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.
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 Ambr•se 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.
*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.
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.
Now you add:n The decalogue belongeth not to Christians. God doth not care for our works. Touching the decalogue and works, this answer I make you briefly. In the law the old covenant is contained; Do this and live: 2oCursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. The law promiseth life to them, which ⟨p. 253⟩obey the Law in all things: they that offend in any thing, to them it threateneth death and damnation.p An hard condition, and which no man can ever satisfy. Christ doth propose to us another condition much easier:5 Believe and thou shalt be saved. By this new Covenant the oldq is abrogated; so as whosoever believeth the Gospel, is freed from the condition of the Law.7 For they that rbelieve are not under the Law, but under grace. What needs many words? ⟨p. 254⟩sChristians are delivered from the curse of the law, but not from the obedience of it. As for our works, surely God regardeth them: and if they be good, he rewardeth them: if contrary, he judgeth them worthy of punishment:t but in justifying of us, God hath no respect to our works:u for the just shall live, not by his works, but by his faith. Now go ⟨p. 255⟩on.* Only they do rightly receive the Lords Supper, who bring sorrowful, afflicted, & confounded consciences. And so it is indeed, for they are no right receivers, who trusting to their own merits come audaciously, but they who heing oppressed with the greatness of their sins,13 do desire to be eased. For they which are whole desire not the Physician. A contrite and broken hart is an acceptable sacrifice to God. wherefore they which have greatest feeling of their sins and sorrow for them, to them that heavenly food is wont to be most wholesome. Good Lord, who would ever think it might come to pass, that any Christian should dislike these things! But is there any thing else?x You may confess you sins, but to any ⟨p. 256⟩body, ywho if he do absolve you but in jest, so as you believe, you are absolved. And why not? for it is not need full, either to number sins by our fingers, or to use a Priest or a Friar, such a one as your self.16 We may confess our faults one to another, so as Friars may be idle hereafter. And whosoever believeth that his sins are forgiven him, him saith it self absolves, whether he be absolved in jest or in earnest.
Now you adde:n The decalogue belongeth not to Christians. God doth not care for our workes. Touching the decalogue and workes, this answere I make you briefely. In the law the olde couenant is contained; Doe this and liue: 2oCursed is euery one that continueth not in all things which are written in the booke of the law to do them. The law promiseth life to them, which ⟨p. 253⟩obey the Law in all things: they that offend in any thing, to them it threatneth death and damnation.p An hard condition, and which no man can euer satisfie. Christ doth propose to vs another condition much easier:5 Beleeue and thou shalt bee saued. By this new Couenant the oldq is abrogated; so as whosoeuer beleeueth the Gospell, is freed from the condition of the Law.7 For they that rbeleeue are not vnder the Law, but vnder grace. What needs many words? ⟨p. 254⟩sChristians are deliuered from the curse of the law, but not from the obedience of it. As for our works, surely God regardeth them: and if they be good, he rewardeth them: if contrarie, he iudgeth them worthy of punishment:t but in iustifying of vs, God hath no respect to our works:u for the iust shall liue, not by his works, but by his faith. Now goe ⟨p. 255⟩on.* Only they do rightly receiue the Lords Supper, who bring sorrowful, afflicted, & cōfounded consciences. And so it is indeed, for they are no right receiuers, who trusting to their owne merits come audaciously, but they who heing opprested with the greatues of their sinnes,
nDVR. Then why answered Christ the young man in the Gospel with this, keep the Commandments? And how do thieves and adulterers sin? or how is it a sin now to omit the duties of the moral Law, more then to omit offering up of sacrifices? WHIT. pag. 703. That which Christ answered to the young man Matth. 19.17. may well be said unto you. For you seek righteousness by the Law: wherefore keep the Law if you vvill enter into life. But here you shall find no way to enter. Luther nor any of us, ever denied that the Law pertaineth unto Christians. For the righteousness of the Law is eternal, and every man ought with all endeavour to frame his life according to the same. But it is one thing to be bound by the Law, and another thing to conform and fr•me our lives by the rule of the Law. Wherefore thieves do sin, and are justly punished; and much more they that establish the ceremonies of Moses Law, which are wholly abrogated.DVR. Then vvhy ansvvered Christ the yong man in the Gospell vvith this, keepe the Cō mandements? And hovv doe theeues and adulterers sinne? or hovv is it a sinne novv to omit the duties of the morall Lavv, more then to omit offering vp of sacrifices? WHIT. pag. 703. That vvhich Christ ansvvered to the yong man Matth. 19.17. may vvell bee said vnto you. For you seeke righteousnes by the Lavv: vvherefore keepe the Lavv if you vvill enter into life. But here you shall find no vvay to enter. Luther nor any of vs, euer denied that the Lavv pertaineth vnto Christians. For the righteousnes of the Lavv is eternall, and euery man ought vvith all endeuour to frame his life according to the same. But it is one thing to bee bound by the Lavv, and another thing to conforme and fr•me our liues by the rule of the Lavv. Wherfore theeues do sinne, and are iustly punished; and much more they that establish the ceremonies of Moses Lavv, vvhich are vvholy abrogated.
oDVR Moses denounceth not the curse against the breaches of every small precept, but to those only, which he there reckoneth up: which were certainly very heinous sins. WHIT. pag. 708. If that curse be only proper to those, who are guilty of the sins there numbered and set down, what shall we then think of blasphemers, adulterers, and of other horrible malefactors? are they free from this curse? if this be impious and absurd, then must it be understood of all, even as many as do transgress the Law. And so S. Paul interpreteth the place, who undoubtedly understood the meaning of Moses better then all Jesuits. For he instructing the Galatians, as concerning the justice of the Law, proveth by this testimony,
Well, make haste. To read prayers by the hour, belongeth not to Priests, but to lay men. What your Priests do, or what they think they ought to do, it concerns me not. Let them read, let them pray, let them say Mass, let them drink, let them play, and in a word, let them be always like themselves. It behoveth a Minister of the Gospel not to recite certain ⟨p. 257⟩Collects by an hour-glass, and to make his walk in them certain spaces of hours, but to give daily diligence unto reading,1 exhortation, and doctrine; which things your Priests have ever thought to be far different from their office. But these same prayers by the hour albeit they do not ill agree to your sacrificing priests, who unless they should spend the time on this fashion, would never go out of Stews and Taverns, yet are they unworthy of a Christian man, because of their infinitez superstition. Let us hear the rest. Christians are free from the laws of men. That never came into Luther's mind, to pluck in pieces the authority of the Magistrates, which he did always defend most diligently against the Anabaptists.a Christians are free, not that they may obey no laws, and live only to themselves, but that they may understand that their consciences and minds are freed from making the laws of men to ⟨p. 258⟩be religion. The Pope of Rome hath bound the consciences of Christian men with his Decrees and Canons, and thereby hath laid such a snare upon their minds, as that they might think they are no less bound by the Popes Canons, then by Christs precepts. Therefore Luther freeth Christian liberty from those evil opinions wherein it had been infolded, and bringeth it into that state in which Christ would have it to be, that we should acknowledge him only to be the Lord of our conscience, and that we should obey the laws of men with a free conscience. We are now at length come to the bottom of this puddle, which although you have stirred with all your diligence, yet you have not found so much as one paradox, or a piece of a paradox of ours.
Well, make haste. To reade prayers by the houre, belongeth not to Priests, but to lay mē. What your Priests do, or what they thinke they ought to do, it concernes me not. Let them reade, let them pray, let them say Masse, let them drinke, let them play, and in a word, let them be alwayes like themselues. It behoueth a Minister of the Gospell not to recite certaine ⟨p. 257⟩Collects by an houre-glasse, and to make his walke in them certaine spaces of houres, but to giue daily diligence vnto reading,1 exhortation, and doctrine; which things your Priests haue euer thought to be farre different from their office. But these same prayers by the houre albeit they do not ill agree to your sacrificing priests, who vnlesse they should spēd the time on this fashion, would neuer goe out of Stewes and Tauernes, yet are they vnworthie of a Christian man, because of their infinitez superstition. Let vs heare the rest. Christians are free from the lawes of men. That neuer came into Luthers mind, to pluck in peeces the authority of the Magistrates, which he did alwaies defend most diligently against the Anabaptists.a Christians are free, not that they may obey no lawes, and liue only to themselues, but that they may vnderstand that their consciences and minds are freed from making the lawes of men to ⟨p. 258⟩be religion. The Pope of Rome hath bound the consciences of Christian men with his Decrees and Canons, and thereby hath laid such a snare vpon their minds, as that they might thinke they are no lesse bound by the Popes Canons, then by Christs precepts. Therfore Luther freeth Christian liberty from those euill opinions wherein it had bene infolded, and bringeth it into that state in which Christ would haue it to be, that we should acknowledge him only to be the Lord of our conscience, and that we should obey the lawes of men with a free conscience. We are now at length come to the bottome of this puddle, which although you haue stirred with all your diligence, yet you haue not found so much as one paradoxe, or a peece of a paradoxe of ours.
zDVR. Js it superstition to sing Psalms unto God, to pray for remission of sins, and other temporal and spiritual graces, and to perform other exercises of religion? who knoweth not, that Christians had their night Psalms? that the Hymns of Ambrose were at set times. In the Acts we read, that Peter and John went into the Temple at the ninth hour of prayer. WHIT. pag. 726. These things I reproved not as superstitious and impious, but that all the time, which should be bestowed in instructing the people, should be spent in saying their daily appointed hours, specially in that tongue which not the people, and often times not the Priest himself doth understand. No man is ignorant that Christians had their night hours, but it was because they might not assemble themselves in the day time: vvill you keep this custom, and not be accounted superstitious? The Hymns of Ambrose are full of piety, and far from superstitious chanting As for the Apostles, they went not up to sacrifice nor to keep Canonical hours, but to instruct the people who came thither to the evening sacrifice in great multitudes.DVR. Js it superstition to sing Psalmes vnto God, to pray for remission of sinnes, and other temporall and spirituall graces, and to performe other exercises of religion? vvho knovveth not, that Christians had their night Psalmes? that the Hymnes of Ambrose vvere at set times. In the Acts vve read, that Peter and Iohn vvent into the Temple at the ninth houre of prayer. WHIT. pag. 726. These things I reproued not as superstitious and impious, but that all the time, which should be bestovved in instructing the people, should be spent in saying their daily appointed houres, specially in that tongue vvhich not the people, and often times not the Priest himselfe doth vnderstand. No man is ignorant that Christians had their night houres, but it vvas because they might not assemble themselues in the day time: vvill you keepe this custome, and not be accounted superstitious? The Hymnes of Ambrose are full of piety, and sarre from superstitious chaunting As for the Apostles, they vvent not vp to sacrifice nor to keepe Canonicall houres, but to instruct the people who came thither to the euening sacrifice in great multitudes.
aDVR. It they be bound to obey, how are their consciences free from the religion of them? Jf was a humane law, Act. 15.20. touching, strangled and blood. And Rom. 13.2.5. and
But now if I would but a little make search into the most filthy puddles of your writers, as to reckon up what they have affirmed, of God, of the Providence of God, of Predestination, of the Person and Offices of Christ, of Original sin, of the Law, of Righteousness, of the Sacraments, of Purgatory, of the Pope of Rome, and of the rest of the greatest controversies in Religion, how many Carts should I fill with paradoxes, horrible to be spoken, or thought? But it is ⟨p. 259⟩better not at this time to stir this common Sewer: and otherwhere (I hope) occasion will be given to speak hereof. Now in that you would join the Lutherans and Zwinglians together, therein surely you have not offended us, for we both reverence Luther as a father, and we embrace them as very deer brethren in Christ. And verily we hope it will come to pass, that this controversy, which is between us being compounded, we shall all with joint minds and studies set upon the common enemy. As for that you say touching your self, I am easily persuaded to think it to be true, whether it be that you speak it heartily or feignedly. For what (I beseech you) have you alleged, for which we should not rather think you to be some Rhetorical Actor upon a Stage, then a learned and experienced Divine? Campian, if you be wise, be quiet, for (believe me) you cannot endure the force and violence of this combat. Let those choice and old soldiers put themselves into the camp, who are, if not more bold to provoke, yet more wary to avoid blows, and much more skilful in all discipline of war. To enter combat with these, both the Universities have many worthy men, and I trust there will never want excellent Divines to wage perpetual war with the broken bands of Antichrist.
But now if I would but a little make search into the most filthy puddles of your writers, as to recken vp what they haue affirmed, of God, of the Prouidence of God, of Predestination, of the Person and Offices of Christ, of Originall sin, of the Law, of Righteousnes, of the Sacraments, of Purgatory, of the Pope of Rome, and of the rest of the greatest controuersies in Religion, how many Carts should I fill with paradoxes, horrible to be spoken, or thought? But it is ⟨p. 259⟩better not at this time to stirre this common Sewre: and otherwhere (I hope) occasion will be giuen to speake hereof. Now in that you would ioine the Lutherans and Zwinglians together, therein surely you haue not offended vs, for we both reuerence Luther as a father, and we embrace them as very deere brethren in Christ. And verily we hope it will come to passe, that this controuersie, which is betweene vs being compounded, we shall all with ioint minds and studies set vpon the common enemie. As for that you say touching your selfe, I am easily perswaded to thinke it to be true, whether it be that you speake it hartily or sainedly. For what (I beseech you) haue you alledged, for which wee should not rather thinke you to be some Rhetoricall Actor vpon a Stage, then a learned and experienced Diuine? Campian, if you be wise, be quiet, for (beleeue me) you cannot indure the force and violence of this combate. Let those choise and old souldiers put themselues into the camp, who are, if not more bold to prouoke, yet more wary to auoid blowes, and much more skilfull in all discipline of warre. To enter combate with these, both the Vniuersities haue many worthie men, and I trust there will neuer want excellent Diuines to wage perpetuall warre with the broken bands of Antichrist.
IT is an ancient Proverb, that a pore-blind man may be a King amongst the blind. Amongst the ignorant sort of people many times a coloured argument taketh place, the which the Philosophers school doth hiss at. The* Adversary herein much offendeth, but namely in four kinds of fallaces he is well practised, which I had rather disclose in the University schools, then in the common streets, whither only rude people do resort. The first fault is called Schiamachia, 2which is a forcible striking of the air, and beating of shadows on this sort, against those that are single and have* sworn and solemnly vowed to live in Chastity, because Marriage is good, but Virginity is better. They bring scriptures that speak very* honourably of Matrimony:5 Whom do they pierce with their darts? Against the* merits of a Christian man dipped in Christs blood, without the which there is no merit at all. They recite testimonies, which command us to put our affiance neither in nature nor in the law, but in the blood of Christ; whom do they confute? Against those that honour Saints, as the most acceptable servants of Christ, there are vouched whole pages of scripture, which prohibit the* worshipping of many gods? Such Arguments as these, which I see swarm amongst the Adversaries, cannot hurt us, well may they be loathsome unto you.
IT is an auncient Prouerb, that a pore-blinde man may be a King amongst the blinde. Amongst the ignorant sort of people many times a coloured argument taketh place, the which the Philosophers schoole doth hisse at. The* Aduersarie herein much offendeth, but namely in foure kinds of fallaces he is well practised, which I had rather disclose in the Vniuersitie schooles, then in the common streets, whither only rude people do resort. The first fault is called Schiamachia, 2which is a forcible striking of the ayer, and beating of shadowes on this sort, against those that are single and haue* sworne and solemnely vowed to liue in Chastity, because Marriage is good, but Virginitie is better. They bring scriptures that speake very* honorably of Matrimony:5 Whom do they pierce with their darts? Against the* merits of a Christian man dipped in Christes bloud, without the which there is no merit at all. They recite testimonies, which commaund vs to put our affiance neither in nature nor in the lawe, but in the bloud of Christ; whom do they confute? Against those that honor Saints, as the most acceptable seruants of Christ, there are vouched whole pages of scripture, which prohibit the* worshipping of many gods? Such Arguments as these, which I see swarme amongst the Aduersaries, cannot hurt vs, well may they be loathsome vnto you.
*This is false: you can produce none of our sophisms: and those you speak of are yours, not oursThis is false: you can produce none of our sophismes: and those you speake of are yours, not ours
2Schiamachia.
*Those oaths and vows are taken and made against the scriptures.Those oathes and vovves are taken and made against the scriptures.
*Marriage is honourable in all conditions of men, therefore in Ministers.Marriage is honorable in all conditions of men, therefore in Ministers.
*All he can do are his duties, therefore there can be no merits.
*They who worship many Saints, worship many Gods. Papists worship many Saints ergo.They vvho vvorship many Saints, vvorship many Gods. Papists vvorship many Saints ergo.
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?
doe desire to bee eased. For they which are whole desire not the Physitian. A contrite and broken hart is an acceptable sacrifice to God. wherefore they which haue greatest feeling of their sinnes and sorrow for them, to them that heauenly food is wont to bee most wholesome. Good Lord, who would euer thinke it might come to passe, that anie Christian should dislike these things! But is there any thing else?
who if he do absolue you but in iest, so as you beleeue, you are absolued. And why not? for it is not need full, either to number sins by our fingers, or to vse a Priest or a Frier, such a one as your selfe.
We may confesse our faults one to another, so as Friers may be idle hereafter. And whosoeuer beleeueth that his sinnes are forgiuen him, him saith it selfe absolues, whether he be absolued in iest or in earnest.
. that none can be justified by the works of the Law, but he that continueth in all things. Either then deny that any law was written touching small offences, or else confess that that curse belongeth to the least offences. If the Apostle had understood it as you do, the Galatians might have answered him, that they were free from those great sins, and so from the curse, and therefore might well hope to be justified by the Law. Finally if
. Christ hath freed us from the curse of the Law, shall we think that this is only, from the curse due to a few grievous sinners? I hope by this time, you see the error of your interpretation, which you have sucked from your corrupt masters.
DVR Moses denounceth not the cursse against the breaches of euery small precept, but to those only, vvhich he there reckoneth vp: vvhich vvere certainly very haynous sinnes. WHIT. pag. 708. If that curse be only proper to those, vvho are guilty of the sinnes there numbred and set dovvne, vvhat shall vve then thinke of blasphemers, adulterers, and of other horrible malefactors? are they free from this cursse? if this be impious and absurde, then must it be vnderstood of all, euen as many as do transgresse the Lavv. And so S. Paul interpreteth the place, vvho vndoubtedly vnderstood the meaning of Moses better then all Iesuites. For he instructing the Galathians, as concerning the iustice of the Lavv, proueth by this testimonie, Gal. 3.10. that none can be iustified by the vvorks of the Lavv, but he that continueth in all things. Either then deny that any lavv vvas vvritten touching small offences, or else confesse that that cursse belongeth to the least offences. If the Apostle had vnderstood it as you doe, the Galathians might haue ansvvered him, that they vvere free from those great sinnes, and so from the cursse, and therefore might vvell hope to be iustified by the Lavv. Finally if Gal. 3.13. Christ hath freed vs from the cursse of the Law, shall vve thinke that this is only, from the cursse due to a fevv grieuous sinners? I hope by this time, you see the error of your interpretation, which you haue sucked from your corrupt maisters.
pDVR. Yet Christ Math. 11.30. saith, My youke is easy and my burden light. And S. John. 1. Epist. 2.4. Ho that saith, I know him and keepeth not his Commandments, is alayr. WHIT. pag. 705. S. Joh. 1. Epist. 5.3.4. expoundeth the speech of Christ, His Commandments are not grievous: For all that is borne of God, overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith. This yoke then to those who have faith seameth not grievous, because they are inflamed with the love of Gods Law, neither fear they the curse of it because they are ingrafted by faith into Christians for the place of S. John, I answer; they are said to keep the Commandement•, who do their best enendevour to keep them. If any do think that he so keepeth them, that he is without all sin, that is, that he perfectly keepeth them, S. John calleth him a liar, 1. Joh. 1.8.DVR. Yet Christ Math. 11.30. saith, My youke is easie and my burden light. And S. Iohn. 1. Epist. 2.4. Ho that saith, I know him and keepeth not his Commandements, is alayr. WHIT. pag. 705. S. Ioh. 1. Epist. 5.3.4. expoundeth the speech of Christ, His Commandements are not grieuous: For all that is borne of God, ouercommeth the world: and this is the victorie that ouercommeth the world, euen our faith. This yoke then to those who haue faith seameth not grieuous, because they are inflamed with the loue of Gods Law, neither feare they the curse of it because they are ingrafted by faith into Christans for the place of S. Iohn, I answere; they are said to keepe the Commandement•, who do their best enendeuour to keepe them. If any do thinke that he so keepeth them, that hee is without all sinne, that is, that he perfectly keepeth them, S. Iohn calleth him a lyar, 1. Ioh. 1.8.
qDVR. If it be abrogated, how are we not freed from the obedience of it? If God require only that you believe; then by believing you fulfil the Law, and so have not only an imputed, but an inherent righteousness. WHIT. pag. 614. I say not, that the Law is simply abolished, but in some respect. Therefore it vvill not follow that we are freed from the obedience of it. Again, we say not, that faith fulfilleth the Law, as if it did perform perfect obedience to it, but because it layeth hold on Christ, who is the end and perfection of the Law, and on his righteousness. Therefore is it not an inherent, but an imputative justice.DVR. If it be abrogated, how are we not freed from the obedience of it? If God require only that you beleeue; then by beleeuing you fulfill the Lavv, and so haue not only an imputed, but an inherent righteousnes. WHIT. pag. 614. I say not, that the Law is simplie abolished, but in some respect. Therefore it vvill not follovv that vve are freed from the obedience of it. Againe, vvee say not, that faith fulfilleth the Law, as if it did performe perfect obediēce to it, but because it layeth hold on Christ, vvho is the end and perfection of the Lavv, and on his righteousnes. Therefore is it not an inherent, but an imputatiue iustice.
rDVR. Christ saith not as you write, but He that believeth and is baptised shall be saved, Now they who are baptised, have received from God a good will to keep the whole Law, which they determine afterwards by the grace of Christ to observe. WHIT. pag. 715. The words of Christ confirm as ••ch as I brought them for. For Baptism is not a work of the Law, but a wale of faith. And Christ showeth that our salvation consisteth only in faith. And though the baptised frame theirlives according to the rule of the Law, and are endued with new wills and new strength, yet they do it not with that mind to justify themselves by their obedience before the Lord. Then should they lose the righteousness of faith, which doth not consist in our merits and good works, but is such as the Apostle describeth Rom. 4.5.DVR. Christ saith not as you write, but Hee that beleeueth and is baptised shall be saued, Now they who are baptised, haue receiued from God a good will to keepe the whole Law, which they determine afterwards by the grace of Christ to obserue. WHIT. pag. 715. The words of Christ confirme as ••ch as I brought them for. For Baptisme is not a worke of the Law, but a wale of faith. And Christ sheweth that our saluation consisteth only in faith. And though the baptised frame theirliues according to the rule of the Law, and are endued with new wills and new strength, yet they do it not with that mind to iustifie themselues by their obedience before the Lord. Then should they lose the righteousnes of faith, which doth not consist in our merits and good vvorkes, but is such as the Apostle describeth Rom. 4.5.
sDVR. This is your new Divinity, that we should be freed from the curse of the Law, which we cannot fully obey, when as Christ at the last shall pronounce the curse against those who have not obered And Christ (as S. Paul saith) hath freed us from the curse, because by his death be •ath deserved grace for us, whereby we may keep the Law. WHIT. pag. 713. This is your ignorance in Divinity. For who is ignorant of that, which the Apostle affirmeth plainly, Gal. 3.13. that Christ hath freed us from the curse of the Law? Though then we cannot fully keep the Law, yet being ingrafted into Christ, and he communicating his righteousness unto us, we escape the curse of the Law. At the last day it is no marvel if Christ pronounce the curse of the Law against the reprobates, who never were freed from the cursle. And if Christ by his death brought us grace to keep the Law, why might not the Galatians have kept the Law, and obtained righteousness by it? But the Apostle showeth them, that Christ took the cursle, because he took both the sin and the punishment upon him, & not that thereby he procured thē grace to fulfil the Law.DVR. This is your new Diuinitie, that vvee should be freed from the cursse of the Lavv, vvhich vvee cannot fully obey, vvhen as Christ at the last shall pronounce the cursse against those vvho haue not obered And Christ (as S. Paul saith) hath freed vs from the cursse, because by his death be •ath deserued grace for vs, vvhereby we may keepe the Lavv. WHIT. pag. 713. This is your ignorance in Diuinity. For who is ignorant of that, which the Apostle affirmeth plainely, Gal. 3.13. that Christ hath freed vs from the cursse of the Law? Though then we cannot fully keepe the Law, yet being ingrafted into Christ, and he communicating his righteousnes vnto vs, wee escape the cursse of the Lavv. At the last day it is no maruell if Christ pronounce the cursse of the Law against the reprobates, vvho neuer vvere freed from the cursle. And if Christ by his death brought vs grace to keepe the Law, why might not the Galathians haue kept the Lavv, and obtained righteousnes by it? But the Apostle shevveth them, that Christ tooke the cursle, because he tooke both the sinne and the punishment vpon him, & not that therby he procured thē grace to fulfill the Law.
tDVR. Jn those who are justified, God much respecteth their works, as in Abraham Jam 2.21. and 1. Joh. 3.7. And in Phinehas, Psal. 106.31. his work imputed for righteousness. WHIT. pag. 716. To the places of Saint James and Saint John you have been answered before. The fact of Phinehas proceeded from faith, and so the praise of it to be given to faith, not to the work. If you accounted of Thomas, as you make show of, your judgment would be sounder in these things. For thus he writeth on Galat. 3. Works are not the cause that any one is just before God. but they are affects and manifestations of righteousness. Neither Luther, not any of us say any more.DVR. Jn those vvho are iustified, God much respecteth their vvorkes, as in Abraham Iam 2.21. and 1. Ioh. 3.7. And in Phinehas, Psal. 106.31. his vvorke imputed for righteousnes. WHIT. pag. 716. To the places of Saint Iames and Saint Iohn you haue been ansvvered before. The fact of Phin•ha• proceeded from faith, and so the praise of it to bee giuen to faith, not to the worke. If you accounted of Th•mas, as you make shew of, your iudgment vvould bee sounder in these things. For thus he vvriteth on Galat. 3. VVorkes are not the cause that any one is iust before God. but they are aff•ctes and manifestations of righteousnes. Neither Luther, not any of vs say any more.
uDVR. The Prophet saith not that a man is just, because be beleeneth, but that be who is just, doth live by his faith, that is, doth uphold himself by his faith, and sainteth not. It is as absurd to be just by another mans justice, as to live by another mans life. WHIT. pag. 716. I could admit of your exposition, but that I am persuaded the Apostle understood the Prophers mind beaver then you. For the Apostle hath used it to prove, that we are justified by faith, and not by the works of the Law: no not by those which are wrought after faith; for thus he reasoneth, Gal. 3.11. That […] man is justified by the Law in the sight of God, it is evident, for the just shall live by faith. And the Law is not of faith. What hath he concluded but that you demy? that is, that the Prophet hath said, that a man is justified, because he believeth. So Chrysast in Gal. 3. showeth that saith justifieth by the testi•••nie of the Prophet Abakuk. Which if it were not, what concerneth it the Galatians, who were endued with faith, and joined their works with their faith. If it be absurd to be just by another mans righteousness, I pray you tell me, how the Scripture calleth Christ both the curse and sin? As for us we had rather be absurd with the holy Ghost, then wise with you.DVR. The Prophet saith not that a man is iust, because be beleeneth, but that be vvho is iust, doth liue by his faith, that is, doth vphold himselfe by his faith, and sainteth not. It is as absurd to be iust by another mans iustice, as to liue by another mans life. WHIT. pag. 716. I could admit of your exposition, but that I am persvvaded the Apostle vnderstood the Prophers mind beuer then you. For the Apostle hath vsed it to proue, that we are iustified by faith, and not by the workes of the Law: no not by those which are wrought after faith; for thus he reasoneth, Gal. 3.11. That 〈…〉 man is iustified by the Law in the sight of God, it is euident, for the iust shall liue by faith. And the Law is not of faith. What hath he concluded but that you demy? that is, that the Prophet hath said, that a man is iustified, because hee beleeueth. So Chrysast in Gal. 3. sheweth that saith iustifieth by the testi•••nie of the Prophet Abakuk. Which if it were not, what concerneth it the Galathians, who vvere endued vvith faith, and ioyned their vvorkes vvith their faith. If it be absurd to be iust by another mans righteousnes, I pray you tel me, hovv the Scripture calleth Christ both the cursse and sinne? As for vs we had rather be absurd vvith the holy Ghost, then vvise vvith you.
*DVR. Then where is your faith which assureth you of the remission of your sins, and quiteth all your troubled thoughts? But holy men diligently prepared themselves, and so came to this Sacrament. having quiet minds, free from guilt of sin. And in the Primitive times they who had fallen, were not admitted to the Eucharist, but after confession & full satisfaction made for their sins. And then a Deacon was wont to cry. Holy things are for holy men. WHIT. pag. 718. You have not tasted what true faith is, if you think all sorrows & doubts are removed, so soon as faith is begotten. The Prophet often remembereth his sorrows, Psal. 42.5.6. & 32.4. And this all the faithful have experience of, and yet are upheld by their faith. They are the best prepared who have the greatest sorrows for their sins, and in the word and Sacrament seek a salve for them. For wherefore was the supper ordained, but to strengthen and confirm our faith. Therefore the best prepared have many temptations and sorrows in themselves. The custom of the Church proveth nothing against this. For will you account them wicked and profane, whose consciences are frighted with the sense and bitter sorrows for their sins? So shall you wickedly condemn the most holy servants of God.DVR. Then where is your faith which assureth you of the remission of your sinnes, and quiteth all your troubled thoughts? But holy men diligently prepared themselues, and so came to this Sacrament. hauing quiet minds, free frō guilt of sinne. And in the Primitiue times they who had fallen, were not admitted to the Eucharist, but after cō fession & full satisfaction made for their sins. And then a Deacon was wont to crie. Holy things are for holy men. WHIT. pag. 718. You haue not tasted what true faith is, if you thinke all sorrowes & doubts are remoued, so soone as faith is begotten. The Prophet often remembreth his sorrowes, Psal. 42.5.6. & 32.4. And this all the faithfull haue experience of, and yet are vpheld by their faith. They are the best prepared who haue the greatest sorrowes for their sins, and in the word and Sacrament seeke a salue for them. For wherefore was the supper ordained, but to strengthen and confirme our faith. Therfore the best prepared haue many temptations and sorrowes in themselues. The custome of the Church proueth nothing against this. For will you account them wicked and prophane, whose consciences are frighted with the sense and bitter sorrowes for their sinnes? So shall you wickedly condemne the most holie seruants of God.
xDVR. Who knoweth not that the Novatians were condemned of the whole Church for denying this authority to the Priests? And that it was an old custom of the Church, as Tertullian hath it, that penitentials were sent to none but to the Priests: to whom, as Ambrole, Hierome, & Chrysostom writ, the keys and power of binding and loosing are committed. WHIT. pag. 720. That you speak of the Novatians and the custom of the Church toucheth not Luther, for they admitted neither repentance not confession in the Church: did Luther ever any such thing? or did he ever reprove the custom of the Church, that they who had offended publicly, did publicly testive their repentance. It was a private auricular confession of all sins which he reproved, which is without testimony either of Scripture of sincere Antiquity: which made Nectarius Bishop of Constantinople put it out of the Church for the offence of a Deacon. For the Fathers by which you would establish your keys, we have against them Augustine in Joan. tract. 124. and Theophil in Matth. 18.DVR. VVho knoweth not that the Nouatians vvere condemned of the vvhole Church for denying this authoritie to the Priests? And that it vvas an old custome of the Church, as Tertullian hath it, that penitentials vvere sent to none but to the Priests: to whom, as Ambrole, Hierome, & Chrysostome writ, the keyes and power of binding and loosing are committed. WHIT. pag. 720. That you speake of the Nouatians and the custome of the Church toucheth not Luther, for they admitted neither repentance not confession in the Church: did Luther euer any such thing? or did he euer reproue the custome of the Church, that they who had offended publikely, did publikely testiue their repentance. It was a priuate auricular confession of all sinnes which hee reproued, which is without testimonie either of Scripture of sincere Antiquitie: which made Nectarius Bishop of Constantinople put it out of the Church for the offence of a Deacon. For the Fathers by which you would establish your keyes, we haue against them Augustine in Ioan. tract. 124. and Theophil in Matth. 18.
yDVR. Uvhat is then more manifest then that he may give a Sacrament which never intended […]? We believe that Priests as Judges can absolve the guilty from their sins. WHIT pag. 722. When as faith dependeth upon no mans will, and faith bringeth remission of sins, another mans will cannot hinder, but that they who believe, may have the pardon of their sins For that to the Centurion, Mat. 8.13. is to every man▪ As thou believest, so b••t ••to thee, & not as another will. If absolution were then in the Ministers will, it should not be as men believe, but as their Minister thinketh: than which nothing can be more abs••d. What skilleth it, whether the Minister be in •est or earnest? if I believe seriously his jest shall not hurt me. And what is more miserable, then to ba•g the dignity of the Sacrament upon the thought and intention of the Minister? which if it were true of Sacraments, yet what is that to absolution, which never was a Sacrament? whereas you say you believe that the Pries•• do absolve men, as Judges do, I do not find fault with it. And such •u•ges are they, as Priests under the Law were of diseases. The chief Pr••st judged of the Leprosy, which he neither inflicted nor cured. So the Minister doth pronounce and judge all believers to be absolved, and the contrary upon the wicked and unbelievers.DVR. ƲVhat is then more manifest then that hee may giue a Sacrament which neuer intēded 〈…〉? VVe beleeue that Priests as Iudges can absolue the guilty from their sins. WHIT pag. 722. When as faith dependeth vpon no mans will, and faith bringeth remission of sins, another mans will cānot hinder, but that they who beleeue, may haue the pardon of their sins For that to the Centurion, Mat. 8.13. is to eu•ry man▪ As thou beleeuest, so b••t ••to thee, & not as another wil. If absolution were then in the Ministers will, it should not be as men beleeue, but as their Minister thinketh: than vvhich nothing can be more abs••d. What skilleth it, vvhether the Minister be in •est or earnest? if I beleeue seriously his iest shall not hurt mee. And what is more mi•erable, then to ba•g the dignitie of the Sacrament vpon the thought and intention of the Minister? which if it were true of Sacramēts, yet what is that to absolution, which neuer was a Sacramēt? wheras you say you beleeue that the Pries•• do absolue men, as Iudges do, I do not find fault with it. And such •u•ges are they, as Priests vnder the Law were of diseases. The chiefe Pr••st iudged of the Leprosie, which he neither inflicted nor cured. So the Minister doth pronounce and iudge all beleeuers to be absolued, and the contrarie vpon the wicked and vnbeleeuers.
.13. WHIT. pag. 730. To the first I answer, that some things may be done, whereunto we are not bound in conscience: we must •bey humane and politic laws, because they are necessary for peace and public tranquillity. Yet we must distinguish humane laws from Divine. For the Laws of God must simply be obeyed without any difference of time, place and circumstance: but the laws of men as he circumstances require. For example, he that is a Roman and liveth at Rome must obey the Roman laws? If he go into Persia, he is not bound to keep there the Roman lawea upon any necessity. Then they bind not the conscience, for then should they in all places bind alike. 2. That Law of the Apostles did not simply bind the conscience, but in respect of the weak brother lest he should be offended: whom the law of God bindeth not to offend. Again this was the law, not of men, but of the spirit of God. 3. For the places of S. Paul and S. Peter, I answer, the Apostles doth not ensnare the conscience with every particular precept of the Magistrate, but they speak of his authority, which is sacred and holy, and cannot with any good conscience be contemned. It is the commandment of God, that we obey Magistrates, and this doth bind the conscience: in general therefore he is to be obeyed for conscience sake; but his particular laws do not bind the conscience. Again, when we observe their particular laws, we do not so stand upon the precepts, as if doing of them would quiet the conscience and satisfy it: but we look to the end, that is, the will of God, which commandeth obedience to honest and just laws.
DVR. It they be bound to obey, hovv are their consciences free from the religion of them? Jf vvas a humane lavv, Act. 15.20. touching, strangled and blood. And Rom. 13.2.5. and 1. Pet. 2.13.13. WHIT. pag. 730. To the first I answere, that some things may be done, vvhereunto vve are not bound in conscience: vve must •bey humane and politike lavves, because they are necessary for peace and publike tranquillitie. Yet vve must distinguish humane lavves from Diuine. For the Lawes of God must simplie bee obeyed without any difference of time, place and circumstance: but the lawes of men as he circumstances require. For example, he that is a Romane and liueth at Rome must obey the Romane lavves? If hee goe into Persia, he is not bound to keepe there the Romane lavvea vpon any necessitie. Then they bind not the conscience, for then should they in all places bind alike. 2. That Law of the Apostles did not simplie binde the conscience, but in respect of the weake brother lest he should be offended: vvhom the lavv of God bindeth not to offend. Againe this was the law, not of mē, but of the spirit of God. 3. For the places of S. Paul and S. Peter, I answere, the Apostles doth not insnare the conscience vvith euery particular precept of the Magistrate, but they speake of his authoritie, which is sacred and holy, and cannot with any good conscience bee contemned. It is the commandement of God, that we obey Magistrates, and this doth bind the conscience: in generall therefore he is to be obeyed for conscience sake; but his particular lawes do not bind the conscience. Againe, when we obserue their particular lawes, wee doe not so stand vpon the precepts, as if doing of them would quiet the conscience and satisfie it: but wee looke to the end, that is, the will of God, vvhich commandeth obedience to honest and iust lavves.
