reason after the same manner, that Augustine did thinke of perseuerance, as we do, because he wrote one booke of the good of perseuerance. To this I will ioyne Bernard, whose golden words these be,2 My conscience is troubled, but it is not ouer troubled, because I will remember the wounds of the Lord. But I will alleadge no more testimonies. Faith is either perpetuall, or else it is none at all: either it perseuers to the last breath, ot else that which is esteemed for faith, is but some fancie.
As for that, that you allege touching Luther, who you say affirmeth, that a Christian though he will cannot lose his salvation, unless he will not believe, this Luther never affirmed, either in that book or any where else. For if you shall turn over all Luther's writings, which you have not saluted, nor I believe, so much as seen, yet you can find this sentence no where. The Fathers of Trent have condemned this proposition and worthily: for it is impious, and to be reckoned among the chiefest paradoxes. But whose soever it was, certainly it was not Luther's. But, say you, Luther wrote so in his book of the captivity of Babylon. That is false: yet he wrote some such thing. I will tell you what it is; and that in a word. Luther reproveth the Papists, for that they thought that the grace of Baptism is quite lost by sin, and ⟨p. 237⟩withal they brought in Penance a new Sacrament, which they term a second board, whereby the grace of Baptism might be recovered. Therefore he denieth that the power and grace of Baptism can so be lost by sins, but that it may be repaired by faith; which thing he proveth by many and mighty reasons. In that therefore Luther taught, that the grace of Baptism cannot be lost, unless one will not believe; and this the Fathers of Trent and our countryman Campian do so interpret, as if he had said, that which these men object, that a Christian though he will cannot leese his salvation, unless he will not believe. Why should I confute so unsavoury an imagination with more words?
As for that, that you alleage touching Luther, who you say affirmeth, that a Christian though he will cannot lose his saluation, vnlesse hee will not beleeue, this Luther neuer affirmed, either in that booke or any where els. For if you shall turne ouer all Luthers writings, which you haue not saluted, nor I beleeue, so much as seene, yet you can finde this sentence no where. The Fathers of Trent haue condemned this proposition and worthily: for it is impious, and to bee reckoned among the chiefest paradoxes. But whose soeuer it was, certainly it was not Luthers. But, say you, Luther wrote so in his booke of the captiuity of Babylon. That is false: yet he wrote some such thing. I will tell you what it is; and that in a word. Luther reproueth the Papists, for that they thought that the grace of Baptisme is quite lost by sinne, and ⟨p. 237⟩withall they brought in Penance a new Sacrament, which they terme a second boord, wherby the grace of Baptisme might be recouered. Therefore he denieth that the power and grace of Baptisme can so bee lost by sinnes, but that it may bee repaired by faith; which thing he proueth by many and mighty reasons. In that therefore Luther taught, that the grace of Baptisme cannot be lost, vnlesse one will not beleeue; and this the Fathers of Trent and our countriman Campian do so interprete, as if hee had said, that which these men obiect, that a Christian though he will cannot leese his saluation, vnlesse he will not beleeue. Why should I confute so vnsauoury an imagination with more words?
You make hast to the Sacraments. 1And I will pursue you as much hast as you make. Now here you cry out most pitifully, O blessed Christ, they have left never a Sacrament, not two, not one. Dare you appeal to Christ, whose Sacraments ye have banished with great reproach out of the Church, that ye might bring in certain impure Sacraments not worthy to be named? we retain those Sacraments which Christ hath commended to us: if there had been need of more, he would have left more. We have two Sacraments, Baptism, and the Lords Supper: these Christ did institute,p these the ancient Church acknowledge, and with these the later Church ought to have been contented. For that it is most evident, that for seven Sacraments, for so many you hold, that not a footstep of antiquity can be found. O blessed Christ, they ⟨p. 238⟩have seven Sacraments, & yet they have no Sacrament, because they have not thine. For those Sacraments which are not thine, are no Sacraments at all. Their bread, say you, is poison, and what is our wine? but the common people among you taste not of that at all: belike, lest they should think that you did drink to them of a poison. We do use that bread and that wine in the Lords Supper, which Christ himself commanded to use. That which he delivered, we have received: that which he did, we do: in the bread and wine we celebrate the remembrance of our Redeemer. If those were wholesome, ours cannot be deadly. Baptism (say you) although it be as yet among them true, notwithstanding in their judgement it is nothing. You your self confess that our Baptism is true• I take it for granted. But why is it true? because we baptize so, as Christ hath commanded us. We keep the law of Christ, we throw your, I know notq what, trash away; the like have we done in the other Sacrament, not have we departed a nails breadth from Christs precept. If ours be true Baptism, then is out ⟨p. 239⟩rEucharist true also. But in their judgement (say you) it is nothing. Why so? It is not the water of salvation, it is not the conduit of grace, it doth not derive the merits of Christ into ut; but only it is a signification of salvation. All these things are feigned & false. For we preach it to be the saving water, and as channel of grace, and we doubt not but it deriveth Christs merits into us.
You make hast to the Sacraments. 1And I will pursue you as much hast as you make. Now here you cry ont most pittifully, O blessed Christ, they haue left neuer a Sacrament, not two, not one. Dare you appeale to Christ, whose Sacraments yee haue banished with great reproch out of the Church, that ye might bring in certaine impure Sacraments not worthy to be named? we retaine those Sacraments which Christ hath commended to vs: if there had been need of more, he would haue left more. We haue two Sacraments, Baptisme, and the Lords Supper: these Christ did institute,p these the auncient Church acknowledge, and with these the later Church ought to haue been contented. For that it is most euident, that for seuen Sacraments, for so many you hold, that not a footstep of antiquity can be found. O blessed Christ, they ⟨p. 238⟩haue seuen Sacramēts, & yet they haue no Sacramēt, because they haue not thine. For those Sacraments which are not thine, are no Sacraments at all. Their bread, say you, is poison, and what is our wine? but the common people among you taste not of that at all: belike, lest they should thinke that you did drinke to them of a poison. Wee doe vse that bread and that wine in the Lords Supper, which Christ himselfe commanded to vse. That which hee deliuered, we haue receiued: that which he did, we do: in the bread and wine we celebrate the remembrance of our Redeemer. If those were wholesome, ours cannot bee deadly. Baptisme (say you) although it be as yet among them true, notwithstanding in their iudgement it is nothing. You your self cōfesse that our Baptisme is true• I take it for granted. But why is it true? because wee baptize so, as Christ hath commanded vs. We keepe the law of Christ, we throw your, I know notq what, trash away; the like haue we done in the other Sacrament, not haue wee departed a nailes bredth from Christs precept. If ours be true Baptisme, then is out ⟨p. 239⟩rEucharist true also. But in their iudgement (say you) it is nothing. Why so? It is not the water of saluation, it is not the conduit of grace, it doth not deriue the merits of Christ into vt; but only it is a signification of saluation. All these things are feined & false. For we preach it to be the sauing water, and as
1Of the Sacraments.
pDVR. Our seven Sacraments stand upon good ground and reason, & hath antiquity for them. WHIT. pag. 643. You should then produce some antiquity for the proof of them; but having none, why do you so brag of it. I wonder not at your silence, because I know that, that this number was never heard of before Hugo de Sancto Victore, and Peter Lombard brought them into the Church: and yet for them Lombard never gathered any testimony of ancient Fathers. Neither ever any Councell, before the Florentine Councell, did approve or establish this number. But your five bastard Sacraments, 1. Order. 2. Confirmation. 3. Extreme Unction. 4. Penance. 5. Marriage. I prove thus to be no true Sacraments of Christs Church. 1. In every Sacrament is necessarily required and element or visible matter. But that neither your Order, not Confirmation, nor Penance, nor Marriage have, by any warrant of Scripture. 2. Those which are the proper Sacraments of the Church Christ did institute. But Christ instituted not any one of those five for Sacraments. 3. Sacraments belong to all Christians, But your Order, and Marriage pertain to a few in comparison. 4. Seeing you faine that grace lieth hid in the Sacraments, and is by them transmitted unto men, prove us which parts of these Sacraments do contain the grace enclosed. What answer soever you make you will be taken napping. Therefore these five bastard Sacraments, are no true Sacraments of Christs Church.DVR. Our seuen Sacraments stand vpon good ground and reason, & hath antiquitie for them. WHIT. pag. 643. You should then produce some antiquitie for the proofe of them; but hauing none, why do you so brag of it. I wonder not at your silēce, because I know that, that this number was neuer heard of before Hugo de Sancto Victore, and Peter Lombard brought them into the Church: and yet for them Lombard neuer gathered any testimony of auncient Fathers. Neither euer any Councell, before the Florentine Councell, did approue or establish this number. But your fiue bastard Sacraments, 1. Order. 2. Confirmation. 3. Extreame Vnction. 4. Penance. 5. Marriage. I proue thus to be no true Sacramēts of Christs Church. 1. In euery Sacramēt is necessarily required and elemēt or visible matter. But that neither your Order, not Cōfirmation, nor Penance, nor Marriage haue, by any warrant of Scripture. 2. Those which are the proper Sacramēts of the Church Christ did institute. But Christ instituted not any one of those fiue for Sacraments. 3. Sacraments belong to all Christians, But your Order, and Marriage pertaine to a few in comparison. 4. Seeing you faine that grace lye•h hid in the Sacraments, and is by them transmitted vnto men, proue vs which parts of these Sacraments do containe the grace inclosed. What answere soeuer you make you will be taken napping. Therefore these fiue bastard Sacraments, are no true Sacraments of Christs Church.
For it doth not only signify salvation, but also it performeth & bringeth it indeed to them that use Baptism aright and holily. For in Baptism we receive forgiven▪ of our sins, we are accepted into the family of Christ, we are endowed with the holy Ghost, we are raised up to a most certain hope of everlasting life. Are these matters of nothing to you, Campian? shall this Baptism be nothing, wherein we obtain so many and so great good things? but what manner of thing is your Baptism: or what hath it more, which ours ought to have? hath it grace? or the merits of Christ? or salvation? Ours also hath these things; what then is wanting in it, why it should not be true both in ours and others judgement? I know your meaning. It conveyeth not grace by the work wrought. This indeed is a magical and pestilent device, that you should thinkt grace to be enclosed in the water it self, as it were in a pipe, which sheddeth it self forth into all men, though quite void ⟨p. 240⟩of faith. For what availeth the Sacrament without faith, but to his perdition who receiveth the Sacrament: that monster I do abhor and detest with mine whole hart. You add, therefore they have made no more reckoning of the Baptism of Christ, then of Johns, that is, a mere ceremony. I am not ignorant what the Fathers thought of the Baptism of John. But I heed what the Scriptures teacheth, not what they imagined. In them both there was theu same ceremony, the same doctrine, and the same grace. If there were any thing unlike in these things, I refuse not to confess, that the Baptism of John and Christ were divers. Now John joined repentance,3 which is the fruit of true regeneration, with his Baptism, and off•ed this Baptism for the remission of sins. If the Baptism of John wanted not repentance and remission of sins, I see not why it should be held so much different from the Baptism of Christ. And what is the cause,* why the Fathers demand, wherefore Christ, who needed no regeneration, did come to the Baptism of John, but because they judged that his Baptism had the power of regeneration?
For it doth not only signifie saluation, but also it performeth & bringeth it indeed to them that vse Baptisme aright and holily. For in Baptisme we receiue forgiuene▪ of our sinnes, we are accepted into the familie of Christ, we are endowed with the holy Ghost, we are raised vp to a most certaine hope of euerlasting life. Are these matters of nothing to you, Campian? shall this Baptisme be nothing, wherin we obteine so many and so great good things? but what manner of thing is your Baptisme: or what hath it more, which ours ought to haue? hath it grace? or the merits of Christ? or saluation? Ours also hath these things; what then is wanting in it, why it should not be true both in ours and others iudgement? I know your meaning. It conueigheth not grace by the worke wrought. This indeed is a magicall and pestilent deuice, that you should thinket grace to be inclosed in the water it selfe, as it were in a pipe, which sheadeth it self forth into all men, though quite void ⟨p. 240⟩of faith. For what auaileth the Sacrament without faith, but to his perdition who receiueth the Sacrament: that monster I doe abhorre and detest with mine whole hart. You adde, therfore they haue made no more reckoning of the Baptisme of Christ, then of Iohns, that is, a meere ceremonie. I am not ignorant what the Fathers thought of the Baptisme of Iohn. But I heed what the Scriptures teacheth, not what they imagined. In them both there was theu same ceremonie, the same doctrine, and the same grace. If there were any thing vnlike in these things, I refuse not to confesse, that the Baptisme of Iohn and Christ were diuers. Now Iohn ioyned repentance,3 which is the fruit of true regeneration, with his Baptisme, and off•ed this Baptisme for the remission of sinnes. If the Baptisme of Iohn wanted not repentance and remission of sinnes, I see not why it should bee held so much different from the Baptisme of Christ. And what is the cause,* why the Fathers demand, wherfore Christ, who needed no regeneration, did come to the Baptisme of Iohn, but because they iudged that his Baptisme had the power of regeneration?
tDVR. We think not so, but that it is in it, as in an instrument. And so hath Thomas taught. WHIT. pag. 664. Then you reject and condemn all your old Sophisters, who have taught that grace is included in the Sacrament, as health is in a medicine or salve. For as that doth cure the disease whether he believe or no that is sick, only if he take it: so the Sacrament doth give grace without any faith or good motion of the receiver, so he hath no mortal sin to hinder it.DVR. VVe thinke not so, but that it is in it, as in an instrument. And so hath Thomas taught. WHIT. pag. 664. Then you reiect and condemne all your old Sophisters, who haue taught that grace is included in the Sacrament, as health is in a medicine or salue. For as that doth cure the disease whether he beleeue or no that is sicke, only if he take it: so the Sacrament doth giue grace without any faith or good motion of the receiuer, so he hath no mortall sinne to hinder it.
uDVR. But Matth. 3.11. John baptised with water only, Christ with the Spirit. WHIT. pag. 669. Here is no comparison between the Baptism, but the persons: for not John only, but not Peter nor any Minister of the Gospel, can give the holy Ghost to those whom they do baptise. Men give but the outward sign, it is Christ who giveth the Spirit. DVR. Why were they Act. 19 4.5. baptised again whom John had baptised, if it be the same Baptism. WHIT. pag. 671. They were not rebaptized, as Ambr•se saith, de Spirit. Sanct. lib. 1. cap. 3. And the 5. vers. being S. Pauls words, they are to be understood not of those Ephesians, but of the people whom John baptised. As if S. Paul had said. John taught those who came to his Baptism to believe in Christ who was to come: and they when they heard it, were baptised in the name of the •ord Jesus. From this then can be gathered no difference of thes• two Baptisms.DVR. But Matth. 3.11. Iohn baptised with water only, Christ with the Spirit. WHIT. pag. 669. Here is no comparison betweene the Baptisme, but the persons: for not Iohn only, but not Peter nor any Minister of the Gospel, can giue the holy Ghost to those whom they doe baptise. Men giue but the outward signe, it is Christ who giueth the Spirit. DVR. VVhy vvere they Act. 19 4.5. baptised againe vvhom Iohn had baptised, if it be the same Baptisme. WHIT. pag. 671. They were not rebaptised, as Ambrse saith, de Spirit. Sanct. lib. 1. cap. 3. And the 5. vers. being S. Paule words, they are to be vnderstood not of those Ephesians, but of the people whom John baptised. As if S. Paul had said. John taught those who came to his Baptisme to beleeue in Christ who was to come: and they when they heard it, were baptised in the name of the ord Iesus. From this then can be gathered no differenc of thes tvvo Baptismes.
Concerning that which you annex: If you have it, it is well: if you want it, there is no hurt: believe, and ⟨p. 241⟩you shall be saved before you be baptised; we do not speak so loosely, as you imagine. For we will not have it to be in any ones choice, to be baptised if he will, and to leave it if he will not. Yet we do not think that Baptism is sox simply necessary to salvation, that he that is not entered by Baptism, must needs perish everlastingly. For the salvation of a Christian man consisteth in the mercy of God, which is not so tied & bound to any Sacraments,y as that he cannot save those, whom he will not have perish, without them. Where the opportunity of Baptism is not, Gods promise alone is abundantly sufficient of it self. But whosoever either neglecteth Baptism through heedlessness, or boldly contemneth it, him we condemn of very heinous sin. For he doth both diminish the Majesty of Christ, and also refuseth his own salvation. But he that committeth neither, shall not answer for the fault of another. Therefore very right was that judgement of Bernard, znot the want, but the contempt of Baptism is damnable.4
Concerning that which you annexe: If you haue it, it is well: if you want it, there is no hurt: beleeue, and ⟨p. 241⟩you shall be saued before you bee baptised; wee doe not speake so loosely, as you imagine. For wee will not haue it to be in any ones choice, to be baptised if hee will, and to leaue it if hee will not. Yet wee doe not thinke that Baptisme is sox simplie necessarie to saluation, that he that is not entred by Baptisme, must needs perish euerlastingly. For the saluation of a Christian man cōsisteth in the mercie of God, which is not so tyed & bound to any Sacraments,y as that he cannot saue those, whom he will not haue perish, without them. Where the opportunity of Baptisme is not, Gods promise alone is abundantly sufficient of it selfe. But whosoeuer either neglecteth Baptisme through heedlesnes, or boldly contemneth it, him we condemne of very hainous sin. For he doth both diminish the Maiestie of Christ, and also refuseth his owne saluation. But he that committeth neither, shal not answere for the fault of another. Therefore verie right was that iudgement of Bernard, znot the want, but the contempt of Baptisme is damnable.4
xDVR. What? If without Baptism infants may obtain eternal life, is it not your judgements, that it is no burt to them though they want Baptism? But Christ thought far • therwise. Joh. 3.5. WHIT. pag. 675. It is a wicked and batbarou• opinion to think that they who die before they can come to Baptism, are damned. For who will say, that the infants of the Jews, who died before the eight day did p• rish? And when in former ages they deferred Baptism till the hour of death, did they think it so absolute necessary? Will you say that an infant is not of the number of the elect, because God will that he die before Baptism? if you will, you shall be accounted bold, rash, and impious. As for the place of John. Christ doth not think that none can come into heaven, which wanteth the outward Baptism. The thief was with Christ in Paradise, and yet was unbaptized with the outward Baptism. But the truth is, by water Christ meaneth there the Spirit, as appeareth by conference of places. Matth. 3.11. As there fire, so here water signifieth the power of the Spirit: & Joh. 4.10.DVR. VVhat? If without Baptisme infants may obtaine eternall life, is it not your iudgements, that it is no burt to them though they want Baptisme? But Christ thought farre • therwise. Ioh. 3.5. WHIT. pag. 675. It is a wicked and batbarou• opinion to thinke that they who die before they can come to Baptisme, are damned. For who will say, that the infants of the Iewes, who died before the eight day did p• rish? And when in former ages they deferred Baptisme till the houre of death, did they think it so absolute necessary? Will you say that an infant is not of the nūber of the elect, because God wil that he die before Baptisme? if you will, you shall be accounted bold, rash, and impious. As for the place of Iohn. Christ doth not thinke that none can come into heauen, which wanteth the outward Baptisme. The theefe was with Christ in Paradise, and yet was vnbaptised with the outward Baptisme. But the truth is, by water Christ meaneth there the Spirit, as appeareth by conference of places. Matth. 3.11. As there fire, so here water signifieth the power of the Spirit: &
In the rest that follow, as being small matters, you do but trifle. For neither do you your self declare any thing of your own opinions, nor can you reprove any thing in ours. But I long to know, what you think of the faith of Infants. I suppose, you will grant that they have grace? For (say you) Baptism conferreth grace. But will you not yield that they have faith? I wish therefore you would teach me, to the end you may draw me wholly into your opinion, how there can be any grace more ancient than faith. But (say you) how can they believe, who do not yet understand whether they live or no? and do they therefore not live, because they understand not that they live? It is absurd. Wherefore if they live, although they do not understand they do so:a happily also they do believe, albeit they perceive not that they believe. That is hard (say you:) be it so. Nor do I speak these things, as if I were wholly of that mind, but to the end I may fish out your mind, which our University m•n doubtless make great account of. But let us hear Luther's medicine: It is better (saith he) to omit it, because except the Infant believe, he is washed ⟨p. 243⟩•e•er a whit. But this medicine came out of your shop, not out of Luther's. And indeed you have offered us many such like medicines, very unsavoury, and ill favouredly seasoned: so that all your confections seem to be corrupt. But Luther did never persuade that Baptism should be omitted; & he was always earnest on that part, that Baptism should be given to Infants: and therefore you are so much the more unjust in this place, in that you would mar Luther's opinion with your medley. For these things are so alleged by you, as if Luther said, it were better to omit Baptism. Therefore let us hear Luther himself, and let Campians medicine alone. And yet (saith he) we deny not that Infants are to be baptised, 2nor do we avow that they receive Baptism without faith: but we say, that at Baptism they do believe by the power of the Word. He addeth: Or otherwise there would be mere and intolerable lies, when the Baptizer demandeth of the Infant whether he do believe: as intending not to baptise, unless it be answered in the child stead, I believe. Wherefore doth the Minister ask whether he do believe, if i• be a certain thing that they do not believe, as Cocleus maintaineth? Then he concludeth thus:
In the rest that follow, as being small matters, you doe but trisle. For neither doe you your selfe declare any thing of your owne opinions, nor can you reproue any thing in ours. But I long to know, what you thinke of the faith of Infants. I suppose, you wil grant that they haue grace? For (say you) Baptisme conferreth grace. But will you not yeeld that they haue faith? I wish therefore you would teach me, to the end you may draw me wholy into your opinion, how there can be any grace more ancient than faith. But (say you) how can they beleeue, who doe not yet vnderstand whether they liue or no? and do they therfore not liue, because they vnderstand not that they liue? It is absurd. Wherefore if they liue, although they doe not vnderstand they do so:a happily also they doe beleeue, albeit they perceiue not that they beleeue. That is hard (say you:) bee it so. Nor doe I speake these things, as if I were wholy of that mind, but to the end I may fish out your mind, which our Vniuersity m•n doubtles make great account of. But let vs heare Luthers medicine: It is better (saith he) to omit it, because except the Infant beleeue, he is washed ⟨p. 243⟩•e•er a whit. But this medicine came out of your shop, not out of Luthers. And indeed you haue offred vs many such like medicines, very vnsauourie, and ill fauouredly seasoned: so that all your confections seeme to be corrupt. But Luther did neuer perswade that Baptisme should be omitted; & he was alwaies earnest on that part, that Baptisme should be giuen to Infants: and therefore you are so much the more vniust in this place, in that you would marre Luthers opinion with your medley. For these things are so alledged by you, as if Luther said, it were better to omit Baptisme. Therfore let vs heare Luther himself, and let Campians medicine alone. And yet (saith he) we deny not that Infants are to be baptised, 2nor do we anow that they receiue Baptisme without faith: but wee say, that at Baptisme they do beleeue by the power of the Word. He addeth: Or otherwise there would bee meere and intolerable lies, when the Baptiser demandeth of the Infant whether he do beleeue: as intending not to baptise, vnlesse it be answered in the child• stead, I beleeue. Wherfore doth the Minister aske whether he do beleeue, if i• be a certaine thing that they do not beleeue, as Cocleus maintaineth? Then he concludeth thus:
aDVR. But speak plainly; if Infants have no faith, your new Evangelical doctrine, teaching that the force of the Sacrament doth depend upon the faith of the receivers, must vanish. WHIT. pag. 681. I do no: think that Infants do believe, there being neither reason nor Scripture for it. And I answer that is not our doctrine you faine to be. We say, that to men of years without saith it is a Sacrament, but not a saving Sacrament: to children of believing patents, though they cannot for their years believe, yet it is a saving Sacrament, as Circumcision was to the Infants of the Jews. For we doubt not but the Spirit of God is powerful unto them after a hidden and wonderful manner. As in the examples of Jacob, Jeremiah, John Baptist, and others.DVR. But speake plainly; if Infants haue no faith, your nevv Euangelicall doctrine, teaching that the force of the Sacrament doth depend vpon the faith of the receiuers, must vanish. WHIT. pag. 681. I do no: thinke that Infants do beleeue, there being neither reason nor Scripture for it. And I answere that is not our doctrine you faine to bee. Wee say, that to men of yeares without saith it is a Sacrament, but not a sauing Sacrament: to children of beleeuing patents, though they cannot for their yeares beleeue, yet it is a sauing Sacrament, as Circumcision was to the Infants of the Iewes. For wee doubt not but the Spirit of God is powerfull vnto them after a hidden and vvonderfull manner. As in the examples of Iacob, Ieremie, Iohn Baptist, and others.
But we hold that Infants are not to be Baptised, •f it be true that they in Baptism do not believe. Luther then maintaineth and determineth, that little children do believe, and he reproveth the Papists, because they teach things contrary each to other, while they deny that an Infant hath faith and yet, to the end he may be baptised, they require faith of him. Who seeth not to what these things may be referred, so that he must needs be a most malicious man, who maketh Luther in these words a persuader of so wicked an opinion?
But we hold that Infants are not to be Baptised, •f it be true that they in Baptisme do not beleeue. Luther then maintaineth and determineth, that little children do beleeue, and he reproueth the Papists, because they teach things contrary each to other, while they deny that an Infant hath faith and yet, to the end he may be baptised, they require faith of him. Who seeth not to what these things may be referred, so that hee must needs bee a most malicious man, who maketh Luther in these words a perswader of so wicked an opinion?
And these things do they speak (say you) being doubtful in their own mind, what to maintain positively. Howsoever some do doubt of the faith of infants, yet we all determine clearly and positively that ⟨p. 244⟩they are to be baptised. Therefore there was no need that you should send for that Pacimentan• daysman, who was always more inclining to your side than to ours. But why do you object the Anabaptists to us, who hate us much more eagerly than you, and not without cause?b for we have both convicted them for heretics by our arguments, and also have expulsed them as seditious and pernicious men out of our Commonwealths, who if they dwelt not with you, could find no place to remain in through the Christian world. You pass over the rest of the Sacraments, which I acknowledge to be none at all: nor do I understand which is that beast of many heads, whereof you make mention, unless perhaps you mean that three-headed beast, of which John writeth many things in the Revelation.
And these things doe they speake (say you) being doub•full in their own mind, what to maintaine positiuely. Howsoeuer some doe doubt of the faith of infants, yet wee all determine cleerely and positiuely that ⟨p. 244⟩they are to be baptised. Therfore there was no need that you should send for that Pacimentan• dayesman, who was alwayes more enclining to your side than to ours. But why doe you obiect the Anabaptists to vs, who hate vs much more eagerly than you, and not without cause?b for we haue both cōuicted them for heretikes by our arguments, and also haue expulsed them as seditious and pernicious men out of our Commonwealths, who if they dwelt not with you, could find no place to remaine in through the Christian world. You passe ouer the rest of the Sacraments, which I acknowledge to bee none at all: nor doe I vnderstand which is that beast of many heads, whereof you make mention, vnlesse perhaps you meane that threeheaded beast, of which Iohn writeth many things in the Reuelation.
bDVR. I know you do fight hotly against the Anabaptists, but with what weapons? Calvin was glad to fly to the Tradition of the Church: for be brought no place of Scripture against them, neither could be bring any. WHIT. pag. 685. You betray the Scriptures that you may establish Traditions. What can be spoken either more contumeliously against the Scriptures, or more for the advantage of Anabaptists, then that this their heresy cannot be confuted by Scripture? But are you ignorant that Calvin used Scripture to refel this? And yet he produceth these places. Gen. 17.4. Matth. 19.13. & 28.19. which sufficiently overthrow the Anabaptists. And in the place you allege, he rather renounceth Traditions, then flieth to them for any defence. Jast. lib. 4 cap. 16. sect. 8.DVR. I knovv you doe fight hotly against the Anabaptists, but vvith vvhat vveapons? Caluin vvas glad to flie to the Tradition of the Church: for be brought no place of Scripture against them, neither could be bring any. WHIT. pag. 685. You betray the Scriptures that you may establish Traditions. What can be spoken either more contumeliously against the Scriptures, or more for the aduantage of Anabaptists, then that this their heresie cannot be cōfuted by Scripture? But are you ignorant that Caluin vsed Scripture to refell this? And yet he produceth these places. Gen. 17.4. Matth. 19.13. & 28.19. which sufficiently ouerthrow the Anabaptists. And in the place you alleadge, hee rather renounceth Traditions, then flieth to them for any defence. Jast. lib. 4 cap. 16. sect. 8.
Hitherto Campian, 1you have examined certain opinions and positions of our men: in all which you have found as yet never a Paradox. For either the things that you object are such, as that nothing can be truer then they, or else they are craftily and treacherously wrested by you into a perverse meaning. But now, as if you were some new Censurer, and Master of the ancient discipline and severity, you make search into our manners, not, I think, to make them better, but to make them seem much worse than they be. Although he that reproveth the manners of other, it were meet that he should be without fault. And is there so great a change made of Rome upon the sudden? is their life now such? are their manners begun to be so goodly, that you being returned thence a Friar dare strive with us about virtue, shamefastness, ⟨p. 245⟩and honesty? howsoever there be here many things done which ought not to be, yet if you shall say that there is as great impunity and licentiousness of sins in England, as you your self have seen at Rome, the very tower of your religion and kingdom, all men will judge you to be too too impudent. Wherefore then do you propose to us those pieces of faults in Luther, seeing among you not only some fragments of vices, but huge bodies of the greatest crimes are plainly seen? surely as long as those public stews and dens of whores stand still in Rome, you could scarce honestly make mention of manners. But what are these pieces of faults in Luther? Is it for that you reprove some crime in his life? but that you neither can do, nor go about to do. You object certain sayings caught out of his books, and as you are wont torn from the rest of the body of the sentence; which seem presently as soon as they be propounded by you, to make show of some filthiness. About the most of which, seeing that you have had an answer made you by him whom you name, Reverend Charke, I marvel that you have returned them to us here again. There must needs be great lack of true imputations, seeing that you have no variety at all of false ones. And seeing that my fellow soldier and companion in Christ William Charke did labour diligently in these things, those things which are largely enough confuted by him, shall be run over now by me briefly and shortly.
Hitherto Campian, 1you haue examined certaine opinions and positions of our men: in all which you haue found as yet neuer a Paradoxe. For either the things that you obiect are such, as that nothing can be truer then they, or else they are craftily and treacherously wrested by you into a peruerse meaning. But now, as if you were some new Censurer, and Master of the auncient discipline and seuerity, you make search into our manners, not, I thinke, to make them better, but to make them seeme much worse than they be. Although he that reproueth the manners of other, it were meet that he should bee without fault. And is there so great a change made of Rome vpon the sodaine? is their life now such? are their manners begunne to bee so goodly, that you being returned thēce a Frier dare striue with vs about vertue, shamefastnes, ⟨p. 245⟩and hon•stie? howsoeuer there be here many things done which ought not to be, yet if you shall say that there is as great impunity and licenciousnes of sinnes in England, as you your selfe haue seene at Rome, the very towre of your religion and kingdome, all men will iudge you to bee too too impudent. Wherefore then doe you propose to vs those peeces of faults in Luther, seeing among you not only some fragments of vices, but huge bodies of the greatest crimes are plainely seene? surely as long as those publike stewes and dens of whoores stand still in Rome, you could scarce honestly make mention of manners. But what are these peeces of faults in Luther? Is it for that you reproue some crime in his life? but that you neither can do, nor go about to doe. You obiect certaine sayings caught out of his bookes, and as you are wont torne from the rest of the body of the sentence; which seeme presently as soone as they bee propounded by you, to make shew of some filthines. About the most of which, seeing that you haue had an answere made you by him whom you name, Reuerend Charke, I maruell that you haue returned them to vs heere againe. There must needs be great lacke of true imputations, seeing that you haue no varietie at all of false ones. And seeing that my fellow souldier and companion in Christ William Charke did labour diligētly in these things, those things which are largely enough confuted by him, shall bee run ouer now by mee briefely and shortly.
It shall be therefore enough for me to cut in sunder these your pieces, which have been before so broken in shivers, as that they might seem able to hurt none.
It shall bee therefore enough for mee to cut in sunder these your peeces, which haue been before so broken in shiuers, as that they might seeme able to hurt none.
Wherefore now spue out these your morsels of reproaches. And hear ye them: If the wife will not, or cannot, let the maid come. A filthy and uncleanly speech as it seemeth. Luther wrote a little book of ⟨p. 246⟩marriage, in the second part whereof he remembers three causes, whereby he thinketh marriage may be dissolved. The first is Impotency: another is, Adultery: the third is, Desertion. Now he expounds that to be desertion, when as the wilful and obstinate wise can by no means be persuaded to perform the office of due benevolence to the husband, for there are some such froward wives found, that although the husband do fall ten times into whoredom, yet they regard it never a whit. Wherefore Luther thinketh it fit for the husband, to fray his wife with words, and to threaten her on this manner: If you will not, another will: If the mistress will not, let the maid come. With whom if threats prevail not, let him convent her before others, and bring the matter to the Church. But now if she be neither moved with private threatenings, nor by the public reproofs of the Church, then, saith Luther, divorce her and take Ester into Vashti's place. Only to propound these things in this manner, is a very evident confutation of Campians reproach. For who doth not mark what counsel Luther gave to the husband? not that he should presently take his maid, but that he should propose threats of divorce to his obstinate wife, and break her stomach by that mean? Now as for this opinion of Luther about this kind of divorce, though I do not defend, yet you cannot accuse it.c For among you there be infinite causes of divorce, so as in so great liberty of divorce, it is marvel that any marriage stood in force. If Luther had at any time written any such thing, as we read was written by Clement, whom you brag ⟨p. 247⟩to have been Pope of Rome, what tragedies would ye have raised? Hear Campian, & I would have you mark whereto this speech tendeth:d The common use of all things, 3that are in this world, ought to be to all men. But through mens naughtiness one said that this was his, and another that; and so there is a division made between mortal men. Finally one of the wise men of the Grecians, knowing this to be so, saith, that all things among friends ought to be common. Now among all things, without doubt are husbands and wives.
Wherefore now spue out these your morsels of reproches. And heare ye them: If the wife will not, or cannot, let the maid come. A filthie and vncleanely speech as it seemeth. Luther wrote a little booke of ⟨p. 246⟩marriage, in the second part whereof hee remembers three causes, whereby hee thinketh marriage may be dissolued. The first is Impotencie: another is, Adultrie: the third is, Desertion. Now hee expoundes that to be desertion, when as the wilful and obstinate wise can by no meanes bee perswaded to performe the office of due benouelence to the husband, for there are some such froward wiues found, that although the husband doe fall ten times into whordome, yet they regard it neuer a whit. Wherefore Luther thinketh it fit for the husband, to fray his wife with words, and to threaten hir on this manner: If you will not, another will: If the mistrisse will not, let the maide come. With whom if threats preuaile not, let him conuent her before others, and bring the matter to the Church. But now if she be neither moued with priuate threatnings, nor by the publike reproofes of the Church, then, saith Luther, diuorce her and take Ester into Vashties place. Only to propoūd these things in this māner, is a very euident confutation of Campians reproch. For who doth not marke what counsaile Luther gaue to the husband? not that he should presently take his mayd, but that he should propose threats of diuorce to his obstinate wife, and breake her stomacke by that meane? Now as for this opinion of Luther about this kind of diuorce, though I doe not defend, yet you cannot accuse it.c For among you there be infinite causes of diuorce, so as in so great liberty of diuorce, it is maruaile that any marriage stood in force. If Luther had at any time written any such thing, as wee reade was written by Clement, whom you brag ⟨p. 247⟩to haue beene Pope of Rome, what tragedies would yee haue raised? Heare Campian, & I would haue you marke whereto this speech tendeth:d The common vse of all things, 3that are in this world, ought to be to all men. But through mens naughtines one said that this was his, and another that; and so there is a diuision made betweene mortall men. Finally one of the wise men of the Grecians, knowing this to bee so, saith, that all things among friēds ought to be common. Now among al things, without doubt are husbands and wiues.
cDVR. You are ignorant that with us only adultery is the cause of divorce. WHIT. pag. 688. Nay you are ignorant of your own Canons, for to omit others, see what the Tridentine Fathers decreed. If any shall say that the Church doth err when she decreeth that for many causes divorce from b•dde and cobabitation, may be had either for a certain or unlimited time, let him be accursed. Do not you now differ from your own Councell, as al•o from the Apostle?DVR. You are ignorant that vvith vs only adultery is the cause of diuorce. WHIT. pag. 688. Nay you are ignorant of your owne Canons, for to omit others, see what the Tridentine Fathers decreed. If any shall say that the Church doth erre vvhē shee decreeth that for many causes diuo•ce from b•dde and cobabitation, may be had either for a certaine or vnlimited time, let him be accursed. Do not you now differ from your owne Councell, as al•o from the Apostle?
dDVR. If you had seen some old copies, or weighed the scope of the Epistle, you might easily have seen that the place is corrupted. WHIT. pag. 689. I can be content you should defend Clement, for I easily think that Clement would never speak so dishonestly. But when you father Epistles upon ancient Bishops, such as they never writ, God would show your perfidy by manifest demonstrations For copies we have none whether old or new but from you; and many I have seen, and they all have it. Yet remember that you here confess the Popes decretal Epistles to be corrupted (why […] forged?) which other where you peremptorily deny.DVR. If you had seene some old copies, or vvaighed the scope of the Epistle, you might easilie haue seene that the place is corrupted. WHIT. pag. 689. I can be content you should defend Clement, for I easily thinke that Clement would neuer speake so dishonestly. But when you father Epistles vpon auncient Bishops, such as they neuer writ, God would shew your perfidie by manifest demonstrations For copies we haue none whether old or new but from you; and many I haue seene, and they all haue it. Yet remember that you here confesse the Popes decretall Epistles to bee corrupted (why 〈…〉 forged?) which other where you peremp•orily deny.
You may think you hear some Plato discoursing of the community of things: allege some like place of Luther's. What then followeth after in those patches of yours? For because the carnal knowledge of the wife is as necessary to every one, as meat, and drink, and sleep are. eThe Apostle commandeth,2 that every one for the avoiding of fornication, have his wife, and every woman her own husband: and that they that cannot contain, should marry. They therefore who have it not given to them by God, as that they can always be without wives; to such it is necessary that they marry wives if ⟨p. 248⟩they will be honest and chaste. For I confess that marriage is not necessary for them who may wallow without punishment in all manner of uncleanness and lust. But go forward: Marriage is much better than Virginity, and against this, Christ and Saint Paul persuaded Christian men. The same things do not agree to all men: and that which is most profitable to some one, may be contrary to the inclinations of others. Virginity is one of those indifferent things, which are as they are used: for it is not simply good (for then it were unlawful at all to think of marriage) but after a sort.f Thus therefore stands the matter: they that can preserve their chastity in Virginity, they may be desirous of Virginity, and yet not absolutely, but by reason of the troubles which for the most part accompany marriage: but they that cannot live chaste, such must betake them to marriage, and that so as that if they do otherwise, they enfold themselves in great sin. So that Virginity is never, save only in some respect better than marriage, but g marriage oftentimes is absolutely better than virginity. Surely we do think honourably of both these estates of life: but among you virginity is advanced, but marriage ⟨p. 249⟩basely esteemed. Basil holdeth rightly, Let virginity be honoured, let not marriage be despised. I had rather you should approve virginity by your deeds, than praise it with your words.4 Why doth the tongue sound out chastity, and the whole body show forth uncleanness? For so do ye. Even as Epiphanius writeth of the Origenists. You refuse marriages, but not lust: it is not holiness, but hypocrisy that is in honour among you. For neither did Christ nor Paul enjoin virginity to any one that had not power to receive it.
You may think you heare some Plato discoursing of the communitie of things: alleadge some like place of Luthers. What thē followeth after in those patches of yours? For because the carnall knowledge of the wife is as necessarie to euery one, as meate, and drinke, and sleepe are. eThe Apostle commandeth,2 that euery one for the au•iding of fornication, haue his wife, and euery woman her owne husband: and that they that cannot conteine, should marrie. They therefore who haue it not giuen to them by God, as that they can alwaies be without wiues; to such it is necessary that they marry wiues if ⟨p. 248⟩they will bee honest and chaste. For I confesse that marriage is not necessarie for them who may wallow without punishment in all manner of vncleannesse and lust. But goe forward: Marriage is much better than Virginitie, and against this, Christ and Saint Paul perswaded Christian men. The same things doe not agree to all men: and that which is most profitable to some one, may be contrarie to the inclinations of others. Virginitie is one of those indifferent things, which are as they are vsed: for it is not simply good (for then it were vnlawfull at all to thinke of marriage) but after a sort.f Thus therefore stands the matter: they that can preserue their chastitie in Virginitie, they may be desirous of Virginitie, and yet not absolutely, but by reason of the troubles which for the most part accompanie marriage: but they that cannot liue chast, such must betake them to marriage, and that so as that if they doe otherwise, they infolde themselues in great sinne. So that Virginitie is neuer, saue onely in some respect better than marriage, but g marriage oftentimes is absolutely better than virginitie. Surely we doe thinke honourably of both these estates of life: but among you virginitie is aduaunced, but marriage ⟨p. 249⟩basely esteemed. Basil holdeth rightly, Let virginity be honored, let not marriage be despised. I had rather you should approue virginitie by your deeds, than praise it with your words.4 Why doth the tongue sound out chastity, and the whole bodie shew forth vncleannes? For so do ye. Euen as Epiphanius writeth of the Origenists. You refuse marriages, but not lust: it is not holinesse, but hypocrisie that is in honour among you. For neither did Christ nor Paul enioyne virginitie to any one that had not power to receiue it.
eDVR. Tertul. de Monog. Hieron. lib. 1. contra Jovinian. understand it only of those who are married, that they might lawfully keep and have their wives still. WHIT pag. 690. That which Tertullian writ for the heretic Montanus, that you greatly approve of. And he that knoweth not Hierome to be further carried in the contempt of marriages, then the Scriptures do allow of, he accounteth the authority of Hieromes writings more then of the Word of God. But the Apostle rejecteth this interpretation, for when he commandeth that every man should have his wife to avoid fornication; who seeth not that this law concerneth the unmarried, who are forbidden fornication as well as the married? And after in the 9. vers he speaketh to the unmarried▪ If they cannot abstain, let them mar•••: for it is better to marry then to burn. Therefore he doth not only command that they who have wives keep them still; but that they wh•• have not, should marry, if they found it necessary for them to avoid inconti•••cie.DVR. Tertul. de Monog. Hieron. lib. 1. contra Iouinian. vnderstand it only of those vvho are married, that they might lawfully keepe and haue their wiues still. WHIT pag. 690. That which Tertullian writ for the heretike Montanus, that you greatly approue of. And hee that knoweth not Hierome to bee further carried in the contempt of marriages, then the Scriptures do allow of, he accounteth the authoritie of Hieromes writings more then of the Word of God. But the Apostle reiecteth this interpretation, for when he commandeth that euery man should haue his wife to auoid fo•nication; vvho seeth not that this law concerneth the vnma•ried, who are forbidden fornication as well as the married? And after in the 9. vers he speaketh to the vnmarried▪ If they cannot absteine, let them mar•••: for it is better to marrie then to burne. Therefore hee doth not onli• commaund that they vvho haue vviues keepe them still; but that they vvh•• haue not, should marrie, if they found it necessarie for them to auoid inconti•••cie.
For (saith Bernard) virginity is not commanded, 1but advised. Nay, they that cannot contain, are commanded to marry. Wherefore the Apostle was not only of opinion that those ought not to keep their virginity, but also he dissuaded them from it: nor would he have dissuaded them from it, if Christ had persuaded them to it. Neither are these positions proper to Luther: for all good men do both acknowledge and defend them.
For (saith Bernard) virginitie is not commaunded, 1but aduised. Nay, they that cannot conteine, are commaunded to marrie. Wherefore the Apostle was not onely of opinion that those ought not to keepe their virginitie, but also he disswaded them from it: nor would he haue disswaded them from it, if Christ had perswaded them to it. Neither are these positions proper to Luther: for all good men doe both acknowledge and defend them.
But let us hear the rest:h The more wicked that thou art, (saith he) so much the nearer art thou unto grace. The grace of Christ is sufficient not only for small sins, but also for the greatest: nor are small offenders only invited by Christ to come to him, ⟨p. 250⟩but they also that are laden with the burden of their sins. Luther exhorts thee not to go forward in sin, but that thou shouldest not despair of pardon. And certainly thei more wicked that thou hast been in thy life by-past, so much the more abundant grace shall embrace thee, if thou be truly penitent for thy sins.3 For where sin hath abounded, grace hath overabounded. If you condemn Luther, who will think that you let Paul pass free? For you have the same action against both, sith they be of one and the same judgement. What followeth? All good actions be sins; of God be severe in judgement, they are damnable sins; if he be favourable, they be but small ones, kLuther said this, and he said it truly. For in every action of a man, ⟨p. 251⟩lthough never so excellent, there is some fault, which may wholly mar the action, and make it odious to God, if that which is done be weighed in the balance of divine justice. But after that the Lord hath received us wholly to favour in Christ, those things which are but begun in us, & besprinkled with some blots,m yet they please him as if they were entire and pure, because he looketh upon our persons, and he doth not make search into the worth and merit ⟨p. 252⟩of the work. These things spake Luther and confirmed them by the sentences of sacred Scriptures and holy Fathers: which you could much more easily pass by than confute. Go forward. No man of himself thinketh evil. This is maliciously objected, as are all the rest. God doth throw into no man an evil thought, he compelleth the will of none to sin: yet nothing is done by chance or fortune: and in the very sins of men the providence of God ruleth. Those thoughts of men which are evil, spring out of a certain inbred naughtiness proper to every one: and yet the Lord can apply them to his own will. For so Joseph answereth his brethren: Ye thought evil against me, but the Lord turned it to good.7
But let vs heare the rest:h The more wicked that thou art, (saith he) so much the neerer art thou vnto grace. The grace of Christ is sufficient not onely for small sinnes, but also for the greatest: nor are small offenders onely inuited by Christ to come to him, ⟨p. 250⟩but they also that are laden with the burthen of their sinnes. Luther exhorts thee not to goe forward in sinne, but that thou shouldest not despaire of pardon. And certainely thei more wicked that thou hast been in thy life by-past, so much the more aboundant grace shall imbrace thee, if thou be truely penitent for thy sinnes.3 For where sinne hath abounded, grace hath ouerabounded. If you condemne Luther, who will thinke that you let Paul passe free? For you haue the same action against both, sith they be of one and the same iudgement. What followeth? All good actions be sinnes; of God be seuere in iudgement, they are damnable sinnes; if hee bee fauourable, they be but small ones, kLuther said this, and hee saide it truely. For in euery action of a man, ⟨p. 251⟩lthough neuer so excellēt, there is some fault, which may wholy marre the action, and make it odious to God, if that which is done bee weighed in the ballance of diuine iustice. But after that the Lord hath receiued vs wholy to fauour in Christ, those things which are but begun in vs, & besprinkled with some blots,m yet they please him as if they were entire and pure, because he looketh vpon our persons, and he doth not make search into the worth and merit ⟨p. 252⟩of the worke. These things spake Luther and confirmed them by the sentences of sacred Scriptures and holy Fathers: which you could much more easilie passe by than confute. Goe forward. No man of himselfe thinketh euill. This is maliciously obiected, as are all the rest. God doth throw into no man an euill thought, he compelleth the will of none to sinne: yet nothing is done by chaunce or fortune: and in the very sinnes of men the prouidence of God ruleth. Those thoughts of men which are euill, spring out of a certaine inbred naughtines proper to euery one: and yet the Lord can applie them to his owne will. For so Ioseph answereth his brethren: Ye thought euill against me, but the Lord turned it to good.
hDVR. Do you not think therefore that the devil himself is nearest of all to grace? WHIT. pag. 6•6. It is devilish so to dispute; Luther meant nothing else, but to stay mens consciences afflicted and troubled with the greatness of sin, and to comfort them with the mercy of God which, the greater sinner thou art, the greater is it on thee, when thou dost truly turn unto the Lord, as the Apostle saith, where sin abounded, grace abounded much more. Rom. 5.20.DVR. Doe you not thinke therefore that the diuell himselfe is neerest of all to grace? WHIT. pag. 6•6. It is diuellish so to dispute; Luther meant nothing els, but to stay mēs consciences afflicted and troubled with the greatnes of sin, and to comfort them vvith the mercie of God which, the greater sinner thou art, the greater is it on thee, vvhen thou dost truly turne vnto the Lord, as the Apostle saith, vvhere sinne abounded, grace abounded much more. Rom. 5.20.
iDVR. Where learned you to call him a wicked man, that is truly penitent for his sins? WHIT. pag. 697. Christ saith, Luk. 15.7 There shall be joy in heaven over one sinner that repenteth. Ask now, who taught Christ to call him a sinner that repenteth him of his sins; or why do you not quarrel with the Apostle, when he saith, God justifieth the ungodly. Rom 4.5? For he that is ungodly is not justified.DVR. VVhere learned you to call him a wicked man, that is truly penitent for his sins? WHIT. pag. 697. Christ saith, Luk. 15.7 There shal be ioy in heauen ouer one sinner that repenteth. Aske novv, vvho taught Christ to call him a sinner that repenteth him of his sinnes; or vvhy do you not quarrell with the Apostle, vvhen he saith, God iustifieth the ungodly. Rom 4.5? For he that is vngodly is not iustified.
chanell of grace, and we doubt not but it deriueth Christs merits into vs.
qDVR. What is that you call trash? which of the ancient Fathers have been. who have not made mention of our ceremonies. WHIT. pag. 658. Christ commanded nothing to the Church touching these trifles; & though we read often of Baptism in the word, & of many, yet there is no word touching any of these Shall we then think that the Church in later times hath known better, what ceremonies were fitter for the Sacrament then Christ and his Apostles? where did ever any of them use salt, spittle, candles, &c. in this Sacrament.DVR. What is that you call trash? vvhich of the auncient Fathers haue been. vvho haue not made mention of our ceremonies. WHIT. pag. 658. Christ cōmaunded nothing to the Church touching these trifles; & though we reade often of Baptisme in the word, & of many, yet there is no word touching any of these Shall we then thinke that the Church in later times hath knowne better, vvhat ceremonies vvere fitter for the Sacrament then Christ and his Apostles? vvhere did euer any of them vse salt, spittle, candles, &c. in this Sacrament.
rDVR. When bread and wine is your Eucharist (neither do you believe Christ gave any other thing in the Supper) we leave you your Eucharist also. WHIT. pag. 660. If we have true Baptism; why not the Eucharist? we follow Christs commandment in both. Further you falsely accuse us, who think bread & wine to be but one part of the Sacrament, as Ireneus and antiquity hath done; & Christ his body and blood the other. But you have no Eucharist at all, who profess you have neither bread nor wine.DVR. VVhen bread and vvine is your Eucharist (neither doe you beleeue Christ gaue any other thing in the Supper) vvee leaue you your Eucharist also. WHIT. pag. 660. If wee haue true Baptisme; why not the Eucharist? wee follow Christs commandement in both. Further you falsely accuse vs, who thinke bread & wine to be but one part of the Sacrament, as Ireneus and antiquity hath done; & Christ his body and blood the other. But you haue no Eucharist at all, who professe you haue neither bread nor wine.
sDVR But Calvin denieth all this, making it only a sign and seal, by which we are assured of the grace best••ed upon us. WHIT. pag. 663. Doth it follow hence that grace and remission of sin is not given unto us in Baptism? As if by the seal of the Kings Charter some thing is not both given unto us, and confirmed? And in Baptism this confirmation is but a more bountiful donation.DVR But Caluin denieth all this, making it only a signe and seale, by vvhich vve are assured of the grace best••ed vpon vs. WHIT. pag. 663. Doth it follow hence that grace and remission of sinne is not giuen vnto vs in Baptisme? As if by the seale of the Kings Charter some thing is not both giuen vnto vs, and confirmed? And in Baptisme this confirmation is but a more bountifull donation.
*DVR. Because that Baptism did prepare men to regeneration, of which preparation Christ had no need. WHIT. pag. 673. This is but your coined distinction, for the Fathers speak and answer otherwise. Christ. in 3. Matth. not that he should receive remission of sin by baptism, but that be might leave sanctified waters for those who should after be baptised. And August. in cat. •ur. in 3. Matth. Our Saviour would therefore be baptised, not that be might be sanctified, but that he might sanctify the waters for us.DVR. Because that Baptisme did prepare men to regeneration, of vvhich preparation Christ had no need. WHIT. pag. 673. This is but your coyned distinction, for the Fathers speake and answere otherwise. Chrys•st. in 3. Matth. not that he should receiue remission of sinne by •aptisme, but that be might leaue sa•ctified waters for those who should after be baptised. And August. in cat. •ur. in 3. Matth. Our Sauiour would therefore be baptised, not that bee might bee sanctified, but that he might sanctifie the waters for vs.
yDVR. God hath showed his vvill, Joh. 3.5. And •hen S. Paul makes all by nature the Children of wrath: Ephes. 2.3. If there be no remedy against this evil in the Scripture, but Baptism, what can be, but that they who die without Baptism, must needs die in the same condition? WHIT. 677. God in no place hath showed this to be his will; that they who die without Baptism, shall perish. Of the words of Christ have •in spoken, which if they be understood of Baptism, they belong only to those who are of grown years. That by no other means we can be freed from the miserable state of nature, but by Baptism, is very false. For the Spirit of God doth in and without the Sacrament, doth communicate his graces.DVR. God hath shewed his vvill, Ioh. 3.5. And •hen S. Paul makes all by nature the Children of wrath: Ephes. 2.3. If there be no remedie against this euill in the Scripture, but Baptisme, what can be, but that they vvho die vvithout Baptisme, must needs die in the same condition? WHIT. 677. God in no place hath shewed this to bee his will; that they who die without Baptisme, shall perish. Of the words of Christ haue •in spoken, which if they be vnderstood of Baptisme, they belong only to those who are of growne yeares. That by no other meanes we can be freed from the miserable state of nature, but by Baptisme, is very false. For the Spirit of God doth in and without the Sacrament, doth communicate his graces.
zDVR. He speaketh not of infants, but of those who endued with true faith, were prevented by an untimely death that they could not be baptised. WHIT. pag. 680. How truly you speak we may judge out of the same Epistle. For he thus writeth. Who is ignorant that in former times they had other remedies against original sin; besides Baptism? for to Abraham and his seed ut as the Sacrament of Circumcision given to this end. But in other nations, so many as were found faithful, we believe that they, who were of years, were sanctified by faith and sacrifices: but the parents faith did profit their infants, yea and was sufficient for them. If this was so before Christ, shall we think the condition of infants is now worse?DVR. He speaketh not of infants, but of those vvho indued with true faith, were preuented by an vntimely death that they could not be baptised. WHIT. pag. 680. How truly you speake we may iudge out of the same Epistle. For he thus writeth. VVho is ignorant that in former times they had other remedies against originall sinne; besides Baptisme? for to Abraham and his seed vt as the Sacrament of Circumcision giuen to this end. But in other nations, so many as vvere found faithfull, vvee beleeue that they, vvho vvere of yeares, vvere sanctified by faith and sacrifices: but the parents faith did profit their infants, yea and vvas sufficient for them. If this was so before Christ, shall we thinke the condition of infants is now worse?
4Bernard. in Epist. ad Hugon.
DVR. What is this else but even the same that Jovinian answered unto Hierome & the rest of the ancient Fathers? As Augustine sheweth De. Sancta Virginitate cap. 21.22.23.24. WHIT. pag. 691. Whosoever will be single for this only end that he may live so much the more […] •ase and in the more pleasure, and not be troubled with the necessary cares of marriage, do deserve to be blamed with Jovinian. And this sort of men it is that Augustine doth justly reprove. For virginity is to be desired, not simply for that end that we may •idde and free our selves from the necessary business and cares accompanying marriage, but to the end we may with sitter opportunity and more conveniency serve God, as also the Apostle •peaketh; That you may so ••w that which is honest, and that you may cleave fast unto the Lord without separation. 1. Co. 7.35. […] DVR. Who seeth not that that is more excellent in it self, which is more difficult and hard? And Christ saith, that after this life there is no marrying at all. And S. Paul, He that giveth his virgin to marriage, doth well: but he that giveth her not to marriage doth better. 1. Cor. 7.38. WHIT. pag 69•. I do not dispute against holy virginity, which I acknowledge is both hard & excellent. But single life must be distinguished from holy virginity. Very few attain this of that every one may make choice of. But your reason is of no great force, for the hardest things are not the most excellent. It is most hard for a man to live an hundred years: shall we therefore think that they who live so long, are more excellent then others? As for that in the kingdom of heaven there are no marriages, it is not of force against us: for we speak of the state of this life, after which, as there shall be no marriages, so no vows of virginity. In S. Paul, better, is as much as si••es and more commodious: for if it were supply better, it were never lawful to do otherwise; which he alloweth. Therefore he thus spake not for the nature of the thing, but in respect of circumstances: as you may see, vers. 26.28.32.35.DVR. VVhat is this else but euen the same that Iouinian ans•vered vnto Hierome & the rest of the auncient Fathers? As Augustine shevveth De. Sancta Virginitate cap. 21.22.23.24. WHIT. pag. 691. Whosoeuer will be single for this only end that he may liue so much the more 〈…〉•ase and in the more pleasure, and not be troubled with the necessary cares of marriage, do deserue to be blamed with Iouinian. And this sort of men it is that Augustine doth iustly reproue. For virginitie is to be desired, not simplie for that end that we may •idde and free our selues from the necessarie businesse and cares accompanying marriage, but to the end we may with sitter opportunitie and more conueniencie serue God, as also the Apostle •peaketh; That you may so ••vv that vvhich is honest, and that you may cleaue fast vnto the Lord vvithout separation. 1. Co. 7.35. 〈…〉 DVR. VVho seeth not that that is more excellent in it selfe, vvhich is more difficult and hard? And Christ saith, that after this life there is no marrying at all. And S. Paul, He that giueth his virgin to marriage, doth well: but hee that giueth her not to marriage doth better. 1. Cor. 7.38. WHIT. pag 69•. I do not dispute against holy virginity, which I acknowledge is both hard & excellent. But single life must be distinguished frō holy virginity. Very few attaine this of that euery one may make choise of. But your reasō is of no great force, for the hardest things are not the most excellent. It is most hard for a man to liue an hundred yeares: shal we therfore thinke that they who liue so long, are more excellent then others? As for that in the kingdome of heauē there are no marriages, it is not of force against vs: for we speak of the state of this life, after which, as there shall be no marriages, so no vowes of virginitie. In S. Paul, better, is as much as si••es and more commodious: for if it were su•plie better, it were neuer lawfull to do otherwise; which he alloweth. Therefore he thus spake not for the nature of the thing, but in respect of circumstances: as you may see, vers. 26.28.32.35.
4Hieron. ad Furiam. [Greek or Hebrew].Hieron. ad Furiam. 〈non-Latin alphabet〉.
. For this purpose the Sonne of God appeared, that heo might loose the works of the Devil. Neither did S. Paul well to compare good works to silver, gold, and precious stones.
. Neither did the Prophets and Apostle• well to exhort us to good works. And if all our actions (though good) be sin, do not you your selves sin whilst you believe to be justified by faith? For faith is a work, seeing Christ saith, This is the work of God, that you believe. WHIT. pag. 698. That even our good actions are tainted with some sin, no man can doubt, that either knoweth the Scriptures, or himself. As Isay saith 64.10. Now it even all our righteous actions be like unto a stinking & filthy clout, they are surely tainted with some sin. The Prophet David prayeth
. Upon which place Gregory Moral. lib. 9. cap. 1. thus writeth. The holy man because he seeth, that even all the merit of our very virtue is sin, if by an inward judgement it be rightly judged of, doth well add &c. Here Gregory calleth the merits of our virtue, that is, our very best works, sins. And again the same Gregory cap. 14. As we have often said, all humane righteousness is convinced to be unrighteousness, if it be rightly judged of. Now he that calleth our rigeteousnes unrighteousness, what saith he else, then that which Luther said, That there is some sin in every good work? This Paradox therefore Luther learned our of the Scriptures and ancient Fathers. But to come to your slender reasons. If thou take a wife, thou sinnest not. I answer here is a fallacy. For we say not to marry a wise is sin, but that they who marry wives intermix some sin in that good action. And to the place of S. Peter. I say that there you use also a fallacy: for to fall, in that place signifieth to fall away wholly and altogether from grace and salvation. For the place of S. John, we mean not that good works are sins, but that they have some sin mixed with them. For it followeth not that silver is dross, because it hath some dross mingled with it. And Christ came not to the end there should be no sin left in his Saints whilst they live here, but that he might take away the guilt of sin. And what if S. Paul hath compared our good works to silver, gold, or precious stones? Know you not that even in the best metals, and in such stones there may some dross be found? But the Apostle compareth sound doctrine to these things; than which there is nothing more precious if it be kept pure and incorrupted. The Prophets and Apostles do well to exhort us to do good works: but if they bid us do our duty, doth it therefore follow, that we may not commit some sin in doing thereof? Last of all touching your demand concerning faith, you bewray your ignorance; for we are not justified by faith, as it is a work or action of ours, for it is imperfect: but because it is as the hand whereby we lay hold on Christ, and Christ calleth faith a work either by imitation, or because it is the work of the holy Ghost that kindleth it in our hearts.
DVR. The Apostle S. Paul then said not truly; If thou take a vvife thou sinnest not. 1 Cor. 7. Then S. Peter said not truly, 2. Pet. 1.10. For if yee do these things, yee shall neuer fall. Neither said Sa•nt Iohn truly, 1. Ioh 3.8. For this purpose the Sonne of God appeared, that heo might loose the workes of the Diuell. Neither did S. Paul vvell to compare good vvorkes to siluer, gold, and precious stones. 1. Cor. 3.12. Neither did the Prophets and Apostle• well to exhort vs to good vvorks. And if all our actions (though good) be sinne, doe not you your selues sinne vvhilest you beleeue to be iustified by faith? For faith is a vvorke, seeing Christ saith, This is the worke of God, that you beleeue. WHIT. pag. 698. That euen our good actions are tainted vvith some sinne, no man can doubt, that either knoweth the Scriptures, or himself. As Isay saith 64.10. Now it euen al our righteous actiōs be like vnto a stincking & filthie clout, they are surely tainted with some sin. The Prophet Dauid prayeth Psal. 143.2. Wherefore no worke, (though good) can deliuer vs from the iust iudgement of God. And this is that which the Apostle Paul speaketh Gal. 5.17. and Rom. 7.21. also Job 9.2. Vpon which place Gregorie Moral. lib. 9. cap. 1. thus writeth. The holy man because he seeth, that euen all the merit of our very vertue is sinne, if by an invvard iudgement it be rightly iudged of, doth vvell adde &c. Heere Gregorie calleth the merits of our vertue, that is, our very best workes, sinnes. And againe the same Gregorie cap. 14. As vve haue often said, all humane righteousnes is conuinced to be v•righteousnes, if it be rightly iudged of. Now he that calleth our rigeteousnes vnrighteousnes, what saith he else, then that which Luther said, That there is some sinne in euery good vvorke? This Paradoxe therefore Luther learned our of the Scriptures and auncient Fathers. But to come to your slender reasons. If thou take a vvife, thou sinnest not. I answere heere is a fallacie. For we say not to marrie a wise is sinne, but that they vvho marrie wiues intermixe some sinne in that good action. And to the place of S. Peter. I say that there you vse also a fallacy: for to fall, in that place signifieth to fall away wholy and altogether from grace and saluation. For the place of S. Iohn, vve meane not that good workes are sinnes, but that they haue some sinne mixed with them. For it followeth not that siluer is drosse, because it hath some drosse mingled with it. And Christ came not to the end there should be no sinne left in his Saints whilest they liue here, but that he might take away the guilt of sinne. And what if S. Paul hath compared our good workes to siluer, gold, or precious stones? Know you not that euen in the best mettals, and in such stones there may some drosse be found? But the Apostle compareth sound doctrine to these things; than which there is nothing more precious if it be kept pure and incorrupted. The Prophets and Apostles do well to exhort vs to doe good workes: but if they bid vs do our duty, doth it therefore follow, that vvee may not commit some sinne in doing thereof? Last of all touching your demaund concerning faith, you bewray your ignorance; for we are not iustified by faith, as it is a worke or action of ours, for it is imperfect: but because it is as the hand wherby we lay hold on Christ, and Christ calleth faith a worke either by imitation, or because it is the worke of the holy Ghost that kindleth it in our hearts.
lDVR. Therefore no action can ever be either excellent or good. Well said Dionysius, That that which is good, must needs come of a cause perfectly good. WHIT. pag. 701. Is there any so dull, as to say that there is no health not soundness in the body at all, because there is only some thing in the body not so sound as it should be? As for Dionysius, he speaketh of that entire and perfect good which we never attain to in this life. For as long as the flesh lusteth against the spirit, there can be no such entire good in us, proceeding from entire and perfect causes.DVR. Therefore no action can euer be either excellent or good. VVell said Dionysius, That that vvhich is good, must n•edes come of a cause perfectly good. WHIT. pag. 701. Is there any so dull, as to say that there is no health not soundnes in the body at all, because there is onlie some thing in the body not so sound as it should be? As for Dionysius, he speaketh of that entire and perfect good which we neuer attaine to in this life. For as long as the flesh lusteth against the spirit, there can be no such entire good in vs, proceeding from entire and perfect causes.
mDVR. What a monstrous speech is this? Is it possible that even sins should please God? WHIT. pag. 702. Can you put no difference between the corruption of the action, and the action it self? A good father loveth the obedience and duty of his sonne, which he knoweth nevertheless is not such as it ought to be, and how much more doth God accept the slender and weak endeavours of his children?DVR. VVhat a monstrous speech is this? Is it possible that euen sinnes should please God? WHIT. pag. 702. Can you put no difference betvveene the corruption of the action, and the action it selfe? A good father loueth the obedience and dutie of his sonne, vvhich he knovveth neuerthelesse is not such as it ought to be, and how much more doth God accept the slender and vveake endeuours of his children?
