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.
James commandeth that sick persons should be anointed:s therefore we must now ever and anon anoint the sick. This is a great mystery:t therefore Matrimony is a Sacrament. Elijah and John Baptist lived in the wilderness:u therefore they invented the manner of life and discipline of Monks. There are seven deadly sins:x therefore there are just seven Sacraments. God made man after his image:y therefore images must be set up in Churches. The chiefest of these is charity:z therefore we are justified more by charity than by faith. I will go,7 saith the Lord, to my place, until they ponder ⟨p. 270⟩in their heart, and seek my face: (which indeed he spakea ironically, and after the manner of men) therefore men may be converted unto the Lord, by their own mere will and disposition. The Lord commandeth us to do many things:b therefore those things may be performed of us. Christ descended to the dead: therefore he deliveredc the Fathers out of Limbus. The Church discerneth the Scriptures:d therefore the authority of the Church is greater than the authority of the Scriptures. Saint Paul commandeth the Thessalonians,12
therefore men pass through the fire of Purgatory to life eternal.
Iames commaundeth that sicke persons should be anointed:s therefore we must now euer and anon anoint the sicke. This is a great mysterie:t therefore Matrimonie is a Sacrament. Elias and Iohn Baptist liued in the wildernesse:u therefore they inuented the manner of life and discipline of Monkes. There are seuen deadly sinnes:x therefore there are iust seuen Sacraments. God made man after his image:y therefore images must be set vp in Churches. The chiefest of these is charitie:z therefore we are iustified more by charitie than by faith. I will goe,7 saith the Lord, to my place, vntill they ponder ⟨p. 270⟩in their heart, and seeke my face: (which indeede he spakea ironically, and after the manner of men) therefore men may be conuerted vnto the Lord, by their owne meere will and disposition. The Lord commaundeth vs to doe many things:b therefore those things may be performed of vs. Christ descended to the dead: therefore he deliueredc the Fathers out of Limbus. The Church discerneth the Scriptures:d therefore the authoritie of the Church is greater than the authoritie of the Scriptures. Saint Paul commaundeth the Thessalonians,12 that they keepe the ordinances which they had learned: ⟨p. 271⟩thereforee all things are not written which are necessarie to saluation.14 Hee himselfe shall bee safe, yet as it were through fire: ftherefore men passe thorow the fire of Purgatorie to life eternall.
sDVR. The sick want health now as well as then, and therefore must now have the same helping remedy. WHIT. pag. 763. Anointing was a sign of healing in those times of extraordinary gifts in the Church; your anointing healeth nothing that wanteth health; and so is frivolous.DVR. The sicke vvant health novv as vvell as then, and therefore must novv haue the same helping remedie. WHIT. pag. 763. Anointing was a signe of healing in those times of extraordinarie giftes in the Church; your anointing healeth nothing that wanteth health; and so is friuolous.
tDVR. The Apostle speaketh that properly of Matrimonte. WHIT. pag. 764. Nay, he himself expounds it of the mystical union between Christ and the Church.DVR. The Apostle speaketh that properly of Matrimonte. WHIT. pag. 764. Nay, he himselfe expoundes it of the mysticall vnion betweene Christ and the Church.
uDVR. These men left a famous example of Monkish life. WHIT. pag. 765. The Monks life is not proved by their examples: for Elijah was commanded to go into the desert during peril; they do that without both precept and peril: John Baptist indeed lived in the desert, but wherein men did dwell, to whom also he preached; and there were many cities and towns in that desert, Josh. 15.61. what is this to idle Monkish life?DVR. These men left a famous example of Monkish life. WHIT. pag. 765. The Monkes life is not proued by their examples: for Elias was commaunded to goe into the desert during perill; they doe that without both precept and perill: John Baptist indeede liued in the desert, but wherein men did dwell, to whom also he preached; and there were many cities and townes in that desert, Josh. 15.61. what is this to idle Monkish life?
xDVR. Name him that thus disputeth. WHIT. pag. 766. It is John L•d•wicke, in a book entitled. The golden work of true contrition, leaf 128. Where are abunuen sorts of men in the Church, &c.DVR. Name him that thus disputeth. WHIT. pag. 766. It is Iohn L•d•vvicke, in a booke intituled. The golden vvorke of true contrition, leafe 128. Where are abunuen sorts of men in the Church, &c.
yDVR. Pope Adrian proveth not the use of images by this place, but saith it was signified by it. WHIT. pag. 767. Then you confess he allegeth that Scripture to prove the use of images was signified by it, and who but a superstitious doctor, would have done so?DVR. Pope Adrian proueth not the vse of images by this place, but saith it vvas signified by it. WHIT. pag. 767. Then you confesse he alleageth that Scripture to proue the vse of images was signified by it, and who but a superstitious doctor, would haue done so?
zDVR. The chiefest gift must come from the chiefest virtue. WHIT. pag. 768. S. Paul 1. Cor. 13. doth not in all things prefer charity before faith, but only because it endureth in the life to come, when we shall not need faith, as Chrysostom expounds it: now faith only apprehends Christ our righteousness, and therein excelleth charity. Lastly, you err grossly in effect, ascribing our justification to the merit of virtue in us; which only is merited by Jesus Christ.DVR. The chiefest gift must come from the chiefest vertue. WHIT. pag. 768. S. Paul 1. Cor. 13. doth not in all things preferre charitie before faith, but onely because it indureth in the life to come, when wee shall not neede faith, as Chrysostome expoundes it: now faith onely apprehends Christ our righteousnesse, and therein excelleth charitie. Lastly, you erre grossely in effect, ascribing our iust•fication to the merit of vertue in vs; vvhich onely is merited by Iesus Christ.
aDVR. Do you think that God calleth men to repentance ironically. WHIT. pag. 799. No; but when men will not seek God, being called thereto by his bounty; no marvel though he withdraw it from them, and (as it were) laugh at their madness: of which ironies there be many examples in Scriptures.DVR. Do you thinke that God calleth men to repentace ironically. WHIT. pag. 799. No; but when men will not se•k God, being called thereto by his bountie; no maruaile though hee withdraw it from them, and (as it were) laugh at their madnes: of which ironies there be many examples in Scriptures.
bDVR. Augustine denieth that God hath commanded impossible thin•s. WHIT. pag. 770. He expoundeth his own meaning, that Adam before his fall could, and that we in heaven shall be able to keep all Gods commandments; but he often saith, that no man in this life can fulfil the Law of God. DVR. Men use not to make laws impossible to be kept. WHIT. We must not measure Gods doing by mans: Again, when these laws were first given, man could perform them, and we must not look that God should alter them to fit our corruption. DVR▪ God could not justly punish lawbreakers, if they could not keep it. WHIT. pag. 771. Answer then Eusebius, (Evangelical demonst. lib. 1) who saith, that Moses Law was impossible to be kept of any man: And Thomas Aquinas, upon Gal. 3. sect. 4. saying: Moses commanded many things, which no man could fulfil.DVR. Augustine denieth that God hath commanded impossible thin•s. WHIT. pag. 770. Hee expoundeth his owne meaning, that Adam before his fall could, and that we in heauen shal be able to keepe all Gods commandements; but he often saith, that no man in this life can fulfill the Law of God. DVR. Men vse not to make lavves impossible to be kept. WHIT. We must not measure Gods doing by mans: Againe, when these lawes were first giuen, man could performe them, and vvee must not looke that God should alter them to fit our corruption. DVR▪ God could not iustly punish lavvbreakers, if they could not keepe it. WHIT. pag. 771. Answere then Eusebius, (Euangelicall demonst. lib. 1) who saith, that Moses Lavv vvas impossible to be kept of any man: And Thomas Aquinas, vpon Gal. 3. sect. 4. saying: Moses commaunded many things, vvhich no man could fulfill.
cDVR Tell me for what other cause Christ went into bel, but to deliver the Fathers from Limbus? WHIT. pag. 772. Nay, first prove you that he did go so to hell, as you think; for my part I believe it not, but that his soul went presently to heaven. Again, you beg the question, saying, he went to hell to deliver the Fathers. DVR. I prove it by these Scriptures: Zac. 9.11. Psal 68.18. Heb. 9.8. WHIT. Zachary speaketh only of the Jews delivery from the captivity of Babylon. David speaketh of Christs ascending into heaven, and triumph over his enemies; and you childishly infer hereupon, therefore he descended to hell to deliver the Patriarchs from Limbus: but most ridiculously you abuse that place to the Hebrews, the true sense whereof is; that we are not reconciled to God, by the Jewish sacrifices, but by Christ; therefore you infer, that none of the Patriarchs went to heaven, until Christ came out of hell, and opened heaven by his bodily ascension.DVR Tell me for what other cause Christ went into bel, but to deliuer the Fathers from Limbus? WHIT. pag. 772. Nay, first proue you that he did go so to hel, as you thinke; for my part I beleeue it not, but that his soule went presently to heauen. Againe, you begge the question, saying, he went to hell to deliuer the Fathers. DVR. I proue it by these Scriptures: Zac. 9.11. Psal 68.18. Heb. 9.8. WHIT. •acharie speaketh only of the Iewes deliuery from the captiuitie of Babylon. Dauid speaketh of Christs ascending into heauen, and triumph ouer his enemies; and you childishly inferre hereupon, therefore he descended to hell to deliuer the Patriarkes from Limbus: but most ridiculously you abuse that place to the Hebrewes, the true sense whereof is; that we are not reconciled to God, by the Iewish sacrifices, but by Christ; therefore you inferre, that none of the Patriarkes vvent to heauen, vntill Christ came out of hell, and opened heauen by his bodilie ascension.
dDVR. Catholics say not so. WHIT. pag. 773 But your false Church doth so; for it interpreteth Scriptures as it listeth: and constraineth all Christians to rest therein, be it never so false, and contrary to the Scriptures; else it doth condemn him for an heretic.DVR. Catholikes say not so. WHIT. pag. 773 But your false Church doth so; for it interpreteth Scriptures as it listeth: and constraineth all Christians to rest therein, bee it neuer so false, and contrarie to the Scriptures; else it doth condemne him for an heretike.
eDVR. What error find you in this argument? WHIT. pag. 774. I find in it a threefold false consequent: first you cannot prove hence; that the things which S. Paul spake by word, were not the same in effect which he wrote to them: secondly, if he wrote not all to them which he had taught thē, it followeth not that he taught something which is not written in the Scriptures: thirdly; admit many things were left unwritten, yet it followeth not, that all things necessary to salvation be not written: nor do the ancient Fathers say so.DVR. What error find you in this argument? WHIT. pag. 774. I find in it a threefold false consequent: first you cannot proue hence; that the things which S. Paul spake by word, were not the same in effect which hee wrote to thē: secondly, if he wrote not all to thē which he had taught thē, it followeth not that hee taught something which is not written in the Scriptures: thirdly; admit many things were left vnwritten, yet it followeth not, that all things necessary to saluatiō be not written: nor do the ancient Fathers say so.
fDVR. Sundry Fathers expound this place of Purgatory fire. WHIT. pag. 776. But the place it self showeth that it cannot be meant of any such fire: for 1. S. Paul speaketh of the purging away that which is a fault: but in your Purgatory faults are not consumed, but (you say) punishments are suffered for f•u••s. 2. S. Paul saith every mans work, be it gold or wood, shall be tried; but you cast nothing but wood, hay, and stubble into your feigned Purgatory. 3. S. Paul saith every mans work shall be manifest by this fire; but your Purgatory fire is obscure, and never showeth such light. 4. The word fire, is used by S. Paul Metaphorically, as also are gold, silver, hay, wood &c. but you say your Purgatory fire, is true fire. The fire which S. Paul here meaneth, is the holy Ghost, who proveth all doctrines, and severeth the false from the true. Ambrose on Psal. 118. saith, This fire is the word of Christ: Angustine indeed spake doubtfully of Purgatory, saying, (Enchiridion, cap. 69.) it may be that there is some such thing, but whether yea or no, it is a question; and in his book of the City of God; he saith, perhaps it is true: many others of the Fathers thought this purging should be at Christs coming to judgement; which much differeth from your Purgatory. Chrysostom in his Preface on Isaiah, saith; God at one instant abolisheth sin, freeth from punishment, and giveth righteousness; Tertullian in his book of Baptism, saith: Guilt and punishment are taken away together. Hierome saith, upon the 31. Psalm; the sin which is covered is not seen; that which is not seen is not imputed; that which is not imputed shall not be punished: so that nothing is left for your Purgatory, by these mens judgements.DVR. Sundry Fathers expound this place of Purgatory fire. WHIT. pag. 776. But the place it selfe sheweth that it cannot bee meant of any such fire: for 1. S. Paul speaketh of the purging away that which is a fault: but in your Purga•orie faults are not consumed, but (you say) punishments are s•ffred for f•u••s. 2. S. Paul saith euery mans worke, be it gold or wood, shall be tried; but you cast nothing but wood, hay, and stubble into your fained Purgatory. 3. S. Paul saith euery mans worke shall be manifest by this fire; but your Purgatory fire is obscure, and neuer sheweth such light. 4. The word fire, is vsed by S. Paul Metaphorically, as also are gold, siluer, hay, wood &c. but you say your Purgatory fire, is true fire. The fire which S. Paul heer• meaneth, is the holy Ghost, who proueth all doctrines, and seuereth the false from the true. Ambrose on
To what purpose should I rehearse innumerable others your disputations like these? Now, Campian, let us hear a few of your own. Augustine wrote three books of free will: therefore Augustine approved that man hath free will. Christ was ignorant of some thing: therefore Christ was not without sin. The Fathers diligently searched the Scriptures: therefore it is never lawful to dissent from the Fathers.
To what purpose should I rehearse innumerable others your disputations like these? Now, Campian, let vs heare a few of your owne. Augustine wrote three bookes of free will: therefore Augustine approued that man hath free will. Christ was ignorant of some thing: therefore Christ was not without sinne. The Fathers diligently searched the Scriptures: therefore it is neuer lawfull to dissent from the Fathers.
These your argumentations I have thus briefly collected: which what goodly ones they be, our University ⟨p. 272⟩students easily perceive. Do you acknowledge them to be your own, Campian, so sophistical, so inconsequent, so full of deceit and falsehoods? You were in a great strait if you could not deny it; but if you confess it, you are quite overthrown: for all these are very unlearnedly concluded; either by mistaking words of double signification; or by wresting phrases figuratively spoken: or without any consequent; or from ignorance of the Elenche; or (to conclude) altogether trifling. It sufficeth that I have touched these but lightly: now I come to those which you object against us.
These your argumentations I haue thus briefely collected: which what goodly ones they be, our Vniuersitie ⟨p. 272⟩students easilie perceiue. Doe you acknowledge them to be your owne, Campian, so sophisticall, so inconsequent, so full of deceite and falsehoods? You were in a great straite if you could not denie it; but if you confesse it, you are quite ouerthrowne: for all these are very vnlearnedly concluded; either by mistaking words of double signification; or by wresting phrases figuratiuely spoken: or without any consequent; or from ignorance of the Elenche; or (to conclude) altogethe trifling. It sufficeth that I haue touched these but lightly: now I come to those which you obiect against vs.
There be four chief heads of deceitful disputing,1 wherein you say our sophistry chiefly consisteth: to wit, Sciamachia, a fighting with a shadow, Logomachia, a contention about words. Homonymia, a mistaking of the sense of words: and Circulatio, a going about the bush. Let us see how grossly we use to err in them. Sciamachia, or a fighting with ones shadow, you first define, then you produce examples (of our supposed practise.) I dislike not the definition, and hasten to those examples. Against those that have vowed single life (say you) they allege Scriptures which speak honourably of marriage; whom smite they with such weapons? Whom but your self, Campian, and those so worthy Prelates on your side, which first imposed the vow of perpetual virginity upon Ministers of the Gospel. For if the Scriptures do indeed speak honourably of wedlock, then Pope Syricius, and Innocent the second of that name, and such others your stout maintainers of single life, can by no means be defended, who, as is well known, have spoken many things basely,a despitefully, and wickedly ⟨p. 273⟩of matrimony. Consider well those speeches which even now I produced, taken out of your law: deny, if you can for shame, that they be dishonest in themselves, and egregiously injurious to wedlock. Certainly if these Scriptures do indeed wound (the ancient heretics) Saturninus, Severus, bTatianus, the Encratites, and the Archontici, needs must they also most sharply touch you to the quick, which commonly are wont to judge and speak no whit more honourably of wedlock than they have done. For show me, Campian, if you can, wherein those reproachful speeches may any whit more touch the marriage of Ministers, than of other men. Thus then both you your selves have apparently fled to the heretics holds; and also these Scriptures which do speak so honourably of wedlock, do disprove your heresy, and give you a very deadly wound. For thus I press our argument more effectually (than you:) If wedlock be honourable in every degree of men, and the bed undefiled; then in no degree ought they to be esteemed dishonest or impure: but the antecedent isc true; therefore the consequent is necessarily true also.5 What can you here disprove? or why hath it not the force of a necessary conclusion, out of which you shall never be able to wind your self?
There be foure chiefe heads of deceitfull disputing,1 wherein you say our sophistrie chiefely consisteth: to wit, Sciamachia, a fighting with a shadow, Logomachia, a contention about words. Homonymia, a mistaking of the sense of words: and Circulatio, a going about the bush. Let vs see how grossely wee vse to erre in them. Sciamachia, or a fighting with ones shadow, you first define, then you produce examples (of our supposed practise.) I dislike not the definition, and hasten to those examples. Against those that haue vowed single life (say you) they alleage Scriptures which speake honourably of mariage; whom smite they with such weapons? Whom but your selfe, Campian, and those so worthy Prelates on your side, which first imposed the vowe of perpetuall virginitie vpon Ministers of the Gospell. For if the Scriptures doe indeed speake honourably of wedlocke, then Pope Syricius, and Innocent the second of that name, and such others your stoute maintainers of single life, can by no meanes be defended, who, as is well knowne, haue spoken many things basely,a despitefully, and wickedly ⟨p. 273⟩of matrimonie. Consider well those speeches which euen now I produced, taken out of your law: deny, if you can for shame, that they be dishonest in themselues, and egregiouslie iniurious to wedlocke. Certainely if these Scriptures doe indeed wound (the auncient heretikes) Saturninus, Seuerus, bTatianus, the Encratites, and the Archontici, needs must they also most sharpely touch you to the quicke, which commonly are woont to iudge and speake no whit more honourably of wedlocke than they haue done. For shew me, Campian, if you can, wherein those reprochfull speeches may any whit more touch the marriage of Ministers, than of other men. Thus then both you your selues haue apparantly fled to the heretikes holdes; and also these Scriptures which doe speake so honourably of wedlocke, doe disproue your heresie, and giue you a very deadly wound. For thus I presse our argument more effectually (than you:) If wedlocke be honourable in euery degree of men, and the bed vndefiled; then in no degree ought they to be esteemed dishonest or impure: but the antecedent isc true; therefore the consequent is necessarily true also.5 What can you here disproue? or why hath it not the force of a necessarie conclusion, out of which you shall neuer be able to winde your selfe?
1Sciamachia.
aDVR. This is your impudency, for we say matrimony is so holy, that it is even a Sacrament, yet not equal with Virginity. WHIT. pag. 778. All men know what Syricius and Jnnocentius wrote of Matrimony. By the Scriptures it appeareth to be equally holy with virginity; if not, why bring you no testimony to the contrary? And it is very absurd, that you account virginity more holy, and yet will needs have matrimony to be a Sacrament: virginity should rather be a Sacrament, seeing (by your opinion) it is the more holy.DVR. This is your impudencie, for vve say matrimony is so holie, that it is euen a Sacrament, yet not equall vvith Virginitie. WHIT. pag. 778. All men know what Syricius and Jnnocentius wrote of Matrimony. By the Scriptures it appeareth to be equally holy with virginity; if not, why bring you no testimony to the contrarie? And it is very absurd, that you account virginity more holy, and yet wil needs haue matrimony to be a Sacrament: virginity should rather be a Sacrament, seeing (by your opinion) it is the more holy.
bDVR. What Catholic ever esteemed marriage to be no better than pollution, as those heretics did? WHIT. pag. 779. Pope Innocent in effect, in that he dissuaded Deacons from it, because they must be holy, and have nothing to do with pollutions, and bed-pleasures: than which Tatianus himself could say nothing against marriage more impious.DVR. VVhat Catholike euer esteemed marriage to be no better than pollution, as those heretikes did? WHIT. pag. 779. Pope Innocent in effect, in that he disswaded Deacons from it, because they must be holy, and haue nothing to do with pollutiōs, and bed-pleasures: than which Tatianus himselfe could say nothing against mariage more impious.
cDVR. By this argument, you may as well condemn Saint Paul: for marriage is honourable, even in those widows, who yet have damnation (saith he) because they will marry. WHIT. pag. 779. S. Paul disalloweth such widows, not because they would marry, but because they would reject their faith & Christian profession, by waxing wanton, & marrying with Infidels.DVR. By this argument, you may as well cōdemne Saint Paul: for marriage is honorable, euē in those widowes, who yet haue damnation (saith he) because they will marry. WHIT. pag. 779. S. Paul disalloweth such widowes, not because they vvould marry, but because they vvould reiect their faith & Christian professiō, by waxing wanton, & marrying with Infidels.
Against the merits of a Christian man, dipped in Christs blood (say you) 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 with these testimonies? Those arguments ⟨p. 274⟩which are urged by our side against mens merits, do most clearly confute you and strike you dead. Mans nature is corrupt;1 and the Law showeth the disease, but doth not cure it: therefore all our hope of salvation consisteth in Christs blood. But you have devised us a kind of merit, forsooth, dipped in the blood of Christ, which may avail much to deserve salvation. For so you maintain, that salvation doth not wholly consist in the blood of Christ, but that it much what dependeth upon your own merits; yet so as that they be dipped with Christs blood; lest you might be thought down right Pelagians. To speak more plainly: this is that you teach, wherein the whole sum (first and last) of your righteousness consisteth: namely, That Christ hath merited for us by his blood, that we might dmerit salvation. This is that merit dipped with the blood of Christ, which you speak of, Confute now our arguments, if you can, which usually are alleged against it. Whatsoever is required as ae debt, that meriteth not: but whatsoever (good ⟨p. 275⟩thing) we do,4 is wholly a debt: therefore we have no merit at all of our own. And that you may understand, that we ought to put confidence in the blood of Christ only, and not in our own merits; I will thus reason from Saint Pauls doctrine.5 If righteousness be by the Law; then Christ died in vain: but if we be justified by ourf merits, we are justified by the Law: therefore if we be justified by our merits, Christ died in vain. What need I here mention innumerable other our arguments, not one whereof, but it is concluded demonstratively, and infallibly: whereas your own merits, alas, are very pitifully and shamelessly defended by you, against the blood of Christ.
Against the merits of a Christian man, dipped in Christs blood (say you) they recite testimonies, which commaunde vs to put our affiance neither in nature, nor in the Law, but in the blood of Christ: whom doe they confute with these testimonies? Those arguments ⟨p. 274⟩which are vrged by our side against mens merits, doe most clearely confute you and strike you dead. Mans nature is corrupt;1 and the Law sheweth the disease, but doth not cure it: therefore all our hope of saluation consisteth in Christs blood. But you haue deuised vs a kinde of merit, forsooth, dipped in the blood of Christ, which may auaile much to deserue saluation. For so you maintaine, that saluation doth not wholy consist in the blood of Christ, but that it much what dependeth vpon your owne merites; yet so as that they be dipped with Christs blood; lest you might bee thought downe right Pelagians. To speake more plainely: this is that you teach, wherein the whole summe (first and last) of your righteousnesse consisteth: namely, That Christ hath merited for vs by his blood, that we might dmerit saluation. This is that merit dipped with the blood of Christ, which you speake of, Confute now our arguments, if you can, which vsually are alleaged against it. Whatsoeuer is required as ae debte, that meriteth not: but whatsoeuer (good ⟨p. 275⟩thing) we doe,4 is wholy a debt: therefore we haue no merit at all of our owne. And that you may vnderstand, that we ought to put confidence in the blood of Christ onely, and not in our owne merits; I will thus reason from Saint Pauls doctrine.5 If righteousnesse be by the Law; then Christ died in vaine: but if we be iustified by ourf merits, we are iustified by the Law: therefore if we be iustified by our merits, Christ died in vaine. What neede I here mention innumerable other our arguments, not one whereof, but it is concluded demonstratiuely, and infallibly: whereas your owne merits, alas, are verie pittifully and shamelesly defended by you, against the blood of Christ.
dDVR. We teach plainly, that all the merits of our good works, have their force and effect only from Christs blood. WHIT. pag. 780. Thus you detract salvation from Christs merits, and ascribe it to ou• merits, dipped with his blood: which the Scriptures no where teach, but utterly condemn, proving that all our good works, are in something faulty, and so merit not eternal life. Again by your doctrine, every man should be redeemed by his own works, and so not by one only Mediator. 1. Tim. 2.5. Thirdly, Christ undertook to obtain for us remission of sins by his own death, which he performed not perfectly, if it be in part by our own works. Fourthly; so should we not trust in God only, but also in our works dipped in Christs blood, which were blasphemy. DVR. The Scripture saith, we are worthy the kingdom of God. WHIT. pag. 782. It saith we are worthy, not because of our own merits, but in that Christs merits are communicated unto us. DVR. Life eternal is often called a reward in Scriptures, and the Fathers. WHIT. pag. 78•. Reward doth not always argue merit, but is oftentimes freely given: and the Scriptures never mention any of our merits.DVR. VVee teach plainely, that all the merits of our good workes, haue their force and effect only from Christs blood. WHIT. pag. 780. Thus you detract saluation frō Christs merits, and ascribe it to ou• merits, dipped with his blood: vvhich the Scriptures no vvhere teach, but vtterly condemne, prouing that all our good vvorkes, are in something faulty, and so merit not eternall life. Againe by your doctrine, euery man should bee redeemed by his ovvne vvorkes, and so not by one only Mediator. 1. Tim. 2.5. Thirdly, Christ vndertooke to obtaine for vs remission of sinnes by his ovvne death, which he performed not perfectly, if it be in part by our owne workes. Fourthly; so should we not trust in God only, but also in our workes dipped in Christs blood, which were blasphemie. DVR. The Scripture saith, we are vvorthie the kingdome of God. WHIT. pag. 782. It saith we are worthie, not because of our owne merits, but in that Christs merits are communicated vnto vs. DVR. Life eternall is often called a revvard in Scriptures, and the Fathers. WHIT. pag. 78•. Reward doth not alwaies argue merit, but is oftentimes freely giuen: and the Scriptures neuer mention any of our merits.
You add to these a third example (saying) Against those which honour saints, as the most acceptable servants of Christ, there are vouched whole pages of Scriptures, which prohibit the worshipping of many gods: where are they now? Verily the Lord by his own authority reserveth unto himself,1 that we invocate him alone: wherefore who so worshippeth and inuocatethg Saints, he giveth to them the honour due to God: for he both presupposeth that they can perform any thing whatsoever, and also that they ⟨p. 276⟩beh present every where, both which are the peculiar properties of God only. So that whatsoever is (truly) alleged against many gods, that is altogether effectual against your Saints in heaven, whom both you worship more zealously than God himself, and rob him of his due honour to adorn them.4 There is (indeed) one mediator of God and men, the man Jesus Christ; he for ever maketh intercession for us; therefore they which bring in new intercessors, and mediators, arei injurious unto Christ. Tell me, Campian, have you any face to defend these your sentences following?k Command him by thy motherly authority; and those which are often chanted in the rude rime of the Mass of the virgin Mary's conception, thus:
You adde to these a third example (saying) Against those which honour saints, as the most acceptable seruants of Christ, there are vouched whole pages of Scriptures, which prohibit the worshipping of many gods: where are they now? Verily the Lord by his owne authoritie reserueth vnto himselfe,1 that we inuocate him alone: wherefore who so worshippeth and inuocatethg Saints, hee giueth to them the honour due to God: for he both presupposeth that they can performe any thing whatsoeuer, and also that they ⟨p. 276⟩beh present euery where, both which are the peculiar properties of God onely. So that whatsoeuer is (truly) alleaged against many gods, that is altogether effectuall against your Saints in heauen, whom both you worship more zealously than God himselfe, and robbe him of his due honour to adorne them.4 There is (indeed) one mediator of God and men, the man Iesus Christ; he for euer maketh intercession for vs; therefore they which bring in new intercessors, and mediators, arei iniurious vnto Christ. Tell me, Campian, haue you any face to defend these your sentences following?k Commaunde him by thy motherly authoritie; and those which are often chaunted in the rude ryme of the Masse of the virgin Maries conception, thus:
gDVR. We worship not Saints as Gods, but as the friends and servants of God; and Saint Paul himself desired to be helped by the prayers of sundry Christian Churches: so that you cavil with us, as the heathen and heretics did of old against the Fathers. WHIT. pag. 787. The honour of invocation may not be given to any of Gods friends; for we must pray to none, but whom we may call, Father, Luk. 11.2. and in whom we may believe, Rom. 10.14. therefore not to Saints at all. As for Saint Paul, he craved the prayers of Saints for him, whilst they lived▪ but he never either prayed to them living, or dead. Nor did the Catholic Fathers worship, adore, or invocate Saints departed, as you do: For Augustine Epist. 44. saith to Maximus the Heathen, know you that no Catholic Christian doth worship any of the dead, & Jerome to Vigilantius, saith, who is so mad, as to worship any of the Martyrs?DVR. VVe worship not Saints as Gods, but as the friends and seruants of God; and Saint Paul himselfe desired to be helped by the prayers of sundrie Christian Churches: so that you cauill with vs, as the heathen and heretikes did of old against the Fathers. WHIT. pag. 787. The honor of inuocation may not be giuen to any of Gods friends; for we must pray to none, but whom we may call, Father, Luk. 11.2. and in whom we may beleeue, Rom. 10.14. therefore not to Saints at all. As for Saint Paul, he craued the prayers of Saints for him, vvhilest they liued▪ but he neuer either prayed to them liuing, or dead. Nor did the Catholike Fathers vvorship, adore, or inuocate Saints departed, as you doe: For Augustine Epist. 44. saith to Maximus the Heathen, know you that no Catholike Christian doth worship any of the dead, & Ierome to Vigilantius, saith, who is so madde, as to vvorship any of the Martyrs?
hDVR. The Saints hear our prayers, though they be absent. WHIT. pag. 790. Every one that prayeth to Saints supposeth thē to be present, & to know even his thoughts, and so (in effect) maketh them Gods: as Basil proveth the holy Ghost to be God, because he heareth godly mens prayers wheresoever. DVR. The Saints are in many far distant places at once, though not every where. WHIT pag. 791. Duraeus doteth to say so: for as well they might be in all, as in many places at once: But Damascene, lib. 2. cap. 3. and Anas, quaest. 52. art. 2 say of the very Angels, that when they be in heaven, they are not in earth.
That is to say, Thou (blessed Virgin Mary) art the infallible lhope of such as are in misery, the true mother of Orphans; Thou art the consolation of such as ⟨p. 277⟩be oppressed, the medicine of such as be diseased, Thou art all min all to all men (or) in all necessities; and other such like abominable speeches, and full of strange blasphemy? If happily you think our reproving of these things, be but some fighting with a shadow, then do you no more respect the glory of God, than the shadow of an Ass.
That is to say, Thou (blessed Virgin Marie) art the infallible lhope of such as are in miserie, the true mother of Orphanes; Thou art the consolation of such as ⟨p. 277⟩be oppressed, the medicine of such as bee diseased, Thou art all min all to all men (or) in all necessities; and other such like abominable speeches, and full of strange blasphemie? If happily you thinke our reproouing of these things, be but some fighting with a shadow, then doe you no more respect the glorie of God, than the shadow of an Asse.
lDVR. Saint Paul calleth the Thessalonians his hope, 1. Thess. 2.19. WHIT. pag. 796. But he never put his trust in, nor called upon them, as you do the Virgin Mary: he called them his hope, because he received great hope and joy by his labours in their conversion. You make the Virgin an instrument of our salvation, and therefore you trust in her, but the Scriptures teach every where to trust in God and Christ only. As Psal. 71.3. Jer. 17.5.7. 1. Tim. 1.1. and 1. Pet. 1.21.DVR. Saint Paul calleth the Thessalonians his hope, 1. Thess. 2.19. WHIT. pag. 796. But hee neuer put his trust in, nor called vpon them, as you doe the Virgin Marie: hee called them his hope, because he receiued great hope and ioy by his labours in their conuersion. You make the Virgin an instrument of our saluation, and therefore you trust in her, but the Scriptures teach euery where to trust in God and Christ only. As Psal. 71.3. Ier. 17.5.7. 1. Tim. 1.1. and 1. Pet. 1.21.
mDVR. The sentence of the Catholic Church, hath no where alloved this; but if it had, it might be conveniently defended. WHIT pag. 797. Duraeus can conveniently expound that, which most absurdly taketh the office of redemption from Christ and giveth it to the Virgin Mary.DVR. The sentence of the Catholike Church, hath no vvhere alloued this; but if it had, it might be conueniently defended. WHIT pag. 797. Duraeus can conueniently expound that, which most absurdly taketh the office of re•ēption frō Christ and giueth it to the Virgin Mary.
The second error in disputation wherewith you charge us,1 is, that we often use Logomachia, which is when the sense is neglected, and men contend about the word. I understand it well: but which be those our faults committed in this kind? Can you find us (say they) the Mass, or Purgatory in the Scriptures. And is not this our demand reasonable? For where should these be found rather than in the Scriptures? There was nothing wont to be accounted more holy than the Mass, and there could nothing be invented more gainful than Purgatory: that neither of these now at last should be found in the Scriptures, certainly it may well seem a very strange and unreasonable thing. Belike then (say you) Trinitas, the Trinity; Homousios, coessential; Persona, a person, are no where in the Bible, because these very terms are not to be found there. Neither say we so, Campian, nor will it follow at all hereupon; and these things be altogether unequally compared. For albeit these very terms are not in Scriptures,2 yet the matter it self, and the sense, as Epiphanius writeth, cometh to hand in all places, and is easily every where to be found. But yourn Mass and Purgatory, are not in ⟨p. 278⟩this manner in the Scriptures, seeing neither the names nor the things themselves any where do appear: yea they are plainly against the Scriptures. For what else is either the Mass, than as* an empty sepulchre where is only the title of the Lords Supper? or what is Purgatory more than a shameless merchandise of souls, and an intolerable contempt against the blood of Christ? Wherefore this is not a trifling contention about words, but a most weighty one about matters of moment; except peradventure you make account of the Mass and Purgatory, not to be matters of moment, but words of Art only. As for the nameo Presbyter, and Sacrament, it is appropriated from the common signification, to some certain and particular things, as likewise many other names are; (to wit) Ecclesia the Church, Episcopus a Bishop, Apostolus an Apostle, Dia•onus a Deacon: and these names we willingly use, but so that we carefully shun their impertinent ⟨p. 279⟩significations. Neither was that indeed sufficient cause, why you should register Matrimony in the catalogue of Sacraments, because S. Paul wrote (thus) Sacramentum hoc magnum, 6This is a great mystery.
The second error in disputation wherewith you charge vs,1 is, that wee often vse Logomachia, which is when the sense is neglected, and men contend about the word. I vnderstand it well: but which bee those our faults committed in this kinde? Can you finde vs (say they) the Masse, or Purgatorie in the Scriptures. And is not this our demaund reasonable? For where should these be found rather than in the Scriptures? There was nothing wont to be accounted more holy than the Masse, and there could nothing be inuented more gainfull than Purgatorie: that neither of these now at last should be found in the Scriptures, certainly it may well seeme a very strange and vnreasonable thing. Belike then (say you) Trinitas, the Trinitie; Homousios, coessentiall; Persona, a person, are no where in the Bible, because these very termes are not to be found there. Neither say we so, Campian, nor will it follow at all hereupon; and these things be altogether vnequally compared. For albeit these very termes are not in Scriptures,2 yet the matter it selfe, and the sense, as Epiphanius writeth, commeth to hand in all places, and is easily euery where to bee found. But yourn Masse and Purgatorie, are not in ⟨p. 278⟩this manner in the Scriptures, seeing neither the names nor the things themselues any where do appeare: yea they are plainly against the Scriptures. For what else is either the Masse, than as* an empty sepulchre where is onely the title of the Lords Supper? or what is Purgatorie more than a shamelesse merchandise of soules, and an intolerable contempt against the blood of Christ? Wherefore this is not a trisling contention about words, but a most waightie one about matters of moment; except peraduenture you make account of the Masse and Purgatorie, not to bee matters of moment, but words of Arte only. As for the nameo Presbyter, and Sacrament, it is appropriated from the common signification, to some certaine and particular things, as likewise many other names are; (to wit) Ecclesia the Church, Episcopus a Bishop, Apostolus an Apostle, Dia•onus a Deacon: and these names wee willingly vse, but so that wee carefully shunne their impertinent ⟨p. 279⟩
1Logomachia
2Epiphan. contra Semiarian. l. 3 [Greek or Hebrew].Epiphan. contra Semiarian. l. 3 〈non-Latin alphabet〉.
nDVR. Did you never read these words of Christ in his last Supper: this is my body? WHIT. pag. 799. Yea; but Christ ordained then a Sacrament, not a sacrifice: he offered himself a sacrifice only once upon the Cross, Heb 9 10. not in his last Supper, except you will say, he died then also, which he must have done to make it a sacrifice; but he was then alive, & it were most absurd to say he was alive and dead at one time, which he needs must be, both then and in all your Masses, if there be any sacrifice in the Mass at all. Again, external sacrifices, as you say your Mass is, are subject to the sight & outward senses, but no man ever saw Christ to be sacrificed, either in the Supper or in the Mass. Therefore there is none, neither in the one nor in the other. DVR. Jt was a sacrifice, for Christ was really contained under those former of bread and wine: and so the Mass is now an unbloody sacrifice. WHIT. pag. 801. You cannot prove him to be so present there as you teach, by no Scripture; and if he were, yet that was not therefore a sacrifice, except you will have his real being in the Virgins womb also to be a sacrifice, in which he was contained. As for your unbloody propitiatory sacrifice: first, it is absurd, for to sacrifice killeth a body, but your Transubstantiation maketh a body: secondly, it hath no word of God for it: thirdly, it is needless, Christs sacrifice being perfect: fourthly, Christ ordained that supper in memory of his sacrifice, not to be it self a sacrifice: WHIT. pag. •03. DVR. Many of the Fathers call the Eucharist by the name of sacrifice. WHIT. pag 805. Not because it is that same which Christ offered (as you teach) but because it is a memorial and Sacrament of it. DVR. Purgatory is most plainly proved by the fact of Judas Machabaeus, in the second book and 12. chapter. WHIT. pag. 806. Those books are not Canonical Scripture, neither doth that act prove a Purgatory by your own doctrine, who say those that die in deadly sin, (as those did there mentioned) go to hell, and not to Purgatory.DVR. Did you neuer reade these vvords of Christ in his last Supper: this is my body? WHIT. pag. 799. Yea; but Christ ordeined then a Sacramēt, not a sacrifice: he offered himselfe a sacrifice only once vpon the Crosse, Heb 9 10
For in that place, Sacramentum, is used in a large signification for any mystery, not for that ceremony which may properly be called a Sacrament. As for that counsel of Thomas Aquinas, we do very well approve it.
For in that place, Sacramentum, is vsed in a large signification for any mysterie, not for that ceremony which may properly be called a Sacrament. As for that counsell of Thomas Aquinas, we doe very well approue it.
The third head,1 or kind of deceitful disputation which you say we usually err in, is Homonymia, equivocation, or a mistaking the sense of words: whereof you propound two examples: For (say you) we both confound the order of Priests, because S. John hath termed us all Priests; and also abolish choice of meats, and prescribed observation of days, 2because the Prophet highly commendeth a spiritual fast. 3I will speak a few words both of the one and other, that I may clearly quit us of this crime of Homonymy. Saint John alone hath not named allp Christians Priests,5 but S. Peter also hath termed them a holy, and a royal Priesthood: and this name is in no place of the new Testamentq properly applied to the Ministers of the Gospel. For Christ being made an high Priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek, hath no copartners ⟨p. 280⟩of thisr Priesthood: therefore Christ hath left unto his (Churches) a Ministry, and not a new Priesthood. Neither doth there remain to uss any such sacrifice; for the administration whereof some special Priests must needs be authorised. For that sacrifice of praise, and doing good, 9which the Apostle mentioneth, and which now remaineth only; that (I say) appertaineth indifferently to all Christians. Notwithstanding we permit none to execute the administration of this ministry, which Christ would have to be perpetual in his Church, but them whom it concerneth, and who are by due ordert called thereunto. Albeit then Christ have made us all both Kings, that we might be able to subdue our sins; and Priests, that we might offer him spiritual sacrifices: ⟨p. 281⟩notwithstanding as it is not lawful for every man to dream of a kingdom, so it is a thing detestable for any man to enter upon the holy Ministry, who hath not that function committed unto him by divine authority. Wherefore I see not at all why you should charge us with any such Homonymy (or falsehood from ambiguous signification) in this word. As for your manner of fasting, that indeed is wholly in show, and hath nothing in it of a Christian fast, but the very name. For to make choice of meats, as a thing more religious, and to prescribe certain, and perpetual set days, wherein we must necessarily fast, theu one is witless, the other superstitious.
The third head,1 or kinde of deceitfull disputation which you say we vsually erre in, is Homonymia, equiuocation, or a mistaking the sense of words: whereof you propound two examples: For (say you) we both confound the order of Priests, because S. Iohn hath tearmed vs all Priests; and also abolish choice of meates, and prescribed obseruation of daies, 2because the Prophet highly commendeth a spirituall fast. 3I wil speake a few words both of the one and other, that I may cleerly quit vs of this crime of Homonymie. Saint Iohn alone hath not named allp Christians Priests,5 but S. Peter also hath tearmed them a holy, and a royall Priesthood: and this name is in no place of the new Testamentq properly applied to the Ministers of the Gospell. For Christ being made an high Priest for euer after the order of Melchisedech, hath no copartners ⟨p. 280⟩of thisr Priesthood: therefore Christ hath left vnto his (Churches) a Ministerie, and not a new Priesthood. Neither doth there remaine to vss any such sacrifice; for the administration whereof some speciall Priests must needs be authorised. For that sacrifice of praise, and doing good, 9which the Apostle mentioneth, and which now remaineth onely; that (I say) appertaineth indifferently to all Christians. Notwithstanding we permit none to execute the administration of this ministery, which Christ would haue to be perpetuall in his Church, but them whom it concerneth, and who are by due ordert called thereunto. Albeit then Christ haue made vs all both Kings, that we might be able to subdue our sinnes; and Priests, that we might offer him spirituall sacrifices: ⟨p. 281⟩
pDVR. By this argument you may as well prove the Jews had no Priests; properly so called. WHIT. pag. 809. Not so, for the Lord ordained such a Priesthood amongst them, which he hath not amongst Christians.DVR. By this argument you may as well proue the Iewes had no Priests; properly so called. WHIT. pag. 809. Not so, for the Lord ordained such a Priesthood amongst them, which he hath not amongst Christians.
qDVR. So the name, Sacrament, is never given to Baptism, nor to the Eucharist in the New testament. WHIT. pag. 810. But the substance of it, agreeth to them both, and is there, whereas the name, Sacerdos, a Priest, is not in the new Testament, nor doth the thing it self properly belong to any but Christ, since his death. DVR. Yea Christ instituted a sacrifice in his Supper, and where a sacrifice is, there is a Priest also. WHIT. pag. 810. Christ ordained thē no sacrifice, but only a Sacrament of a sacrifice. DVR. Isaiah calleth the Ministers of the Gospel, Priests, cap. 6•.6. & 66.21. WHIT. Isaiah in the first place speaketh of all Christians; and in the second, of Ministers in the phrase of that time; whence also you may as well say Deacons are Levites, which you vvill not say they are properly. DVR Ministers are needless, except they be Priects, and as mediators betwixt God and men unto salvation: and your Ministers are but Lay-men. WHIT. pag. 810. •15. They must preach the Word, and administer the Sacraments, but not offer sacrifice of mediation betwixt God and men, as you say, you do in the Mass: to do these we have a calling ordained of Christ; for your sacrifice you have none. DVR. The Apostles name them not Priests, because they are not of the order of Aaron; but the Fathers call them Priests, who knew the Apostles m•a•ing: and you call them Priests in English. WHIT pag. 812. Christ only is a Priest, after the order of Melchizedek:
For what man, which is not deprived of judgement and all sense, will think that he fasteth, who (so that he abstainx from flesh) may at his pleasure glut himself with all manner of dainties? Or who can suppose that the Fridays fast is holier then the Wednesdays fast, but he must too much savour of ⟨p. 282⟩Judaism? If S. Paul reproved the Galatians,2 because they did observe days, and ymonths, and times, is it likely he would endure our Papists, which err more grossly and shamefully? If he forewarned the Colossians, that they would not be entangled with their superstition,4 which thought that some certain meats were not to bez touched, not to be tasted, not to be handled, would he allow the papistical choice of meats? If he determined long since,6 that it was devilish anda hypocritical to abstain from certain meats, if he were now living, would he change his doctrine, and command this abstinence to a Christian? We truly for our parts do always and very highly commend a true fast, whether it be private or public; neither do we commend them only, but also we use them, as this year last past may most plentifully witness for us, during which, public fasts were most religiously observed in very many places. As for those fasts of Moses, and David, & Elijah, and John Baptist, and the Apostles, wherein were they any whit like unto yours? for if fasting do consist in choice of meats, and in appointing set days, as you resolutely judge it doth, inform me ⟨p. 283⟩(if you can) that they either at any timeb preferred fish before flesh, or used enjoined and yearly set fasts. For John Baptist used continually to fast in his manner, and the others fasted as the times and present occasions required, in which their fasts, they abstained as well from fish as from flesh. Therefore in one word to wipe away your imputation of Homonymy, I deny that we use any. For in that, that we require the spiritual fast, we dislike not the external,9 howsoever this outward fast be nothing profitable without the spiritual. But this deceitful argumentation, if there were any such here, is rather by inferring a weak consequent, then by Homonymy, or equivocation; how be it, what the truth is we have sufficiently ciscussed.
For what man, which is not depriued of iudgement and all sense, will thinke that he fasteth, who (so that he abstainex frō flesh) may at his pleasure glut himselfe with all maner of dainties? Or who can suppose that the Fridayes fast is holier then the Wednesdayes fast, but he must too much sauour of ⟨p. 282⟩Iudaisme? If S. Paul reproued the Galathians,2 because they did obserue dayes, and ymoneths, and times, is it likely he would endure our Papists, which erre more grossely and shamefully? If he forewarned the Colossians, that they would not be intangled with their superstition,4 which thought that some certaine meates were not to bez touched, not to be tasted, not to be handled, would he allow the papisticall choice of meates? If he determined long since,6 that it was diuelish anda hypocriticall to absteine from certaine meates, if he were now liuing, would he change his doctrine, and command this abstinence to a Christian? We truely for our parts do alwayes and very highly commend a true fast, whether it be priuate or publike; neither do we commend them only, but also we vse them, as this yeare last past may most plentifullie witnesse for vs, during which, publike fasts were most religiously obserued in very many places. As for those fasts of Moses, and Dauid, & Helias, and Iohn Baptist, and the Apostles, wherein were they any whit like vnto yours? for if fasting do consist in choyce of meates, and in appointing set dayes, as you resolutely iudge it doth, informe me ⟨p. 283⟩(if you can) that they either at any timeb preferred fish before flesh, or vsed inioyned and yearely set fasts. For Iohn Baptist vsed continually to fast in his manner, and the others fasted as the times and present occasions required, in which their fasts, they absteined as well from fish as from flesh. Therefore in one word to wipe away your imputation of Homonymie, I denie that we vse any. For in that, that we require the spirituall fast, we dislike not the externall,
xDVR. No Catholic ever said, that the force of fasting consisteth in only abstinence from flesh. WHIT. pag. 822. All men know that you call your abstinence from flesh in Lent, in the Ember days, the Saint Eves &c. fasting: and that he, who then eateth ••sh and other meat in abundance in not said amongst you to violate his fast; but if one do but taste flesh, you esteem him a grieevous malefactor. DVR. But Elisha, Daniel, & John Baptist made religious choice of meats, which you thus call madness: yea Daniel abstained from flesh and wine to apprease Gods anger; whose example teacheth us also to abstain from daintier meats in time of fasting, as the Church hath long accustomed, WHIT. pag. 823. These holy men did not fast as you do, and teach: for Elisha fed the Prophets with wild and bitter herbs, not for religion sake, but in time of famine, for want of other victual, 2. King. 4.39. and Daniel abstained not from some only, but from all desirable meats, Dan. 10.3. not to appease Gods anger, as you say, but that he might with more lively sense of his brethrens misery, humble himself to God: as for John Baptists continual diet, it was locusts and vvild honey, nothing like your fasting. It is mere dorage and superstation to call abstinence only from some delicate meats, fasting, though other as delicate be eaten, as you do; no Prophets, nor ancient Christians in the Church ever fasted thus.DVR. No Catholike euer said, that the force of fasting consisteth in only abstinence from flesh. WHIT. pag. 822. All men know that you call your abstinence from flesh in Lent, in the Ember daies, the Saint Eues &c. fasting: and that he, who then eateth ••sh and other meate in abundance in not said amongst you to violate his fast; but if one doe but tast flesh, you esteeme him a grieeuous malefactor. DVR. But Elisha, Daniel, & Iohn Baptist made religious choise of meates, vvhich you thus call madnes: yea Daniel absteined from flesh and vvine to apprease Gods anger; vvhose example teacheth vs also to absteine from daintier meates in time of fasting, as the Church hath long accustomed, WHIT. pag. 823. These holy men did not fast as you doe, and teach: for Elisha fed the Prophets with wild and bitter herbes, not for religion sake, but in time of f••mine, for want of other victuall, 2. King. 4.39. and Daniel absteined not from some only, but from all desireable meates, Dan. 10.3. not to appease Gods anger, as you say, but that he might vvith more liuely sense of his brethrens miserie, humble himselfe to God: as for John Baptists cōtinuall diet, it vvas locusts and vvild hony, nothing like your fasting. It is meere dorage and superstation to call abstinence only from some delicate meates, fasting, though other as delicate be eaten, as you doe; no Prophets, nor auncient Christians in the Church euer fasted thus.
You haste forward and join unto these a fourth manner of deceitful disputation,1 named Circulation, which is, when one after a few words to no purpose returneth again to the same, and beggeth the question. I acknowledge it to be a gross, and unsavoury kind of sophistry so to do, but show me an example of our so doing. You propound one example, namely, about the true notes of the Church, for here, you say, we always make circuits and rounds, and use that very same thing for an argument, wherein the question lieth. But how prove you that? forsooth because we say the notes of the Church be, the word of God, and the Sacraments. And so we say truly, for they who have these, have a Church of Christ; but they who altogether want these, are utterly without both the Church and ⟨p. 284⟩Christ. Let us contend about these notes, that it may be discerned whether you or we have them. Tell me, in what Court shall we try this title? before what Commissioner, before what Judge shall we commence our plea? I suppose the word of God must be consulted with. But you say you have already consulted with it, and you now favour our cause less then you did before. But I say, Campian, we rest upon the word of God, and not on your judgement. Yea but (say you) prove unto me that this is the word of God: nay it were more meet that you should prove it is not. And I also require of you, that you will do the same thing which you command me to do, namely, that you will prove your word and Sacraments to be the very same, which Christ hath commended unto his Church. Wherefore this is no more our fault, then yours; the controversy is about the word of God. You contend that you have it; I contrariwise defend that we have it: if you like not my judgement, why may not I dislike yours? But you say, we expound the word camiss: I again avouch that it is false which you say. Whither are you now come at last? go one foot further forward if you can. Why, say you, I have the testimony of fifteen hundred years. This is nought else but a frivolous, a foolish, and an insolent brag. You have not, I say, you have not Campian. You are ever here deceived, and turn round again, as it were into a circle, and are faulty in that same very thing, for which you reprove ⟨p. 285⟩us. Touching the Fathers, I have answered you already. In the questions of greatest weight, they are wholly on ourd side;
You haste forward and ioyne vnto these a fourth manner of deceiptfull disputation,1 named Circulation, which is, when one after a few words to no purpose returneth againe to the same, and beggeth the question. I acknowledge it to be a grosse, and vnsauorie kind of sophistry so to do, but shew me an example of our so doing. You propound one example, namely, about the true notes of the Church, for heere, you say, we alwayes make circuits and rounds, and vse that very same thing for an argument, wherein the question lieth. But how prooue you that? forsooth because we say the notes of the Church be, the word of God, and the Sacraments. And so we say truly, for they who haue these, haue a Church of Christ; but they who altogether want these, are vtterly without both the Church and ⟨p. 284⟩Christ. Let vs contend about these notes, that it may be discerned whether you or we haue them. Tell me, in what Court shall we try this title? before what Commissioner, before what Iudge shall we commence our plea? I suppose the word of God must be consulted with. But you say you haue alreadie consulted with it, and you now fauour our cause lesse then you did before. But I say, Campian, we rest vpon the word of God, and not on your iudgement. Yea but (say you) prooue vnto me that this is the word of God: nay it were more meete that you should proue it is not. And I also require of you, that you will do the same thing which you commaund me to do, namely, that you will proue your word and Sacraments to be the very same, which Christ hath commended vnto his Church. Wherefore this is no more our fault, then yours; the controuersie is about the word of God. You contend that you haue it; I contrariwise defend that we haue it: if you like not my iudgement, why may not I dislike yours? But you say, we expound the word camisse: I againe auouch that it is false which you say. Whither are you now come at last? go one foote further forward if you can. Why, say you, I haue the testimonie of fifteene hundred yeeres. This is nought else but a friuolous, a foolish, and an insolent bragge. You haue not, I say, you haue not Campian. You are euer heere deceiued, and turne round againe, as it were into a circle, and are faultie in that same very thing, for which you reprooue ⟨p. 285⟩vs. Touching the Fathers, I haue answered you alreadie. In the questions of greatest waight, they are wholly on ourd side;
1Circulatio.
cDVR. You do so, for you prove the sense of Scripture which you allege, neither by authority of Fathers, nor by decrees of Councels, nor by the rule of faith, that is, the common use and custom of Christians. WHIT. pag. 831. The meaning of the Scriptures in matters necessary to salvation is plainly taught in the Scriptures (as the Fathers themselves confess) and may be found out by religious conferring of easier and harder places, and such like means, and so we prove the true sense of them. The Fathers expositions often err, and vary one from another, as their writings witness, and you vvill confess: the ancient Councels expound little of the Scriptures: as for the use and customs of the people, it is no rule of faith at all, nor must we expound the Scriptures thereby.DVR. You doe so, for you proue the sense of Scripture vvhich you alleage, neither by authoritie of Fathers, nor by decrees of Councels, nor by the rule of faith, that is, the common vse and custome of Christians. WHIT. pag. 831. The meaning of the Scriptures in matters necessarie to saluation is plainely taught in the Scriptures (as the Fathers themselues confesse) and may bee found out by religious conferring of easier and harder places, and such like meanes, and so we proue the true sense of them. The Fathers expositions often erre, and varie one from another, as their writings witnesse, and you vvill confesse: the auncient Councels expound little of the Scriptures: as for the vse and customs of the people, it is no rule of faith at all, nor must vvee expound the Scriptures thereby.
dDVR. Jf it were so, you would not extenuate their authority, nor refuse to stand to their judgement as you do. WHIT. pag. 833. We give the Fathers their due, but rely more upon the Scriptures, which are infallibly true. you are driven from the Scriptures, and rake up, even out of the Fathers oversights, whatsoever seemeth to favour your errors: neither doth it follow that the Fathers are not on our side in many and the greatest controversies, because we say with Augustine, that all controversies of religion must not be determined out of the Fathers, but only by the Scriptures.DVR. Jf it vvere so, you vvould not extenuate their authoritie, nor refuse to stand to their iudgement as you doe. WHIT. pag. 833. We giue the Fathers their due, but rely more vpon the Scriptures, which are infallibly true. you are driuen from the Scriptures, and rake vp, euen out of the Fathers ouersights, whatsoeuer seemeth to fauour your errors: neither doth it follow that the Fathers are not on our side in many and the greatest controuersies, because wee say with Augustine, that all controuersies of religion must not bee determined out of the Fathers, but onely by the Scriptures.
in those of smaller moment, their judgements are divers, and they make for you in very few, and those of least importance. How much better would it stand with wisdom, that (as Augustine sometime wrote of Councils) neither you should object Jerome against me, nor I Augustine against you,1 thereby to prejudice each side, but that matter might be tried with matter, cause with cause, and reason with reason, by the authority of the Scriptures? 2For indeed, as the same Augustine hath elsewhere taught us, we must not have any mens disputations (howsoever otherwise they be men of sound judgement and worthy praise) in like estimation as the eCanonical Scriptures. Such an understander (saith he) am I in reading other mens writings, such would I have other men to be of mine. And because you have mentioned Thomas Aquinas, 4learn of him what manner arguments may be taken out of the Fathers writings. Divinity, or holy learning, saith he, useth authorities of Canonical Scripture to prove or disprove a thing necessarily; but it useth the authorities of other fDoctors of the Church to dispute of a thing probably.
in those of smaller moment, their iudgemēts are diuers, and they make for you in very few, and those of least importance. How much better would it stand with wisedome, that (as Augustine sometime wrote of Councels) neither you should obiect Ierome against me, nor I Augustine against you,1 thereby to preiudice each side, but that matter might be tried with matter, cause with cause, and reason with reason, by the authority of the Scriptures? 2For indeed, as the same Augustine hath elsewhere taught vs, we must not haue any mens disputations (howsoeuer otherwise they be mē of sound iudgement and worthie praise) in like estimation as the eCanonicall Scriptures. Such an vnderstander (saith he) am I in reading other mens writings, such would I haue other men to be of mine. And because you haue mentioned Thomas Aquinas, 4learne of him what manner argumēts may be taken out of the Fathers writings. Diuinity, or holy learning, saith he, vseth authorities of Canonicall Scripture to proue or disproue a thing necessarily; but it vseth the authorities of other fDoctors of the Church to dispute of a thing probably.
1Aug. contra Maximian. lib. 3. cap. 14
2Aug. Epist. 111. ad Fortunatian.
eDVR. No Catholic ever esteemed any mans wittings to be compared with the Scriptures. WHIT. pag. 834. But Papists not only compare them with, but also prefer them before the Scriptures: for they vvill not have controversies tried by the Scriptures, but by the Fathers, and they sooner allow a sentence of one Father, than many Scriptures, so did not Angustine nor Thomas Aquinas.DVR. No Catholike euer esteemed any mans vvittings to be compared vvith the Scriptures. WHIT. pag. 834. But Papists not onely compare them with, but also preferre them before the Scriptures: for they vvill not haue controuersies tried by the Scriptures, but by the Fathers, and they sooner allovv a sentence of one Father, than many Scriptures, so did not Angustine nor Thomas Aquinas.
4The. Aquinas 1. p. 1. q. 2. Art.
fDVR. We say not that the judgement of one or two of the Fathers, but that the common consent of the Pastors and Doctors of the Church is the strongest argument to confute you. WHIT. 833.835. Augustine and Thomas spake also of all men, opposing only Scriptures unto them: so that apparently they taught, that the consent of all Fathers and Doctors could be but a probable reason, and that the Scriptures only yield necessary arguments, which no consent of men, though never so learned Doctors and Pastors can confute. Further I say, pag. 854. that you have the common consent of all the Fathers in no one cause against us; yea, that all the ancient Fathers, do together with us, with one voice condemn your half Communion, Transubstantiation, real presence, sole Communion, bread-worshipping, external real sacrifice, service in strange language, your Popes absolute jurisdiction, and many other such like.DVR. VVe say not that the iudgement of one or tvvo of the Fathers, but that the common consent of the Pasters and Doctors of the Church is the strongest argument to confute you. WHIT. 833.835. Augustine and Thomas spake also of all men, opposing onely Scriptures vnto them: so that apparantly they taught, that the consent of all Fathers and Doctors could bee but a probable reason, and that the Scriptures onely yeeld necessarie arguments, vvhich no consent of men, though neuer so learned Doctors and Pastors can confute. Further I say, pag. 854. that you haue the common consent of all the Fathers in no one cause against vs; yea, that all the auncient Fathers, doe together with vs, vvith one voyce condemne your halfe Communion, Transubstantiation, reall presence, sole Communion, bread-vvorshipping, externall reall sacrifice, seruice in strange language, your Popes absolute iurisdiction, and many other such like.
These, forsooth, ô you truly learned University students are those so notorious sophistical errors, which Campian could find worthy his censure in our mens writings: I could wish you might have this so famous a Sophister to canvas awhile at home in your Schools, then verily would it easily appear how much truth excelleth falsehood, and how far sound learning prevaileth against vain bragging words: for I know well such Sophisters as this is can neither any whit affright, nor greatly perplex you.
These, forsooth, ô you truly learned Vniuersitie students are those so notorious sophisticall errors, which Campian could finde worthie his censure in our mens writings: I could wish you might haue this so famons a Sophister to canuas awhile at home in your Schooles, then verily would it easily appeare how much truth excelleth falshood, and how farre sound learning preuaileth against vaine bragging words: for I know well such Sophisters as this is can neither any whit affright, nor greatly perplex you.
. saith, This fire is the vvord of Christ: Angustine indeed spake doubtfully of Purgatory, saying, (Enchiridion, cap. 69.) it may be that there is some such thing, but whether yea or no, it is a question; and in his booke of the Citie of God; he saith, perhaps it is true: many others of the Fathers thought this purging should bee at Christs comming to iudgement; vvhich much differeth from your Purgatorie. Chrysostome in his Preface on Esay, saith; God at one instant abolisheth sin, freeth from punishment, and giueth righteousnes; Tertullian in his booke of Baptisme, saith: Guilt and punishment are taken away togither. Hierome saith, vpon the 31. Psalme; the sin which is couered is not seene; that vvhich is not seene is not imputed; that which is not imputed shall not be punished: so that nothing is left for your Purgatorie, by these mens iudgements.
Hebr. 13.4
.
eDVR. The Angels have merited, & our first parents might have merited blessedness before their fall, yet all that they could do, was a due debt unto God. WHIT. pag. 785. If Christ say truly, that they are unprofitable servants which do all that is commanded, & no more; then neither may the Angels, nor might those out first parents ascribe any thing to their own merits, but to Gods free mercy, seeing they could do no more good then they ought, and was commanded them.DVR. The Angels haue merited, & our first parents might haue merited blessednes before their fall, yet all that they could doe, was a due debt vnto God. WHIT. pag. 785. If Christ say truly, that they are vnprofitable seruants which do all that is commanded, & no more; then neither may the Angels, nor might those out first parents ascribe any thing to their ovvne merits, but to Gods free mercy, seeing they could do no more good then they ought, and vvas commanded them.
fDVR. W•e are justified by the merits of our works, not done by our own power, and help of the Law only, but by grace in Christ. WHIT. pag. 786. Thus might the Galatians have answered S. Paul, whose faith was all one with yours in this point; when be reproved them for joining the works of the Law with grace to justification: but S. Paul showed them, that the inheritance is of promise only, and so merely of grace; and no whit of works; which are ever of the Law, whether before or after faith.DVR. VV•e are iustified by the merits of our workes, not done by our owne power, and helpe of the Law only, but by grace in Christ. WHIT. pag. 786. Thus might the Galathians haue answered S. Paul, whose faith was all one vvith yours in this point; vvhen be reproued them for ioyning the workes of the Law vvith grace to iustification: but S. Paul shevved them, that the inheritance is of promise only, and so meerely of grace; and no vvhit of works; which are euer of the Law, whether before or after faith.
•••
DVR. The Saints heare our prayers, though they be absent. WHIT. pag. 790. Euery one that prayeth to Saints supposeth thē to be present, & to know euē his thoughts, and so (in effect) maketh them Gods: as Basil proueth the holie Ghost to be God, because hee heareth godly mens prayers whersoeuer. DVR. The Saints are in many far distant places at once, though not euery where. WHIT pag. 791. Duraeus doteth to say so: for as well they might be in all, as in many places at once: But Damascene, lib. 2. cap. 3. and A•••nas, quaest. 52. art. 2 say of the very Angels, that when they be in heauen, they are not in earth.
iDVR. Christ is the only Mediator of Redemption; and Saints may be Mediators of Intercession, without injury to him. WHIT. pag. 793. Christ alone is Mediator of both, as these Scriptures prove plainly: and Christ himself saith, no man cometh to the Father but by me, Job. 14.6. and, he will give you all things in my name, Joh. 16.23. and 1 Joh. 2.2. so that it is sacrilege against Christs Priesthood, to make Saints mediators to commend us to God.DVR. Christ is the only Mediator of Redemption; and Saints may be Mediators of Intercession, without iniurie to him. WHIT. pag. 793. Christ alone is Mediator of both, as these Scriptures proue plainly: and Christ himselfe saith, no man commeth to the Father but by me, Iob. 14.6. and, hee will giue you all things in my name, Ioh. 16.23. and 1 Ioh. 2.2. so that it is sacrilege against Christs Priesthood, to make Saints mediators to commend vs to God.
kDuraeus excuseth this, persuading himself the writer meant no ill in it; though it be indeed intolerable, as are many other such their usual speeches of the blessed Virgin: see Whit. pag. 794.Duraeus excuseth this, perswading himself the writer meant no ill in it; though it be indeed intolerable, as are many other such their vsuall speeches of the blessed Virgin: see VVhit. pag. 794.
significations. Neither was that indeede sufficient cause, why you should register Matrimonie in the catalogue of Sacraments, because S. Paul wrote (thus) Sacramentum hoc magnum,
. not in his last Supper, except you will say, he died then also, vvhich he must haue done to make it a sacrifice; but he was then aliue, & it were most absurd to say he was aliue and dead at one time, which he needs must be, both then and in al your Masses, if there be any sacrifice in the Masse at all. Againe, externall sacrifices, as you say your Masse is, are subiect to the sight & outward senses, but no man euer saw Christ to be sacrificed, either in the Supper or in the Masse. Therefore there is none, neither in the one nor in the other. DVR. Jt vvas a sacrifice, for Christ vvas really conteined vnder those former of bread and vvine: and so the Masse is novv an vnbloodie sacrifice. WHIT. pag. 801. You cannot prooue him to be so present there as you teach, by no Scripture; and if he were, yet that was not therefore a sacrifice, except you will haue his reall being in the Virgins wombe also to be a sacrifice, in which he was conteined. As for your vnbloody propitiatorie sacrifice: first, it is absurd, for to sacrifice killeth a bodie, but your Transubstantiation maketh a bodie: secondly, it hath no word of God for it: thirdly, it is needlesse, Christs sacrifice being perfect: fourthly, Christ ordained that supper in memorie of his sacrifice, not to be it selfe a sacrifice: WHIT. pag. •03. DVR. Many of the Fathers call the Eucharist by the name of sacrifice. WHIT. pag 805. Not because it is that same which Christ offered (as you teach) but because it is a memoriall and Sacrament of it. DVR. Purgatorie is most plainely prooued by the fact of Iudas Machabaeus, in the second booke and 12. chapter. WHIT. pag. 806. Those bookes are not Canonicall Scripture, neither doth that act prooue a Purgatorie by your owne doctrine, who say those that die in deadly sinne, (as those did there mentioned) goe to hell, and not to Purgatorie.
*Bustum coenae Dominica.
oDVR. The office of a Presbyter, or Elder, in the Gospel is the same that the Priests office was in the Law. WHIT. pag. 807. It is not so: for if the office did remain; why should the name be changed, for Elders are never called Priests in the new Testament. And there be ruling Elders in the Church, which labour not in the Ministry of the word and Sacraments, as the Priests did.DVR. The office of a Presbyter, or Elder, in the Gospell is the same that the Priests office vvas in the Lavve. WHIT. pag. 807. It is not so: for if the office did remaine; why should the name be changed, for Elders are neuer called Priests in the new Testament. And there be ruling Elders in the Church, which labour not in the Ministerie of the word and Sacraments, as the Priests did.
notwithstanding as it is not lawfull for euery man to dreame of a kingdome, so it is a thing detestable for any man to enter vpon the holy Ministery, who hath not that function committed vnto him by diuine authoritie. Wherefore I see not at all why you should charge vs with any such Homonymy (or falshood from ambiguous signification) in this word. As for your maner of fasting, that indeed is wholly in shew, and hath nothing in it of a Christian fast, but the very name. For to make choyce of meates, as a thing more religious, and to prescribe certaine, and perpetuall set dayes, wherein we must necessarily fast, the
. so then there be no Priests at all, you confess: the Fathers call them so by custom, but not properly & the Apostles of purpose abstaining from the name of Priests, might teach us hereafter better wisdom to do so also.
DVR. So the name, Sacrament, is neuer giuen to Baptisme, nor to the Eucharist in the New testament. WHIT. pag. 810. But the substance of it, agreeth to them both, and is there, whereas the name, Sacerdos, a Priest, is not in the nevv Testament, nor doth the thing it selfe properly belong to any but Christ, since his death. DVR. Yea Christ instituted a sacrifice in his Supper, and where a sacrifice is, there is a Priest also. WHIT. pag. 810. Christ ordeined thē no sacrifice, but only a Sacrament of a sacrifice. DVR. Esay calleth the M•nisters of the Gospell, Priests, cap. 6•.6. & 66.21. WHIT. Esay in the first place speaketh of all Christians; and in the second, of Ministers in the phrase of that time; vvhence also you may as well say Deacons are Leuites, vvhich you vvill not say they are prope•ly. DVR Ministers are needlesse, except they be Priects, and as mediators betwixt God and men vnto saluation: and your Ministers are but Lay-men. WHIT. pag. 810. •15. They must preach the Word, and administer the Sacraments, but not offer sacrifice of mediation betwixt God and men, as you say, you do in the Masse: to do these we haue a calling ordeined of Christ; for your sacrifice you haue none. DVR. The Apostles name them not Priests, because they are not of the order of Aaron; but the Fathers call them Priests, who knevv the Apostles m•a•ing: and you call them Priests in English. WHIT pag. 812. Christ only is a Priest, after the order of Melchisedecke: Heb. 7.3. so then there be no Priests at all, you confesse: the Fathers call them so by custome, but not properly & the Apostles of purpose abstaining frō the name of Priests, might teach vs hereafter better vvisdome to do so also.
rDVR. True, for it is Christ that presenteth himself in the sacrifice, we only are as ministers. WHIT. p. 814. If you be Ministers only, then are you not properly Priests; & why then will you be so called? DVR. Yet we as truly sacrifice, as baptise. WHIT. Thus you will be Ministers only, and no Priests, nor be copa•tners in Christs sacrifice; yet you will b• termed Priests, and truly sacrifice; these be contraries, and cannot stand together, yea, mere madness and dotages.DVR. True, for it is Christ that presenteth himselfe in the sacrifi•e, vve onely are as ministers. WHIT. p. 814. If you be Ministers only, then are you not properly Priests; & why then will you be so called? DVR. Yet vve as truely sacrifice, as baptise. WHIT. Thus you will be Ministers only, and no Priests, nor be copa•tners in Christs sacrifice; yet you will b• tearmed Priests, and truly sacrifice; these be contraries, and cannot stand together, yea, meere madnes and dotages.
sDVR. Thus you strip the Gospel of all sacrifice and religion. WHIT. pag. 816. 817. All your religion by this your doctrine, is in your Mass, which we willingly have not; but notwithstanding we have the sacrifice of Christ, which is perpetual and inchangeable, Heb. 7 2•.28. and 10.14. your invisible sacrifice the Scripture knoweth not.DVR. Thus you strippe the Gospell of all sacrifice and •eligion. WHIT. pag. 816. 817. All your religion by this your doctrine, is in your Masse, which we willingly haue not; but notwithstanding we haue the sacrifice of Christ, which is perpetuall and inchangeable, Heb. 7 2•.28. and 10.14. your inuisible sacrifice the Scripture knoweth not.
tDVR. Who called Luther, Calvin, Beza, &c. your Ministers? WHIT. pag. 820. Luther, Zuinglius, Bucer, &c. were Priests of your own, and so had a calling (except your order of Priesthood be no calling) and might call others by your law. Again, God is not tied so to order, but that he may for the good of the Church, call Ministers extraordinarily. And the Churches have lawful power to choose Ministers (so that we need not to call any from you that service) as saith Cyprian. Epist. 68. Thus were Calvin and Beza chosen.DVR. VVho called Luther, Caluin, Beza, &c. your Ministers? WHIT. pag. 820. Luther, Zuinglius, Bucer, &c. were Priests of your owne, and so had a calling (except your order of Priesthood be no calling) and might call others by your law. Againe, God is not tied so to order, but that he may for the good of the Church, call Ministers extraordinarily. And the Churches haue lavvfull povver to chuse Ministers (so that we need not to call any from you that seruice) as saith Cyprian. Epist. 68. Thus were Calui• and Beza chosen.
uDVR. This savoureth of Luthers spirit: but Pope Leo saith, that the holy Ghost taught the Apostles, the discipline of fasting, for one of the chief Sacraments of heavenly doctrine. WHIT. pag. 8•1. &c. We allow Christian fasting; but what spirit taught Leo to say so of your solemn superstitious fasts? the Scriptures speak no such thing, which we preferie before all mens judgements.DVR. This sauoureth of Luthers spirit: but Pope Leo saith, that the holy Ghost taught the Apostles, the discipl•ne of fasting, for one of the chiefe Sacraments of heauenly doctrine. WHIT. pag. 8•1. &c. Wee allow Christian fasting; but vvhat spirit taught Leo to say so of your solemne superstitious fasts? the Scriptures speake no such thing, which wee preferie before all mens iudgements.
howsoeuer this outward fast be nothing profitable without the spirituall. But this deceitfull argumentation, if there were any such here, is rather by inferring a weake consequēt, then by Homonymie, or equiuocation; how beit, what the truth is we haue sufficiently ciscussed.
yDVR. This is an ancient cavil of heretics; long since ansevered by Jerome and Augustine: that we observe not the same days that Jews and Gentiles did. WHIT. pag. 824. The Church in their time did not bind mens consciences to the observation of days as you do (and as did the Galatians) judging it necessary for Christians to fast at your set times: which if it had done, yet the authority of men must not prevail more than Scriptures.DVR. This is an auncient cauill of heretiks; long since ansevered by Ierome and Augustine: that vve obserue not the same dayes that Ievves and Gentiles did. WHIT. pag. 824. The Church in th•ir time did not bind mens consciences to the obseruation of daies as you doe (and as did the Galathians) iudging it necessarie for Christians to fast at your set times: which if it had done, yet the authoritie of men must not preuaile more than Scrip•ures.
zDVR. Saint Paul reproveth there, the practise of Jewish ceremonies. WHIT. pag. 8•6. True, and all other like them, which are mans ordinances and doctrines, as he saith plamely, verse 22. of which sort yours are; else show us Scripture for them.DVR. Saint Paul reprooueth there, the practise of Ievvish ceremonies. WHIT. pag. 8•6. True, and all other like them, which are mans ordinances and doctrines, as he saith plamely, verse 22. of which sort yours are; else shew vs Scripture for them.
aDVR. You sight against us with the Manichees weapons; whom Augustine answered against Faust. lib. 30. cap. 5. That true Christians abstain from certain meats and fruits, more or less, as they please, and are able; to tame the body, and humble the soul against sin; not as though th•se creatures were unc•••e. WHIT. pag. 817. Thus you make Saint Paul a Manichee; but indeed he there condemneth them, and all that forbid to cate meats, under pain of damnation, which you do: and that place of Augustine plainly showeth how your fasts differ from the Christian fasts in his time: first, they were to tame and humble men, yours do not so: secondly, they thought no meats unclean, you say men are polluted by eating some forbidden: thirdly, they abstained from sith and fruits, as from flesh in their fasts, you do not so: fourthly, they fasted as they thought good, and could, but you make general laws of fastings, to bind men thereto.DVR. You sight against vs vvith the Manichees vveapo•s; vvhom Augustine a•svvered against Faust. lib. 30. cap. 5. That true Christians abstaine from certaine meates and fruites, more or lesse, as they please, and are able; to tame the bodie, and humble the soule against sinne; not as though th•se creatures vvere vnc•••e. WHIT. pag. 817. Thus you make Saint Paul a Manichee; but indeed he there condemneth them, and all that forbid to cate meates, vnder paine of damnation, which you doe: and that place of Augustine plainely sheweth how your fasts differ from the Christian fasts in his time: first, they were to tame and humble men, yours doe not so: secondly, they thought no meates vncleane, you say men are polluted by eating some forbidden: thirdly, they abstained from sith and fruites, as from flesh in their fasts, you doe not so: fourthly, they fasted as they thought good, and could, but you make generall lawes of fastings, to binde men thereto.
bDVR. The ancient observation of Lent, of Wednesday and Fridates fast, and of the Ember days might have informed you hereof. WHIT. p. 828. 829. You play the Sophister here in grain, for Moses, Elijah, David, john Baptist, and the Apostles noverkept those fasts; neither did they nor any of the ancient Fathers prefer fish before flesh in their• fastings, as you do. DVR. Aeriu• was counted an heretic. who taught the same doctrine of fasting which you do. Epiphan. haerel. 75. WHIT. pag. 829. 830. The ancient Church disliked Euslathius his eagerness against Aerius in this point, as witnesseth Socrates, l. 2. c. 43. & Sozomen. l. 3. c. 13. Aerius might be an Arian, and so an heretic, but of fasting he taught the same with Augustine, Epist. 86. that there were no certain times of fasting appointed by the Apostles: & Tertullian (contra Psychico•) witnesseth that in the ancient Christian church men used to fast voluntarily & freely, not by Canon or precept: & Epiphanius defended Eustathius against ye churches judgment in this point touching AeriusDVR. The auncient obseruation of Lent, of VVednesday and Fridates fast, and of the Ember daies might haue informed you hereof. WHIT. p. 828. 829. You play the Sophister here in graine, for Moses, Elias, Dauid, •ohn Baptist, and the Apostles nouerkept those fasts; neither did they nor any of the auncient Fathers preferre fish before flesh in their• fastings, as you doe. DVR. Aeriu• vvas counted an heretike. vvho taught the same doctrine of fasting vvhich you do. Epiphan. haerel. 75. WHIT. pag. 829. 830. The auncient Church disliked Euslathius his eagernes against Aerius in this point, as witnesseth Socrates, l. 2. c. 43. & Sozomen. l. 3. c. 13. Aerius might be an Arrian, and so an heretike, but of fasting he taught the same with Augustine, Epist. 86. that there were no certaine times of fasting appointed by the Apostles: & Tertullian (contra Psychico•) witnesseth that in the auncient Christiā church mē vsed to fast volūtarily & freely, not by Canō or precept: & Epiphanius defēded Eustathius against ye churches iudgmēt in this point touching Aerius
