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.
But say you, Luther spake not so reverently of the Epistle of S. James as was fitting: It is well all you can challenge him with, is touching this Epistle only: he never did by any one word impeach the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, neither the Epistles of Saint Paul, or Saint Peter; only a little he taxed the Epistle of Saint James. Is Luther alone in this crime? hath all Antiquity received this Epistle of S. James, & Luther only rejected it? undoubtedly, no: neither was Luther ignorant what censure the ancient Church gave of this Epistle:* Eusebius adventured to write expressly of this Epistle thus.b Be it known to all men that this Epistle which is fathered on Saint James, is counterfeit: what can be written more plainly? it may be you will except against Eusebius. But tell us why? therefore not to stand with you,3 will you hear what Hierome saith, who as you well know was an Elder of the Church of Rome? The Epistle of James is held to have been published under his name by some other. The one saith it is counterfeit, the other writeth, that it was thought to be published not by the Apostle, but by some other. Why then ⟨p. 28⟩are you angry with Luther, whom you see not unadvisedly and rashly to doubt of the authority of that Epistle, but therein followeth the judgement and censure of the ancient Church? for from hence it is very clear,c that the first age of the Church doubted somewhat of the credit and authority of this Epistle. But you will say, it was afterwards received, and Hierome witnesseth as much. I inquire not how justly that might be received in a succeeding age, which once was rejected, that the credit and authority it had not in the beginning, it might gain in time by mens calmness in judging: neither will I contend about the authority of this Epistle. Let it be as great as ever any book had; we verily receive it, and put it in the Canon of the Scriptures; for whatsoever Luther or any other may conclude touching this Epistle, or lessen the credit of it any way; yet all our Churches willingly embrace it, and judge it written by the Apostle, or some Apostolic man; and in it do undoubtedly acknowledge the doctrine and spirit of an Apostle.
I, saith Calvin, willingly and without controversy receive this Epistle, because I see no just cause to reject it.
But say you, Luther spake not so reuerently of the Epistle of S. Iames as was fitting: It is well all you can challenge him with, is touching this Epistle only: he neuer did by any one word impeach the Gospels of Matthew, Marke, Luke, and Iohn, neither the Epistles of Saint Paul, or Saint Peter; only a little he taxed the Epistle of Saint Iames. Is Luther alone in this crime? hath all Antiquitie receiued this Epistle of S. Iames, & Luther only reiected it? vndoubtedly, no: neither was Luther ignorant what censure the auncient Church gaue of this Epistle:* Eusebius aduētured to write expresly of this Epistle thus.b Be it knowne to all men that this Epistle which is fathered on Saint Iames, is counterfeit: what can be written more plainely? it may be you will except against Eusebius. But tell vs why? therefore not to stand with you,3 will you heare what Hierome saith, who as you well know was an Elder of the Church of Rome? The Epistle of Iames is held to haue been published vnder his name by some other. The one saith it is counterfeit, the other writeth, that it was thought to be published not by the Apostle, but by some other. Why then ⟨p. 28⟩are you angrie with Luther, whom you see not vnaduisedly and rashly to doubt of the authoritie of that Epistle, but therein followeth the iudgement and censure of the auncient Church? for from hence it is very cleare,c that the first age of the Church doubted somewhat of the credit and authoritie of this Epistle. But you will say, it was afterwards receiued, and Hierome witnesseth as much. I inquire not how iustly that might be receiued in a succeeding age, which once was reiected, that the credit and authoritie it had not in the beginning, it might gaine in time by mens calmnesse in iudging: neither will I contend about the authority of this Epistle. Let it be as great as euer any booke had; we verily receiue it, and put it in the Canon of the Scriptures; for whatsoeuer Luther or any other may conclude touching this Epistle, or lessen the credit of it any way; yet all our Churches willingly imbrace it, and iudge it written by the Apostle, or some Apostolike man; and in it do vndoubtedly acknowledge the doctrine and spirit of an Apostle.* I, saith Caluin, willingly and without controuersie receiue this Epistle, because I see no iust cause to reiect it.
*Lib. 2. c. pa 23.
bDVR. But Eusebius only saith, that this Epistle was thought of divers, not to be written by S. James; and denies not the canonical authority of it. For after he saith: It was received of many Churches. WHIT. Pag. 12. You wrest both the words and sense of Eusebius: for he allegeth not other mens opinions, but his own direct judgement. But if we admit that you say, it must the rather be counterfeit; for if Saint James did not write it, and yet he calleth himself James the servant of God, and of our Lord Jesus Christ: must it not be forced? •ave the pen-men of the Scripture used to take other mens names unto them? If you deny it to be written by Saint James, you must needs confess it to be Apocrypha: and so after your sense, Eusebius hath rejected this Epistle; which thing to him that readeth Eusebius will manifestly appear. And that he saith many Churches receive it, and not all; must needs prove that he thought it was not Canonical.DVR. But Eusebius onely saith, that this Epistle vvas thought of diuers, not to be vvritten by S. Iames; and denies not the canonicall authoritie of it. For after hee saith: It was receiued of many Churches. WHIT. Pag. 12. You wrest both the words and sence of Eusebius: for he alleageth not other mens opinions, but his owne direct iudgement. But if wee admit that you say, it must the rather bee counterfeit; for if Saint Iames did not write it, and yet hee calleth himselfe James the seruant of God, and of our Lord Iesus Christ: must it not bee forced? •aue the pen-men of the Scripture vsed to take other mens names vnto them? If you deny it to bee written by Saint James, you must needes confesse it to be Apocrypha: and so after your sense, Eusebius hath reiected this Epistle; which thing to him that readeth Eusebius will manifestly appeare. And that hee saith many Churches receiue it, and not all; must needs proue that he thought it was not Canonicall.
3Hieronym. in Catalogo.
cDVR. Doth he therefore doubt of the authority of this book; what shall we then say to Calvin, who hath plainly denied that the Epistle to the Hebrews was written by Saint Paul? and if you had not been a deceiver, you would have alleged Hierome wholly: for it followeth. Though by little and little in succeeding ages it obtained authority. WHIT. Pag. 16 He that saith, It is thus held, and neither dislikes nor refures such a suspicion, showeth he not himself also doubtful of it? Calvin had some reason, because that Epistle was not published in the name of Saint Paul, as this was of Saint James. What comparison is there in these two? the Epistle of Saint James hath his name in the beginning of it, as the author of it; so hath not the other the name of Saint Paul: so that he that denies that to be written by Saint James, must needs make it counterfeit. But no such thing here. Therefore may this be held to be canonical, though it be denied to be written by Saint Paul. If you had read but a few lines more, you should find that I used no deceit, neither had you caus• to be so bitter. And these words of Hierome prove directly, that the authority of this Epistle was sometimes doubted of.DVR. Doth hee therefore doubt of the authoritie of this booke; what shall vve then say to Caluin, vvho hath plainely denied that the Epistle to the Hebrues vvas vvritten by Saint Paul? and if you had not been a deceiuer, you vvould haue alleadged Hierome vvholy: for it follovveth. Though by little and little in succeeding ages it obtained authoritie. WHIT. Pag. 16 He that saith, It is thus held, and neither dislikes nor refures such a suspition, sheweth he not himself also doubtful of it? Caluin had some reason, because that Epistle was not published in the name of Saint Paul, as this was of Saint Iames. What comparison is there in these two? the Epistle of Saint Iames hath his name in the beginning of it, as the author of it; so hath not the other the name of Saint Paul: so that hee that denies that to bee written by Saint Iames, must needes make it counterfeit. But no such thing here. Therefore may this be held to be canonicall, though it be denied to be written by Saint Paul. If you had read but a few lines more, you should finde that I vsed no deceite, neither had you caus• to be so bitter. And these words of Hierome prooue directly, that the authoritie of this Epistle was sometimes doubted of.
*Calvin. in argument. in Epist. Jacob.Caluin. in argument. in Epist. Iacob.
Therefore object no longer unto us other mens sharp censures and hard speeches, whereof we are no ways guilty: for what is it to us, what other men think of this Epistle, who dispraise no part of it, neither detract any thing from the authority ⟨p. 29⟩thereof? But where I pray you writ Luther any such thing, which you make mention of? let us see the place, that we may perceive how faithfully you deal. You tell us of a Preface he writ upon the Epistle of S. James, such as I think few men know: for it is no where to be found amongest Luther's works: yet by accident I light upon that preface, and read it from the beginning to the ending, in which not any of those things is to be seen which you mention: so that we may easily conjecture what we are like to find of you in the sequel, when in the beginning you are not ashamed to lye so palpably. For Luther begins his preface thus. The Epistle of S. James though rejected of Antiquity, I much commend & hold very fitting & profitable. And in this book of the Babylonish captivity, he thus writeth of this Epistle. I pass over that which many probably affirm, that this was not the Epistle of S. James the Apostle, nor agreeing with the spirit of an Apostle. These things very gravely and modestly hath Luther written concerning this Epistle of S. James; d& never culled it as you affirm, a contentious, barren, swelling, or a strawen Epistle: though I deny not but Luther was of that opinion, that he greatly called in question the Author and Argument of this Epistle. And it had been your part, who condemn his opinion, to have confuted his reasons. Erasmus evidently writeth, that this Epistle hath no taste of Apostolic authority; so that Luther judged more tolerably of this Epistle, then Erasmus. But howsoever the case stand, Luther in his judgment is not without the consent of thee first and purest Churches. And yet to let Luther pass, we have no ⟨p. 30⟩other opinion of this Epistle, then your selves have, and honour it as much, as you think it deserves. And let me promise and avow this for us all; whatsoever in this combat, which you have undertaken, you prove out of this Epistle, we will most willingly embrace, and not shift it off, as you suspect we will. All the sentences of this Epistle, we allow of, and reject not any one.
Therefore obiect no longer vnto vs other mens sharpe censures and hard speeches, whereof we are no wayes guilty: for what is it to vs, what other men thinke of this Epistle, who dispraise no part of it, neither detract any thing from the authority ⟨p. 29⟩thereof? But where I pray you writ Luther any such thing, which you make mention of? let vs see the place, that we may perceiue how faithfully you deale. You tell vs of a Preface he writ vpon the Epistle of S. Iames, such as I thinke few men know: for it is no where to be found amongest Luthers workes: yet by accident I light vpon that preface, and read it from the beginning to the ending, in which not any of those things is to be seene which you mention: so that we may easily coniecture what we are like to find of you in the sequell, when in the beginning you are not ashamed to lye so palpablie. For Luther begins his preface thus. The Epistle of S. Iames though reiected of Antiquitie, I much commēd & hold very fitting & profitable. And in this booke of the Babylonish captiuity, he thus writeth of this Epistle. I passe ouer that which many probablie affirme, that this was not the Epistle of S. Iames the Apostle, nor agreeing with the spirit of an Apostle. These things very grauely and modestly hath Luther written concerning this Epistle of S. Iames; d& neuer culled it as you affirme, a contentious, barren, swelling, or a strawen Epistle: though I deny not but Luther was of that opinion, that he greatly called in question the Author and Argument of this Epistle. And it had been your part, who condemne his opinion, to haue confuted his reasons. Erasmus euidently writeth, that this Epistle hath no tast of Apostolike authoritie; so that Luther iudged more tolerably of this Epistle, then Erasmus. But howsoeuer the case stand, Luther in his iudgment is not without the consent of thee first and purest Churches. And yet to let Luther passe, we haue no ⟨p. 30⟩other opinion of this Epistle, then your selues haue, and honor it as much, as you thinke it deserues. And let me promise and anow this for vs all; whatsoeuer in this combate, which you haue vndertaken, you proue out of this Epistle, we will most willingly imbrace, and not shift it off, as you suspect we will. All the sentences of this Epistle, we allow of, and reiect not any one.
dDVR. Jf you had seen the copy printed at Jena you should see that Luther thus speaketh of this Epistle. WHIT. p. 22. I acknowledge that Luther in a most ancient preface published by himself at Wittenberg 1525. called it a strawen Epistle in comparison of the Epistles of Saint Peter and Saint Paul, but find not that, you affirm any where.DVR. Jf you had seene the copie printed at Jena you should see that Luther thus speaketh of this Epistle. WHIT. p. 22. I acknowledge that Luther in a most auncient preface published by himselfe at Wittenberge 1525. called it a strawen Epistle in comparison of the Epistles of Saint Peter and Saint Paul, but finde not that, you affirme any where.
eDVR. Jf he agreed with the first and purest Churches: you differing from him, do dissent from them. WHIT. I call them the purest Churches, not for their sincere judgement of this Epistle, but for that they flourished in the best and purest times.DVR. Jf he agreed with the first and purest Churches: you differing from him, doe dissent from them. WHIT. I call them the purest Churches, not for their sincere iudgement of this Epistle, but for that they flourished in the best and purest times.
For as for that instance, which you give of sole faith, it is but a silly and lame trick of your sophistry; our doctrine of justification by faith only is most true & holy; which S. Paul also clearly teacheth, though he do notf expressly use these words,2 Faith alone. And the ancient do so expound and interpret S. Paul. Ambrose saith;g They are justified only by faith, it is the gift of God. hBasil saith; They are justified by faith alone in Christ. iNazianzene saith; Righteousness consisteth in faith only. Why should I recite any other sayings of other of the Fathers of the Church? This doctrine is both Evangelical and Apostolical; contrary to this, if James or an Angel from heaven should preach, let him be held as impious, wicked, and accursed. But you will say S. James ⟨p. 31⟩denies justification by faith only, yea affirms that we are justified by works. We answer, that the Apostle speaketh of ak feigned dead, idle, and counterfeit faith, which many boasted of, and falsely persuaded themselves they were just by it. This faith, which we may more truly call a carcass of faith, Saint James denieth to be sufficient for salvation to any, and he that is justified he teacheth must be justified by works, that is, must be proved, and declared to be just: for it must needs be, that faith be living, fruitful and accompanied with good works, that all may clearly perceive and discern, you are endued with true faith. And so doth S. James very fitly accord with S. Paul, while he disputes from the effects; when as S. Paul argueth from the cause. The principal & immediate cause of our justification, S. Paul makes faith; S. James writeth that a man is justified by works, that is, every man by his works as by most pregnant testimonies isl known and acknowledged just, while his invisible faith is witnessed and declared by his visible works. Therefore you see there is no reason why for this cause Luther should either find fault with, or fear the Epistle of S. James. And thus Augustine hath reconciled these two Apostles James ⟨p. 32⟩and Paul, that you may see that we are not broachers of any Novelty. Wherefore, saithm Augustine; 9the judgements of the two Apostles, S. Paul, & S. James, are not contrary each to other, when the one saith a man is justified by faith without works; and the other saith, that it is a vain faith which is without works; because S.
For as for that instance, which you giue of sole faith, it is but a sillie and lame tricke of your sophistry; our doctrine of iustification by faith only is most true & holy; which S. Paul also clearely teacheth, though he doe notf expressely vse these words,2 Faith alone. And the auncient do so expound and interpret S. Paul. Ambrose saith;g They are iustified only by faith, it is the gift of God. hBasil saith; They are iustified by faith alone in Christ. iNazianzene saith; Righteousnes consisteth in faith only. Why should I recite any other sayings of other of the Fathers of the Church? This doctrine is both Euangelicall and Apostolicall; contrary to this, if Iames or an Angell from heauen should preach, let him be held as impious, wicked, and accursed. But you will say S. Iames ⟨p. 31⟩denies iustification by faith only, yea affirmes that we are iustified by workes. We answere, that the Apostle speaketh of ak feigned dead, idle, and counterfeite faith, which many boasted of, and falsly perswaded themselues they were iust by it. This faith, which we may more truly call a carcase of faith, Saint Iames denieth to be sufficient for saluation to any, and he that is iustified he teacheth must be iustified by workes, that is, must be proued, and declared to be iust: for it must needs be, that faith be liuing, fruitfull and accompanied with good works, that all may clearely perceiue and discerne, you are indued with true faith. And so doth S. Iames very fitly accord with S. Paul, while he disputes from the effects; when as S. Paul argueth from the cause. The principall & immediate cause of our iustification, S. Paul makes faith; S. Iames writeth that a man is iustified by workes, that is, euery man by his workes as by most pregnant testimonies isl knowne and acknowledged iust, while his inuisible faith is witnessed and declared by his visible workes. Therefore you see there is no reason why for this cause Luther should either find fault with, or feare the Epistle of S. Iames. And thus Augustine hath reconciled these two Apostles Iames ⟨p. 32⟩
fDVR. Saint Paul never in plain words hath affirmed our justification by faith only. WHIT. pag. 27. When S. Paul saith we are justified by faith, it is as much as by faith alone, because faith respects only mercy, and withal excludeth works: Rom. 3.28 & cap. 4.5.6. & cap. 3.20. Gal. 2.16. and lastly he saith we are freely justified by grace: Eph. 2.7.8. Rom. 3.24. then he affirms that faith only doth justify.DVR. Saint Paul neuer in plaine words hath affirmed our iustification by faith onlie. WHIT. pag. 27. When S. Paul saith we are iustified by faith, it is as much as by faith alone, because faith respects onely mercy, and withall excludeth workes: Rom. 3.28 & cap. 4.5.6. & cap. 3.20. Gal. 2.16. and lastly he saith we are freely iustified by grace: Eph. 2.7.8. Rom. 3.24. then he affirmes that faith only doth iustifie.
gDVR. Ambrose by his sole faith excludeth only the works of the ceremonial law, and so he speaketh in that place. WHIT. pag. 33. It is enough that he affirmeth that this is S. Pauls position: we are justified by faith only. And when he excludeth only the works of the ceremonial law, in that he is against the judgement of Augustine and Hierome and himself also, in lib. 2. cap. 2. de Jacob. & vita beata.DVR. Ambrose by his sole faith excludeth only the workes of the ceremoniall law, and so he speaketh in that place. WHIT. pag. 33. It is enough that he affirmeth that this is S. Paules position: we are iustified by faith only. And when he excludeth only the workes of the ceremoniall law, in that he is against the iudgement of Augustine and Hierome and himselfe also, in lib. 2. cap. 2. de Iacob. & vita beata.
hDVR. Basil excludes only those works which are wrought by the sole power of freewill. WHIT. pag. 38. Basil excludes not only the works wrought by the power of freewill, but even those which proceed from faith and grace; for he produced S. Paul, and Saint Peter whom he denies to have been justified by works, yet had they both faith and grace.
Paul speaketh of works which go before faith: Saint James of works which follow faith; at S. Paul himself showeth in many places. Therefore the Apostle S. James would not, neither ought to detract any thing from the doctrine of justification, which Luther learned from S. Paul. Yea all Papists and Jesuits shall sooner be torn asunder, then this judgement of Luther, touching faith alone, shall either quail or be overthrown.
Paul speak•th of workes which goe before faith: Saint Iames of workes which follow faith; at S. Paul himselfe sheweth in many places. Therefore the Apostle S. Iames would not, neither ought to detract any thing from the doctrine of iustification, which Luther learned from S. Paul. Yea all Papists and Iesuits shall sooner be torne asunder, then this iudgement of Luther, touching faith alone, shall either quaile or be ouerthrowne.
From Luther you turn the edge of your speech to the whelps of Luther: for so you, as an unclean dog, term men famous and flourishing with all good qualities. But why you should so call them, I well conceive not, unless it be, for that they never cease barking against your Bishops and Monks, and other Church robbers, like your self. But let us hear what heinous thing those whelps have committed. They have on a sudden put out of the true Canon of the Scripture, Tobias, Ecclesiasticus, the two books of the Maccabees, and many other books. Say you of a sudden, Campian? Is it true indeed that you are such a stranger in the writings of the ancient Fathers, that you know not that long ago these books were raced out of the Canon? Look I pray you into Hierome, and out of him call to mind what antiquity hath done. That we may know, saithn Hierome, 2Whatsoever ⟨p. 33⟩books are more then these, they are to be accounted among the Apocrypha. Therefore Wisdom, which commonly is called the Wisdom of Solomon, and the book of Jesus the son of Sirach, and Judith, and Tobias, and Pastor, are not in the Canon. Will you that are but a Friar put these books in the Canon, which Hierome following the judgement of the ancient Church, and the truth it self, denieth to be in the Canon? mark well his own words: They are not in the Canon. You say that we have dashed them out; and why should we not so do? For, saith Hierome, they are not in the Canon. Desire you any further testimonies? Epiphanius saith as much as Hierome, who after he had recited divers books, which you say we have put out of the Canon, he thus writeth; as Cornarius renders his words out of the Greek. These books verily are profitable and helpful, 3but they are not reckoned in the number of those which are received. Therefore they are not to be found in Aaron, neither in the ark of the Covenant. But see out of Hierome more manifest and pregnant things.4 As therefore the Church readeth the books of Judith, Tobias, and Maccabees, but accounteth them not Canonical Scripture: so also these two books (he meaneth Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus) it reads for edification of the common sort, not for confirmation of any doctrine of the Church.
From Luther you turne the edge of your speech to the whelpes of Luther: for so you, as an vncleane dogge, terme men famous and flourishing with all good qualities. But why you should so call them, I well conceiue not, vnlesse it be, for that they neuer cease barking against your Bishops and Monkes, and other Church robbers, like your selfe. But let vs heare what heynous thing those whelpes haue committed. They haue on a suddaine put out of the true Canon of the Scripture, Tobias, Ecclesiasticus, the two bookes of the Macchabees, and many other bookes. Say you of a suddaine, Campian? Is it true indeed that you are such a stranger in the writings of the auncient Fathers, that you know not that long agoe these bookes were raced out of the Canon? Looke I pray you into Hierome, and out of him call to mind what antiquitie hath done. That we may know, saithn Hierome, 2Whatsoeuer ⟨p. 33⟩bookes are more then these, they are to be accoūted among the Apochrypha. Therefore Wisdome, which commonly is called the Wisdome of Salomon, and the booke of Iesus the sonne of Syrach, and Iudith, and Tobias, and Pastor, are not in the Canon. Will you that are but a Frier put these bookes in the Canon, which Hierome following the iudgement of the auncient Church, and the truth it selfe, denieth to be in the Canon? marke well his owne words: They are not in the Canon. You say that we haue dashed them out; and why should we not so doe? For, saith Hierome, they are not in the Canon. Desire you any further testimonies? Epiphanius saith as much as Hierome, who after he had recited diuers bookes, which you say we haue put out of the Canon, he thus writeth; as Cornarius renders his words out of the Greeke. These bookes verily are profitable and helpefull, 3but they are not reckoned in the number of those which are receiued. Therefore they are not to be found in Aaron, neither in the arke of the Couenant. But see out of Hierome more manifest and pregnant things.4 As therfore the Church readeth the bookes of Iudith, Tobias, and Macchabees, but accounteth them not Canonicall Scripture: so also these two bookes (he meaneth Wisdome and Ecclesiasticus) it reades for edification of the common sort, not for confirmation of any doctrine of the Church.
nDVR Hierome saith that the former Churches did not receive these books for Canonical: but denies them not to be Canonical. WHIT. pag. 52. Hicrome affirmeth not only that these books were not received of the fore-going Churches for Canonical, but himself o•ten times denies them to be such, and plainly calls them Apocrypha books, which he would never have done if the Church then had taken them for Canonical; yea and as Duraeus confesseth, they were not so taken until •lmo•t 70• years after Christ.DVR Hierome saith that the former Churches did not receiue these bookes for Canonicall: but denies them not to be Canonicall. WHIT. pag. 52. Hicrome affirmeth not only that these bookes were not receiued of the fore-going Churches for Canonical, but himself o•ten times denies them to be such, and plainely cals them Apoch•ypha bookes, which he w•uld neuer haue done if the Church then had taken them for Canonicall; yea and as Duraeus confesseth, they were not so taken vntill •lmo•t 70• ye•res af•er Christ.
If, Campian, you be ignorant of these ancient testimonies you are but a young soldier in that kind of fight, where you would be thought a well experienced Captain; but if you know them, you are too unjust and injurious unto us, to object to us, I know not what desperation, because we admit not those books in the Canon of the Scripture, which Antiquity tells us directly, were never admitted, neither are to be admitted:1 And verily Cardinal Caietan, fears not to avouch that he that writ the book of ⟨p. 34⟩the Maccabees, in a certain prophecy of Daniels, was a liar: but the holy Ghost was never wont to be deceived in the interpreting of the Scripture. Now whereas you imagine that we are convinced by those Oracles, as often as we dispute against the defence of Angels, as often as we dispute against freewill, as often as we dispute against praying to Saints: You must fi•st, before you can convince us, prove that an argument will conclude necessarily out of those books, to confirm the doctrine of the Church, which Hierome deemeth, and you shall never be able to prove, though you call all the Jesuits to a consultation. And seeing you object desperation to us, see ho• you bewray your own miserable desperation; who cannot establish the Articles of your faith by the Canonical Scriptures, but you she to the Apocrypha, whose authority hath bin▪ and for ever shall be doubted of in the Church. The Lord hath committed his Will and Wo•d to writing, and commended it to his Church: Those writings with all diligence and piety we receive and reverence; we are content with them, and we maintain thei• sufficiency; let go then these questionable, obscure, and Apocrypha books, and out of these contend with us about religion. But your religion long ago hath passed beyond the bounds of the sacred Scripture, and hath broken forth into many superstitions. And hence it is that you do the thing, than which nothing can be more malapert and intolerable; that is, make of like authority with holy Scripture, not only the Apocrypha books, but everyo unwritten. Tradition, wheresoever you come by them, at the second or third hand. But what do I telling you of these things, who shamefully have adventured long since to violate and infringe all the laws, both of God and man? ⟨p. 35⟩Take this from me:
If, Campian, you be ignorant of these auncient testimonies you are but a young souldier in that kind of fight, where you would be thought a well experienced Captaine; but if you know them, you are too vniust and iniurious vnto vs, to obiect to vs, I know not what desporation, because wee admit not those bookes in the Canon of the Scripture, which Antiquitie tels vs directly, were neuer admitted, neither are to be admitted:1 And verily Cardinall Caietan, feares not to auouch that he that writ the booke of ⟨p. 34⟩the Macchabees, in a certeine prophesie of Daniels, was a lyer: but the holy Ghost was neuer wont to be deceiued in the interpreting of the Scripture. Now wheras you imagine that we are conuinced by those Oracles, as often as we dispute against the defence of Angels, as often as we dispute against freewill, as often as we dispute against praying to Saints: You must fi•st, before you can conuince vs, proue that an argument will conclude necessarily out of those bookes, to confirme the doctrine of the Church, which Hierome demeth, and you shall neuer be able to proue, though you call all the Iesuits to a consultation. And seeing you obiect desperation to vs, see ho• you bewray your owne miserable •esperation; who cannot establish the Articles of your faith by the Canonicall Scriptures, but you she to the Apoc•ypha, whose authority hath bin▪ and for euer shall be doubted of in the Church. The Lord hath commited his Will and Wo•d to writing, and commended it to his Church: Those writings with all diligence and piety we receiue and reuerence; we are content with them, and we maintaine thei• sufficiency; let goe then these questionable, obscure, and Apochrypha bookes, and out of these contend with vs about religion. But your religion long agoe hath passed beyond the bounds of the sacred Scripture, and hath broken forth into many superstitions. And hence it is that you doe the thing, than which nothing can be more malapert and intolerable; that is, make of like authoritie with holy Scripture, not only the Apochrypha bookes, but eueryo vnwritten. Tradition, whersoeuer you come by them, at the second or third hand. But what do I telling you of these things, who shamefully haue aduentured long since to violate and inf•inge all the lawes, both of God and man?
1Caietan. in cap 24. Mattb.
oDVR. Pag. 5•. ••e do not aff•me Traditions, to be of the same authority with the holy Scriptures. WHIT. pag. 59 Though Duraeus here denieth it, yet the Councell of •rent doth with the like holy affection and reverence receive and honour them, as it doth the books o• the old and new Testament. See Dec•et. 1. Sess. 4.DVR. Pag. 5•. ••e do not aff•me Traditions, to be of the same authority with the holy Scriptures. WHIT. pag. 59 Though Duraeus heere denieth it, yet the Councell of •rent doth with the like holy affection and reuerence receiue and honor them, as it doth the bookes o• the old and new Testam•nt. See Dec•et. 1. Sess. 4.
if you can demonstrate that we have condemned or rejected any one book, or anyp part and portion of any book, which appeareth to have bin written and confirmed by divine authority, I will never contend any longer, but yield you the day, and give up our weapons to you. But if we have ever most faithfully kept the whole corps of the Scriptures, and have severed the true books from false, and have defended the heavenly truth of God, and preserved it uncorrupt, why do you poor silly F•ier cry out of our desperation, when your self is so far plunged in desperation it self, that there is no certainty of your salvation, but by the depravation and corruption of the holy Scriptures?
if you can demonstrate that we haue condemned or reiected any one booke, or anyp part and portion of any booke, which appeareth to haue bin written and confirmed by diuine authoritie, I will neuer contend any longer, but yeeld you the day, and giue vp our weapons to you. But if we haue euer most faithfully kept the whole corpes of the Scriptures, and haue seuered the true bookes from false, and haue defended the heauenly truth of God, and preserued it vncorrupt, why doe you poore silly F•ier cry out of our desperation, when your selfe is so farre plunged in desperation it selfe, that there is no certainty of your saluatiō, but by the deprauation and corruption of the holy Scriptures?
pDVR. Pag. 64. You have raced out these words out of S. John: Every spirit which divideth Christs not of God: •nd the history of the adulterous woman John 8.3. WHIT. pag. 65. We have not raced it out of the scripture; for it is not to be found in the mo•t ancient Greek copies, but as we read it, 1. Joh. 4.3. Cyprian also l. b. 2. cap. 8. testim. contra Judaeos so reads it, and Augustine also ad Po••ent. lib. 2. cap. 7. reads bo h. The history of the woman taken in adultery we race not out: though some of the ancient have done, and Beza though he demurred about it, ve• never dashed it out.DVR. Pag. 64. You haue raced out these words out of S. Iohn: Euery spirit •hich diuideth Christis not of God: •nd the historie of the adulterous woman Iohn 8.3. WHIT. pag. 65. We haue not raced it out of the •cripture; for it is not to be found in the mo•t auncient Greek copies, but as we read it, 1. Ioh. 4.3. Cyprian also l. b. 2. cap. 8. testim. contra Iudaeos so reads it, and Augustine also ad Po••ent. lib. 2. cap. 7. reads bo h. The history of the woman taken in adultery we race not out: though some of the auncient haue done, and Beza though he demurred about it, ve• neuer dashed it out.
Now in that you affirm we are convinced by those oracles: As often as we dispute of the defence of Angels, of freewill, of praying for the dead, and of praying to Saints: they are thing which we have discussed a thousand times, and have exactly determined them out of the true oracles of God. The defence of Angels is taught us in the Scripture, where we are taught that God hath set his Angels over certain people,1 places, and men; and of this in general we nothing doubt, but that Angels have that commission from the Lord, that they must provide for mens safety and salvation. So that we deny them not some kind of ministration, yea we attribute as much to them as the Lord hath taught us we should. And as for yourq Hierarchy and manifold degrees of Angels, we are willingly ignorant of them, and no whit envy your knowledge, who have had the revelation of such great mysteries from your Denis, who ⟨p. 36⟩hath (that I may use the words of S. Paul) advanced himself in those things which he never saw. But it is another patronage of Angels which you defend, and hold that we ought to worship them and call upon them, which the Scripture in plain words forbiddeth, forr S. Paul condemns Worshipping of Angels. 4And the Angel once and again called S. John from this kind of worship.s See thou doest it not, 6I am thy fellow servant, and one of thy brethren: worship God. As for Raphael int Toby, we pass not greatly, neither do acknowledge those seven Angels of whom he speaketh. All that which was spoken of Raphael, or which he speaketh of himself, i• far differing from the holy Scriptures, and it savoureth strongly of superstition. The place of Ecclesiasticus doth not much trouble me, neither should I the sooner believeu free will, though he an hundred times should repeat ⟨p. 37⟩that sentence;9 before man is life and death: seeing that thex Scripture teacheth that man lost his freedom by sin: the same thing teach they Fathers also, and every mans own experience: howsoever these words may be understood of mankind, as he was sometime in Adam. For thus he writeth a little before.12 He made man from the beginning, and left him in the hand of his own counsel; if he speak of the first condition and state of man, and of his perfect and uncorrupt nature, wherein he was created of the Lord, he speaketh very true:
Now in that you affirme we are conuinced by those oracles: As often as we dispute of the defence of Angels, of freewill, of praying for the dead, and of praying to Saints: they are thing which we haue discussed a thousand times, and haue exactly determined them out of the true oracles of God. The defence of Angels is taught vs in the Scripture, where we are taught that God hath set his Angels ouer certaine people,1 places, and men; and of this in general we nothing doubt, but that Angels haue that commission from the Lord, that they must prouide for mens safety and saluation. So that we deny them not some kind of ministration, yea we attribute as much to them as the Lord hath taught vs we should. And as for yourq Hierarchie and manifold degrees of Angels, we are willingly ignorant of them, and no whit enuy your knowledge, who haue had the reuelation of such great mysteries from your Denys, who ⟨p. 36⟩hath (that I may vse the words of S. Paul) aduaunced himselfe in those things whic he neuer saw. But it is another patronage of Angels which you defend, and hold that we ought to worship them and call vpon them, which the Scripture in plaine words forbiddeth, forr S. Paul condemnes Worshipping of Angels. 4And the Angell once and againe called S. Iohn from this kind of worship.s See thou doest it not, 6I am thy fellow seruant, and one of thy brethren: worship God. As for Raphael int Tobie, we passe not greatly, neither do acknowledge those seauen Angels of whom he speaketh. All that which was spoken of Raphael, or which he speaketh of himself, i• far differing from the holy Scriptures, and it sauoureth strongly of superstition. The place of Ecclesiasticus doth not much trouble me, neither should I the sooner beleeueu free will, though he an hundred times should repeate ⟨p. 37⟩
qDVR. Denis •as S Pauls disciple, and he hath manifested such m••teries. WHIT. pag 68. Why did not S. Paul, who wa• rapt up into the third heaven, and saw such great things, declare unto us the hierarchy of Angels? did he bur•e it in silence, and his disciple tell it abroad? But Denis was not the disciple of S. Paul, as shall in another place be proved.DVR. Denys •as S Pauls disciple, and he hath manifested such m••teries. WHIT. pag 68. Why did not S. Paul, who wa• rapt vp into the third heauen, and saw such great things, declare vnto vs the hierarchy of Angels? did he bur•e it in silence, and his disciple tell it abroad? But Denys was not the disciple of S. Paul, as shall in another place be proued.
rDVR. Saint Paul forbids only the offering up of sacrifice to Angels, and making of them new mediators. WHIT pag. 70. S. Paul forbids all worshipping of them, and so prayers, a swell as sacrifice•; they being a part of worship. pag 71. Chrysost. in Coloss. 2. hom. 7. in these words: Occumen. in Coloss. 2. whom you allege, do not interpret them for you, but for our opinion, and as the truth is.DVR. Saint Paul forbids onely the offering vp of sacrifice to Angels, and making of them nevv mediat•rs. WHIT pag. 70. S. Paul fo•bids all worshipping of them, and so prayers, a swell as sacrifice•; they being a part of worship. pag 71. Chrysost. in Coloss. 2. hom. 7. in these words: Occumen. in Coloss. 2. whom you alledge, do not interpret them for you, but for our opinion, and as the truth is.
but if he made it now free for us, as we are natural men, to choose or refuse life or death at our own pleasure; I am not so bound by the authority of this book and testimony, but that I may appeal from his Apocryphal sentence to the tried Oracles of God. Now for your book of thez Maccabees, I make far less account of it, which Hierome, Epiphanius, Athanasius, Cyprian, have hissed out, and the Leodicene Council hath rejected. Moreover that which is therein spoken of the sacrifice offered up for the sins of the dead, is merely matter of supposal, and forced into the text: for neither in Josephus is any such thing to be found in the ⟨p. 38⟩Greek, neither in Josephus the son of Gerion, who yet writ the self-same history in Hebrew, is there any mention of any such sacrifice, neither had thea Jews either by precept, or practise any such custom, to offer sacrifice and prayers for the dead. Lastly in the Greek copy there is that inversion and disordered placing of the words, that you can hardly make any true sense, or any whole sentence hang together. View the place in the Greek text, and if you can fitly translate it so, that all things may hang well together, I will yield, you are a better Grecian then I took you for. Shall I be tied then by the authority and force of this book, place, or sentence, to offer with you prayers and oblations for the dead? you are too too childish, Campian, to think such things can incline the Students of our Universities to like your side: other manner of matter must you bring, and of more force, if you will gain our favourable audience and good conceit: for these things long ago we have distasted and spit out; but who ever said, your self excepted, that this place of the Maccabees doth prove and confirm invocation of Saints? It is one thing to offer sacrifice for the dead, and another thing to say that the Saints departed make intercession for us. As for Judas bdream touching Onia, of which we read 2. Macchab. 15. I pass it over as a dream: but the matter is not great whether you understand the intercession of the dead, or oblations for the dead: both is yours, and both most false. And here again you cry out with great vehemency; Is it true indeed? is there such frowardness, is there such presumption among men? here is neither ⟨p. 39⟩the one, nor the other, Campian• we have done nothing frowardly;
but if he made it now free for vs, as we are naturall men, to chuse or refuse life or death at our owne pleasure; I am not so bound by the authoritie of this booke and testimonie, but that I may appeale from his Apochryphall sentence to the tried Oracles of God. Now for your booke of thez Macchabees, I make far lesse account of it, which Hierome, Epiphanius, Athanasius, Cyprian, haue hissed out, and the Leodicene Councel hath reiected. Moreouer that which is therein spoken of the sacrifice offered vp for the sinnes of the dead, is meerely matter of supposall, and forced into the text: for neither in Iosephus is any such thing to be found in the ⟨p. 38⟩Greeke, neither in Iosephus the sonne of Gerion, who yet writ the self-same history in Hebrew, is there any mention of any such sacrifice, neither had thea Iewes either by precept, or practise any such custome, to offer sacrifice and prayers for the dead. Lastly in the Greeke copy there is that inuersion and disordered placing of the words, that you can hardly make any true sense, or any whole sentence hang together. View the place in the Greeke text, and if you can fitly translate it so, that all things may hang well together, I will yeeld, you are a better Grecian then I tooke you for. Shall I be tied then by the authority and force of this booke, place, or sentence, to offer with you prayers and oblations for the dead? you are too too childish, Campian, to thinke such things can incline the Students of our Vniuersities to like your side: other manner of matter must you bring, and of more force, if you will gaine our fauourable audience and good conceite: for these things long agoe we haue distasted and spit out; but who euer said, your selfe excepted, that this place of the Macchabees doth proue and confirme inuocation of Saints? It is one thing to offer sacrifice for the dead, and another thing to say that the Saints departed make intercession for vs. As for Iudas bdreame touching Onia, of which we read 2. Macchab. 15. I passe it ouer as a dreame: but the matter is not great whether you vnderstand the intercession of the dead, or oblations for the dead: both is yours, and both most false. And heere againe you cry out with great vehemency; Is it true indeed? is there such frowardnes, is there such presumption among men? heere is neither ⟨p. 39⟩the one, nor the other, Campian• we haue done nothing frowardly;
zDVR. No Church ever rejected the book of the Maccabees. WHIT. pag. 83. The Church of the Jews did wholly: and the Church of the Christians as I have showed before. Yea, Gregory, the great, who was Bishop of Rome, in Job. lib. 17. Cap. 16. denies them to be in the Canon. And the Fathers, though they cite them as he did, yet so accounted them for no better. DVR. Augustine placeth them in the Canon. WHIT. pag. 83. Yet Gregory who lived 200. years after him, denies them to be Canonical, besides Augustine so calleth them, because the Church of Christians read them, and did not reject them so as the Jews did. August. de civitat. De• lib. 18. cap. 36. & August. cont. Gauden. lib. 2. cap. 23. further, Duraeus, confesseth that they were neither written by a Prophet, nor confirmed by a Prophet: then certain it is they are not in the Canon. DVR. Christians must be ruled by the judgment of the Catholic Church. WHIT. pag. 85. The Catholic Church cannot make those books which are not Canonical to be Canonical: besides I have showed, that the Catholic Church doth reject them.DVR. No Church euer reiected the booke of the Macchabees. WHIT. pag. 83. The Church of the Iewes did wholy: and the Church of the Christians as I haue shewed before. Yea, Gregory, the great, who was Bishop of Rome, in Iob. lib. 17. Cap. 16. denies them to be in the Canon. And the Fathers, though they cite them as he did, yet so accounted them for no better. DVR. Augustine placeth them in the Canon. WHIT. pag. 83. Yet Gregory vvho liued 200. yeeres after him, denies them to be Canonicall, besides Augustine so calleth them, because the Church of Christians read them, and did not reiect them so as the Ievves did. August. de ciuitat. De• lib. 18. cap. 36. & August. cont. Gauden. lib. 2. cap. 23. further, Duraeus, confesseth that they were neither written by a Prophet, nor confirmed by a Prophet: then certeine it is they are not in the Canon. DVR. Christians must be ruled by the iudgment of the Catholike Church. WHIT. pag. 85. The Catholike Church cannot make those bookes which are not Canonicall to be Canonicall: besides I haue shewed, that the Catholike Church doth reiect them.
aDVR. The Jews Machzor showeth that they do pray and offer sacrifice for the dead. WHIT. pag. 85. I much •egard not what the Jews do now: I affirmed that the old Jews had neither precept nor practise for it.DVR. The Iews Machzor sheweth that they do pray and offer sacrifice for the dead. WHIT. pag. 85. I much •egard not what the Ievves do now: I affirmed that the old Ievves had neither precept nor practise for it.
nothing presumptuously: I wonder at your frowardness and presumption, that those books which God disclaims, as none of his, which reverend antiquity hath put out of the Canon; yet you in your horrible & detestable frowardness & presumption, will bring into the Canon, whether God will or no, the holy Fathers denying them, & the books themselves disclaiming it. The Calvinists, say you, have cut off from the body of the old Testament, 1seven whole books: Why you shameless Friar, did not Hierome a thousand years before Calvin was borne, race them out? Why then slip you over Hierome, and quarrel with Calvin only, when they are both in one predicament? Hear yet again what Hierome saith. Whatsoever is besides these books, is to be accounted Apocrypha: but these seven books which you reckon up, and calumniously avouch that we have raced them out, are besides those Hierome makes mention of; they are then to be accounted Apocrypha. For most of these we have sufficiently answered. For Baruch, Hierome saith, We neither read it, nor find it in the Hebrew; all the other he casteth out of the Canon,2 and writeth freely. Those books which are not to be found in the Hebrew, neither are any of the 24. are to be rejected of those, who are of ripe years and knowledge. But you Jesuits are alway Children, as the Egyptian Priest answered Solon touching the Grecians. I wonder why you say never a word touching the third and fourth book of Esdra: it may be you are ashamed of them, being books, as Hierome writeth, full of dotages: yet your Church hath had them in great account, and the Fathers often times have alleged testimonies out of them; why do you, Campian, suddenly dash these books out of the Canon? If you judge they must be kept in the Canon, why do you not tax the Calvinists, who, as all men ⟨p. 40⟩know, have cut them out of the old Testament? Why when you number up all those sacred books, cut out of the Canon by the Calvinists, omit you these altogether? Or if these be Apocrypha, why should we deem the rest to be Canonical? I am not a little desirous to know, what is your judgement of these books: but you say further:3 The Lutherans have cut off Saint▪ James Epistle, and for spite of it, five others, which somewhere else also were once called in question. That these were once and elsewhere in question, you cannot deny.
nothing presumptuously: I wonder at your frowardnes and presumption, that those bookes which God disclaimes, as none of his, which reuerend antiquitie hath put out of the Canon; yet you in your horrible & detestable frowardnes & presūption, will bring into the Canon, whether God wil or no, the holy Fathers denying them, & the bookes themselues disclaiming it. The Caluinists, say you, haue cut off from the body of the old Testament, 1seauen whole bookes: Why you shamelesse Frier, did not Hierome a thousand yeeres before Caluin was borne, race them out? Why then slippe you ouer Hierome, and quarrell with Caluin only, when they are both in one predicament? Heare yet againe what Hierome saith. Whatsoeuer is besides these bookes, is to be accounted Apocrypha: but these seauen bookes which you reckon vp, and calumniously auouch that we haue raced them out, are besides those Hierome makes mention of; they are then to be accounted Apochrypha. For most of these we haue sufficiently answered. For Baruch, Hierome saith, We neither reade it, nor find it in the Hebrew; all the other he casteth out of the Canon,2 and writeth freely. Those bookes which are not to be found in the Hebrew, neither are any of the 24. are tobe reiected of those, who are of ripe yeeres and knowledge. But you Iesuits are alway Children, as the Egyptian Priest answered Solon touching the Grecians. I wonder why you say neuer a word touching the third and fourth booke of Esdra: it may be you are ashamed of them, being bookes, as Hierome writeth, full of dotages: yet your Church hath had them in great account, and the Fathers often times haue alledged testimonies out of them; why do you, Campian, suddeinly dash these bookes out of the Canon? If you iudge they must be kept in the Canon, why doe you not taxe the Caluinists, who, as all men ⟨p. 40⟩know, haue cut them out of the old Testament? Why when you number vp all those sacred bookes, cut out of the Canon by the Caluinists, omit you these altogether? Or if these be Apocrypha, why should we deeme the rest to be Canonicall? I am not a little desirous to know, what is your iudgement of these bookes: but you say further:3 The Lutherans haue cut off Saint▪ Iames Epistle, and for spite of it, fiue others, which somewhere else also were once called in question. That these were once and elsewhere in question, you cannot deny.
1These are Baruch, Tob•as, Judith, Sufficient a. Ec••ejias•icus. t••o Maccabees. H••ron prae f•t. in Jer.These are Ba•uch, Tob•as, Iud•th, Su••ent a. Ec••ejias•icus. t••o Macchabees. H••ron prae f•t. in Ier.
2Hieron ad Domnion, & Rogatian.
3Epist. Jacob. Ep ad Heb. Epist. Judah. Epist. 2. Pet. Epist. 2. & 3. Joan.Epist. Iacob. Ep ad Heb. Epist. Juda. Epist. 2. Pet. Epist. 2. & 3. Ioan.
The light and evidence of the story hath wrung this from you. But tell us who made question of them? Did heretics only? Then account Eusebius & Hierome amongst heretics, who have reported to us their own judgement of these Epistles, with the judgement of the Church. Can you prove that they were accounted heretics, in the first and pure ages of the Church, who took out of the Canon these Epistles? For the Epistle of Saint James, I have answered sufficiently: we neither reject that, nor any of the other Epistles, which you falsely accuse the Lutherans to have cut out; this is no fault of ours, whom you know to be far from Lutheranism: quarrel then with them: as for us, we never cunningly shifted off the testimonies and allegations of those Epistles. Can you in equity require any more of us? At length then forbear to upbraid us with I know not what desperation, frowardness and presumption: we willingly admit, receive, and allow of your own books, which your self make use of in disputation; to their judgment will we stand, if you can convince us by these you win the field.
The light and euidence of the storie hath wrung this from you. But tel vs who made question of them? Did heretikes onely? Then account Eusebius & Hierome amongst heretikes, who haue reported to vs their owne iudgement of these Epistles, with the iudgement of the Church. Can you prooue that they were accounted heretikes, in the first and pure ages of the Church, who tooke out of the Canon these Epistles? For the Epistle of Saint Iames, I haue answered sufficiently: we neither reiect that, nor any of the other Epistles, which you falsely accuse the Lutherans to haue cut out; this is no fauit of ours, whom you knowe to be farre from Lutheranisme: quarrell then with them: as for vs, we neuer cunningly shifted off the testimonies and allegations of those Epistles. Can you in equitie require any more of vs? At length then forbeare to vpbraide vs with I knowe not what desperation, frowardnes and presumption: wee willingly admit, receiue, and allow of your owne bookes, which your selfe make vse of in disputation; to their iudgment will we stand, if you can conuince vs by these you winne the field.
That which you add of the book of Ester, and of almost three whole chapters of Daniel, is nothing but cavilling. The book of Ester we account Canonical, as much as by Gods authority is ⟨p. 41⟩written inb Hebrew: but those fragments, which commonly are annexed to that holy history of Ester, we cannot so highly account of: as for those three chapters, they are none of Daniels, of which read, if you please,c Hieromes preface upon Daniel. And there you shall find, that not the Anabaptists only, but the ancient Jews have rejected and derided them. But, Campian, why do you trifle thus? were you wont to build much upon the authority of those books? did you in these lay the foundations of your faith? why then do you seek to make us odious by these books, which if they were never so Canonical, would further your cause never a whit the more?
That which you adde of the booke of Ester, and of almost three whole chapters of Daniel, is nothing but cauilling. The booke of Ester we account Canonicall, as much as by Gods authoritie is ⟨p. 41⟩written inb Hebrew: but those fragments, which commonly are annexed to that holy history of Ester, we cannot so highly account of: as for those three chapters, they are none of Daniels, of which read, if you please,c Hieromes preface vpon Daniel. And there you shall find, that not the Anabaptists only, but the auncient Iewes haue reiected and derided them. But, Campian, why doe you trifle thus? were you wont to build much vpon the authority of those bookes? did you in these lay the foundations of your faith? why then do you seeke to make vs odious by these bookes, which if they were neuer so Canonical, would further your cause neuer a whit the more?
bDVR. As if the Hebrew tongue were the rule of the Canon, and of divine authority. WHIT. pag. 90. No book is a part of the new Testament, which is written in Latin, yet is not Greek the rule of the Canon.DVR. As if the Hebrevv tongue were the rule of the Canon, and of diuine authority. WHIT. pag. 90. No booke is a part of the new Testament, which is vvritten in Latin, yet is not Greeke the rule of the Canon.
cDVR. Hicrome to Ruffinus, seemeth to approve those three chapters of Daniel. WHIT. pag. 92. Erasmus noted that Hierome dealt craftily, having in his preface showed he thought otherwise.DVR. Hicrome to Ruffinus, seemeth to approue those three chapters of Daniel. WHIT. pag. 92. Erasmus noted that Hierome delt craftely, hauing in his preface shevved he thought othervvise.
Now you much commend Augustine's modesty. Who, 1say you, hath made a Catalogue of the books of holy Scripture, far better then either the Jews, or Sectaries. I could wish you Jesuits had a little more modesty, that ye might be more like Augustine; for all men speak and cry out of your male pertness and insolency. But Augustine counted those books Canonical, which we do not; true, I deny it not, but what of that? is not Augustine opposite to Hierome? for Hierome expressly denies those books to be numbered in the Canon. And Augustine setting down the whole Canon of the Scripture, doth annex these to it. It seemeth there is a great difference in their judgements: for those which Hierome denies, Augustine affirmeth to be Canonical: both famous men and such as have deserved well of the Church of God; how then may we satisfy Augustine, whom Campian objecteth unto us? No otherwise then as the truth is. The terms of Apocrypha and Canonical Hierome useth in one sense, and Augustine in another: Hierome accounted all these books Apocrypha, which were not written in Hebrew: Augustine though in deed and in truth he differed not, yet he gave this name especially to those books, which ⟨p. 42⟩were not fraught with fables and lies, such as those times afforded very many. For so he writeth lib. 15. cap. 23. de civit. Dei. Though there be some truth found in the Apocrypha books, yet they have no Canonical authority, there being so many lies in them. Therefore he names in the Canon the book of Judith and Toby and Ecclesiasticus, & other of that sort, because there was more truth and sincerity in them, then in those common and divulged fables. Therefore Augustine useth the term of Canonical Scripture more largely then Hierome, and of Apocrypha more strictly: unless happily we will suppose that of set purpose Augustine would differ from Hierome in a thing of that moment. Besides the Romish Cardinal,2 of whom we spake before, writeth that certain Councils with Augustine accounted these books Canonical because they were rules for manners, not for faith and doctrine. And what reason Augustine had to plead for the book of Wisdom, 3least it should be turned out of the Canon, let him look to it himself;
Now you much commend Augustines modestie. VVho, 1say you, hath made a Catalogue of the bookes of holy Scripture, farre better then either the Iewes, or Sectaries. I could wish you Iesuits had a little more modestie, that ye might be more like Augustine; for all men speake and cry out of your male pertnes and insolency. But Augustine counted those bookes Canouicall, which we do not; true, I deny it not, but what of that? is not Augustine opposite to Hierome? for Hierome expressely denies those bookes to be nūbred in the Canon. And Augustine setting downe the whole Canon of the Scripture, doth annex these to it. It seemeth there is a great difference in their iudgements: for those which Hierome denies, Augustine affirmeth to be Canonicall: both famous men and such as haue deserued well of the Church of God; how then may we satisfie Augustine, whom Campian obiecteth vnto vs? No otherwise then as the truth is. The termes of Apochrypha and Canonicall Hierome vseth in one sense, and Augustine in another: Hierome accounted all these bookes Apochrypha, which were not written in Hebrew: Augustine though in deed and in truth he differed not, yet he gaue this name especially to those bookes, which ⟨p. 42⟩were not fraught with fables and lies, such as those times afforded very many. For so he writeth lib. 15. cap. 23. de ciuit. Dei. Though there be some truth found in the Apochrypha bookes, yet they haue no Canonicall authoritie, there being so many lies in them. Therefore he names in the Canon the booke of Iudith and Toby and Ecclesiasticus, & other of that sort, because there was more truth and sinceritie in them, then in those common and diuulged fables. Therefore Augustine vseth the terme of Canonicall Scripture more largely then Hierome, and of Apochrypha more strictly: vnlesse happily we will suppose that of set purpose Augustine would differ from Hierome in a thing of that moment. Besides the Romish Cardinal,2 of whom we spake before, writeth that certeine Councels with Augustine accounted these bookes Canonicall because they were rules for manners, not for faith and doctrine. And what reason Augustine had to plead for the booke of Wisdome, 3least it should be turned out of the Canon, let him looke to it himselfe;
1August. de doctrin. Christ. lib. 2. cap. 8.
2Caietan. in fine comenta. in histor. veter. Testameuti.
this very book Hierom, (whom you Jesuits usually prefer before Augustine) hath by name excluded, and from the self-same place where Augustine confirmeth the authority of this book, every man may gather, that it was not commonly received in the Canon; for when Augustine cited a testimony out of that book. He was taken away, 1least wickedness should alter his understanding, many of the brethren who were present cried out; It was not alleged out of a Canonical book. dNow it is like, they never would have rejected the argument and testimony of this speech, if the authority of that book had been Canonical in the Church. And yet I deny not but that Antiquity might think more reverently of this book, then of other of the books of Apochryphaes. For I ⟨p. 43⟩observe in Eusebius, thatc Melita, the Bishop of Sardis, in a certain Epistle written to Onesimus, wherein he setteth down exactly the number of the sacred books of the old Testament, and accounteth this book as one of the Canon: yet he mentioneth not one of the others which we call Apocrypha, neither Toby, nor Judith, nor the Maccabees, nor Ecclesiasticus, nor yet any of the rest, for which you strive so much; yet he affirmeth that he took great pains to know exactly those ancient books, and professeth that he fully attained his end.4 After, saith he, I had learned exactly what books belong to the old Testament, I sent them here under written unto you. And this it may be induced Augustine to attribute the more to this book, and yet it cannot be proved hence, as you would have it, that this book was Authentical and Canonical by the account of the Church, for Augustine himself witnesseth that it was not allowed as Canonical by the judgement of the Church; neither indeed if the Church would have given it all the allowance she could, could she have made it Authentical, except it had before it own Authenticalnes in it self from above.
this very booke Hierom, (whom you Iesuits vsually preferre before Augustine) hath by name excluded, and from the selfe-same place where Augustine confirmeth the authority of this booke, euery man may gather, that it was not commonly receiued in the Canon; for when Augustine cited a testimony out of that booke. He was taken away, 1least wickednes should alter his vnderstanding, many of the brethren who were present cried out; It was not alledged out of a Canonicall booke. dNow it is like, they neuer would haue reiected the argument and testimony of this speech, if the authoritie of that booke had been Canonicall in the Church. And yet I denie not but that Antiquitie might thinke more reuerently of this booke, then of other of the bookes of Apochryphaes. For I ⟨p. 43⟩obserue in Eusebius, thatc Melita, the Bishop of Sardis, in a certeine Epistle written to Onesimus, wherin he setteth downe exactly the number of the sacred bookes of the old Testament, and accounteth this booke as one of the Canon: yet he mentioneth not one of the others which we call Apochrypha, neither Toby, nor Iudith, nor the Macchabees, nor Ecclesiasticus, nor yet any of the rest, for which you striue so much; yet he affirmeth that he tooke great paines to know exactly those auncient bookes, and professeth that he fully attained his end.4 After, saith he, I had learned exactly what bookes belong to the old Testament, I sent them here vnder written vnto you. And this it may be induced Augustine to attribute the more to this booke, and yet it cannot be proued hence, as you would haue it, that this booke was Authenticall and Canonicall by the account of the Church, for Augustine himselfe witnesseth that it was not allowed as Canonicall by the iudgement of the Church; neither indeed if the Church would haue giuen it all the allowance she could, could she haue made it Authenticall, except it had before it owne Authenticalnes in it selfe from aboue.
1Wisd. 4.11.
dDVR. But you revive not Augustines answer, and how he objected against them, the consent of all Bishops, faithful Laity. &c. WHIT. pag. 97. Augustine doth not accuse them of impudency or sacrilege for denying it, nor reproves them much, only he saith it is better then other treatises; which I acknowledge. And the consents of the former he alleged to prove that a sentence of this book, is not lightly to be rejected, seeing many Churches did read it, though all did not receive it, as himselfe saith de civit. Dei lib. 27. cap. 20.DVR. But you reuiue not Augustines ansvvere, and hovv he obiected against them, the consent of all Bishops, faithf•ll Laitie. &c. WHIT. pag. 97. Augustine doth not accuse them of impudency or sacriledge for denying it, nor reprou•s them much, only he saith it is better then other treatises; vvhich I acknovvledge. And the consents of the former he alledged to proue that a sentence of this booke, is not lightly to be reiected, seeing many Churches did reade it, though all did not receiue it, as himselfe saith de ciuit. Dei lib. 27. cap. 20.
cDVR. Melito affirmeth this book to be Canonical. WHIT. pag. 98. Be it so, yet he rejects all your other and what have you got by it? But by the name of Wisdom some think, he meaneth the Proverbs of Solomon.DVR. Melito affirmeth this booke to be Canonicall. WHIT. pag. 98. Be it so, yet he reiectes all your other and what haue you got by it? But by the name of Wisdome some thinke, he meaneth the Prouerbs of Salomon.
But you who glory so greatly in Antiquity, in the voice of the Church, in Councils, what will you answer to the Laodicene Council,1 which forbids the reading of those books, which are without the Canon, and commandeth the reading of those only which are of the Canon of the old and new Testament:f But which are they? are all those which the ⟨p. 44⟩Tridentine Council hath put in the Catalogue? nothing less, but those only which our Church doth hold Canonical. If Campian, you will stand to the judgement of this Council, neither the book of Wisdom, nor any one of the other shall have place among the Canonical Scriptures. Now then whatsoever Augustine should say, if he were alive, doth not much trouble us: for whatsoever he should say in this kind, he could speak nothing against us, but it would touch the Fathers of the Laodicene Council, whose decree in this point, touching the Canonical Scriptures, either he had seen, or at least might take notice of it.
But you who glory so greatly in Antiquitie, in the voice of the Church, in Councels, what will you answere to the Laodicene Councell,1 which forbids the reading of those bookes, which are without the Canon, and commaundeth the reading of those only which are of the Canon of the old and new Testament:f But which are they? are all those which the ⟨p. 44⟩Tridentine Councell hath put in the Catalogue? nothing lesse, but those only which our Church doth hold Canonicall. If Campian, you will stand to the iudgement of this Councell, neither the booke of Wisdome, nor any one of the other shall haue place among the Canonicall Scriptures. Now then whatsoeuer Augustine should say, if he were aliue, doth not much trouble vs: for whatsoeuer he should say in this kind, he could speake nothing against vs, but it would touch the Fathers of the Laodicene Councell, whose decree in this point, touching the Canonicall Scriptures, either he had seene, or at least might take notice of it.
1Concil. Laodic. Canon. 59.
fDVR. It hath been answered a thousand times, that as yet in this age all the books were not received into the Canon. WHIT. pag. 102. Then by your confession, for 300. years after Christ these books were not in the Canon; it skilleth not much what the latter Churches have affirmed, when the purest and most ancient Churches affirm the same wedo. DVR. The Councels of Carthage, Florence, and Trent, have allowed them for Canonical. WHIT. pag. 102. We acknowledge not the two last to be lawful Councels, the first allowed it for manners, not doctrine and faith, and if the authority of it be so great with you, then you may not call your Pope universal Bishop? for that Councell denied it to him. Carthag. 3. cap. 26. distinct. 99. prima sedis.DVR. It hath been answered a thousand times, that as yet in this age all the bookes vvere not receiued into the Canon. WHIT. pag. 102. Then by your confession, for 300. yeeres after Christ these bookes were not in the Canon; it skilleth not much what the latter Churches haue affirmed, when the purest and most auncient Churches affirme the same wedo. DVR. The Councels of Carthage, Florence, and Trent, haue allovved them for Canonicall. WHIT. pag. 102. We acknowledge not the two last to be lawfull Councels, the first allowed it for manners, not doctrine and faith, and if the authoritie of it bee so great with you, then you may not call your Pope vniuersall Bishoppe? for that Councell denied it to him. Carthag. 3. cap. 26. distinct. 99. prima sedis.
Now for the things which follow you show much colour but little reason. You call this a horrible and detestable shift. Then do you, Campian, if you can, drive us out of this hold. Me thinketh it is so safe and well fortified, that it will easily bear off and repel all your assaults. Though, say you, their arms be blazed never so far abroad by their own disciples, though they buy and sell benefices, though in their sermons they cry out against Catholics, though they procure them the sword, rack and gallows, yet are they overcome, naught set by, horrible in mens sight, and quite overthrown. But yet young Friar, •ow thus much, by Gods blessing we hitherto stand upright on our feet, neither ever were we soiled at your hands, but have long ago by the help of God scattered, overthrown, and put to flight many of your armies. And the whole huge form of your pontifical and glorious synagogue hath long since tottered, and in short time will fall to the ground, as Dagon before the Ark; unless you Jesuits manfully uphold and sustain it: for it is impossible for us to be vanquished of you, in the defence of this cause. Therefore with good courage and cheerfulness we pursue this flight, nothing doubting but that the Lord in the end will repress you, and all ⟨p. 45⟩the enemies of his name and glory, and make you his footstool. And for that you write, touching buying & selling of benefices, if any be yet amongst us, it is but the relics of your wicked practises heretofore among us. For you know the custom of the Romish Court, you know their filthiness, their avarice, their Simony, yea you know how the whole world crieth out, and that continually of your most gainful Merchandises. Have you now leisure since you left Rome, to pry into our carriage, are all things so well at home, that you can without shame find faults abroad? Suppose you were now become honest and holy; yet you shall never be able to clear your Church of those filthy blemishes, wherewith it hath bin defiled in former times. And if there be any yet amongst us that use so foul a trade, they are well worthy to hear such reproaches from you, as such practises do deserve. But I marvel the less that you object to us buying and selling of Benefices, when you complain of our cruelty. Now, good God, are we so cruel and you so mild? what shall I say to it or what answer may I make?
Now for the things which follow you shew much colour but little reason. You call this a horrible and detestable shift. Then doe you, Campian, if you can, driue vs out of this hold. Me thinketh it is so safe and well fortified, that it will easily beare off and repell all your assaults. Though, say you, their armes be blased neuer so far abroad by their owne disciples, though they buy and sell benefices, though in their sermons they cry out against Catholikes, though they procure them the sword, racke and gallowes, yet are they ouercome, naught set by, horrible in mens sight, and quite ouerthrowne. But yet young Frier, •ow thus much, by Gods blessing we hitherto stand vpright on our seete, neither euer were we soyled at your hands, but haue long agoe by the helpe of God scattered, ouerthrowne, and put to flight many of your armies. And the whole huge forme of your pontificall and glorious synagogue hath long since tottered, and in short time will fall to the ground, as Dagon before the Arke; vnlesse you Iesuits manfully vphold and susteine it: for it is impossible for vs to be vanquished of you, in the defence of this cause. Therfore with good courage and cheerefulnes we pursue this flight, nothing doubting but that the Lord in the end will represse you, and all ⟨p. 45⟩the enemies of his name and glorie, and make you his footstoole. And for that you write, touching buying & selling of benefices, if any be yet amongst vs, it is but the reliques of your wicked practises heretofore among vs. For you know the custome of the Romish Court, you know their filthines, their auarice, their Simony, yea you know how the whole world crieth out, and that continually of your most gainfull Marchandizes. Haue you now leisure since you left Rome, to prie into our carriage, are all things so wel at home, that you can without shame find faults abroad? Suppose you were now become honest and holy; yet you shall neuer bee able to cleere your Church of those filthie blemishes, wherewith it hath bin desiled in former times. And if there be any yet amongst vs that vse so foule a trade, they are well worthy to heare such reproaches from you, as such practises do deserue. But I maruell the lesse that you obiect to vs buying and selling of Benefices, when you complaine of our crueltie. Now, good God, are we so cruell and you so mild? what shall I say to it or what answere may I make?
the iudgements of the two Apostles, S. Paul, & S. Iames, are not contrarie each to other, when the one saith a man is iustified by faith without workes; and the other saith, that it is a vaine faith which is without workes; because S.
DVR. Basil excludes only those workes which are wrought by the sole power of freewill. WHIT. pag. 38. Basil excludes not only the workes wrought by the power of freewill, but euen those which proceed from faith and grace; for he produced S. Paul, and Saint Peter whom he denies to haue been iustified by workes, yet had they both faith and grace.
iDVR. Nazianzene excludeth only that high knowledge of divine mysteries. WHIT. pag. 41. Nazianzene excludes not only that high knowledge of divine mysteries, but also by it all other works; for seeing it is the most excellent, and so excluding the greatest, he must needs exclude the less.DVR. Nazianzene excludeth only that high knowledge of diuine mysteries. WHIT. pag. 41. Nazianzene excludes not only that high knowledge of diuine mysteries, but also by it all other workes; for seeing it is the most excellent, and so excluding the greatest, he must needs exclude the lesse.
kDVR. Saint James speaketh not of a feigned faith: for how can be thē speak of Abrahams faith? how is it feigned to believe that God is? WHIT. pag. 42. S. James speaketh of a feigned faith, as is plain vers. 14. for it is in words only vers. 15.16. it giveth nothing, when relief is required. verse 17. it is without works and dead. vers. 18 only that is true faith, which can be showed by works, here no works vers. 19. It is only such a faith as the devils have: so a feigned and dead faith. pag. 44. And Augustine thus expoundeth it, De fide & oper. Cap. 14. & in Psal. 31. in Praefat. and pag 45. Though Abrahams faith was a true faith, because it showed it self by true fruits and true works: that proves not, but their faith is feigned who have no works. Of which Saint James speaketh. pag. 46. faith is not the less feigned and vain, because it believes that God is: seeing Saint James affirmeth the devils believe as much.DVR. Saint Iames speaketh not of a faigned faith: for how can be thē speake of Abrahams faith? how is it fayned to beleeue that God is? WHIT. pag. 42. S. Iames speak•th of a fayned faith, as is plaine vers. 14. for it is in words only vers. 15.16. it giueth nothing, when reliefe is required. verse 17. it is without workes and dead. vers. 18 only that is true faith, which can be shewed by workes, heere no workes vers. 19. It is only such a faith as the diuels haue: so a fayned and dead fa•th. pag. 44. And Augustine thus expoundeth it, De fide & oper. Cap. 14. & in Psal. 31. in Praefat. and pag 45. Though Abrahams faith was a true faith, because it shewed it selfe by true fruites and true workes: that proues not, but their faith is fayned who haue no workes. Of which Saint Iames speaketh. pag. 46. faith is not the lesse fayned and vaine, because it beleeues that God is: seeing Saint Iames affirmeth the di•els beleeue as much.
lDVR. It is ridiculous to think, that Saint James should teach men how to show themselves just, and speak nothing of true justice. WHIT. pag 47. We say not that Saint James teacheth only how a man may obtain the opinion of justice with men, but how he may show and declare himself by certain proofs and arguments to be endued with true justice. And that this place toucheth the declaration of true faith by works, and so the demonstration of our justification, not we, but your own men do so teach. Thomas Aquin. in Jacob. 2. Glossa-Ordin. in Jacob.DVR. It is ridiculous to thinke, that Saint Iames should teach men how to shew themselues iust, and speake nothing of true iustice. WHIT. pag 47. We say not that Saint Iames teacheth only how a man may obtaine the opinion of iustice with men, but how he may shew and declare himselfe by certaine proofes and arguments to be indued with true iustice. And that this place toucheth the declaration of true faith by workes, and so the demonstration of our iustification, not we, but your owne men do so teach. Thomas Aquin. in Iacob. 2. Glossa-Ordin. in Iacob.
mDVR. Augustine maketh nothing for you, but against you. WHIT. pag. 50. Augustine affirmeth directly that S. James speaketh of a vain and feigned faith, which is as much as we here produce him for.DVR. Augustine maketh nothing for you, but against you. WHIT. pag. 50. Augustin• affirm•th directly that S. Iames speaketh of a vaine and fayned faith, which is as much as we here produce him for.
Fathers also, and euery mans owne experience: howsoeuer these words may be vnderstood of mankind, as he was sometime in Adam. For thus he writeth a little before.
He made man from the beginning, and left him in the hand of his owne counsaile; if he speake of the first condition and state of man, and of his perfect and vncorrupt nature, wherein he was created of the Lord, he speaketh very true:
sDVR. Saint John did n•t worship the Angel, but took the person of those who held that Angels were to be worshipped with sacrifices, that he being forbidden, they might be reproved in him. WHIT. pag. 72. John did not as you say; for neither offered he any sacrifice•, neither affirmeth he that he dissembled; but saith directly: I fell down to worship before him. You on the contrary say, he fell not down to worship. And your Thomas upon Apoc. 19. saith, S. John intended to worship with Dulia. And upon Apocal. 22. with Latria.DVR. Saint Iohn did n•t worship the Angell, but tooke the person of those who held that Angels were to be worshipped with sacrifices, that he being forbidden, they might be reproued in him. WHIT. pag. 72. John did not as you say; for neither offered he any sacrifice•, neither affirmeth he that he dissembled; but saith directly: I fell downe to worship before him. You on the cōtrary say, he fell not downe to worship. And your Thomas vpon Apoc. 19. saith, S. John intended to worship with Dulia. And vpon Apocal. 22. with Latria.
tDVR. The ancient Fathers have cited the book of Toby, a• Irene, Cyprian, Hula. WHIT. pag. 73. Then will it follow: that out of what book soever the Fathers have alleged any testimony, it must be of the Canon, & •o the 3 & 4. books of Esdra; for Augustine, Cyprian, & Ambrose cite them, yet your Church rejecteth them. DVR. Hierome putteth them out of the Jewish Canon, not of the Canon of the Church. WHIT. pag. 74. It is strange those Fathers should make them Canonical, when i• Hieromes time long after them, they were not; no they were neither in the Canons of the Church, nor of the Jews Canon. Hieron. in Prasat. in lib. Salom. DVR. Your English Synagogues read Toby very much. WHIT. pag. 76. And other Apochryphae•, but accounteth them not in the Canon.DVR. The auncient Fathers haue cited the booke of Toby, a• Irene, Cyprian, H•la. WHIT. pag. 73. Then will it follovv: th•t out of what booke soeuer the Fathers haue alledged any testimony, it must be of the Canon, & •o the 3 & 4. bookes of Esdra; for Augustine, Cyprian, & Ambrose cite them, yet your Church reiecteth them. DVR. Hierome putteth them out of the Iewish Canon, not of the Canon of the Church. WHIT. pag. 74. It is strange those Fathers should make them Canonicall, when i• Hieromes time long after them, they were not; no they were neither in the Canons of the Church, nor of the Ievves Canon. Hieron. in Prasat. in lib. Salom. DVR. Your English Synagogues reade Toby very much. WHIT. pag. 76. And other Apochryphae•, but accounteth them not in the Canon.
uDVR. pag. 76. If you de•y free wil• to man by nature; a•d that be cannot but sin, you establish the Fate of the S•• ickes. WHIT. pag. 77. No more, then when we say Angels necessarily do good, and devils ever evil. Again we deny not mans freewill to natural and civill actions, but to the duties of faith; because till the sonne hath made him free, he must needs be a servant of sin.DVR. pag. 76. If you de•y free wil• to man by nature; a•d that be cannot but sinne, you establish the Fate of the S•• ickes. WHIT. pag. 77. No more, then vvhen vve say Angells necessarily doe good, and diuels euer euill. Againe vve deny not mans freewill to naturall and ciuill actions, but to the duties of faith; because till the sonne hath made him free, he must needs be a seruant of sinne.
xDVR. The Scripture doth not teach that men have lost free will by nature. WHIT. p. 78. What then meaneth it, 1. Cor. 2.14. If man cannot understand the things of God and eternal life, how can he will them or do them? Phil. 2.13. The will and deed is wrought in us by God. Gen. 6.5. If he can think nothing but evil, where is free will?DVR. The Scripture doth not teach that men haue lost free will by nature. WHIT. p. 78. What then meaneth it, 1. Cor. 2.14. If man cannot vnderstand the things of God and eternall life, how can hee will them or doe them? Phil. 2.13. The will and deede is wrought in vs by God. Gen. 6.5. If hee can thinke nothing but euill, where is free will?
yDVR. The Fathers do not deny free vvill. WHIT. pag. 79. August. Enchirid. cap. 30. Ambrose de vocat. gent. cap. 9. Bernard de libr. arb•t. do deny it.DVR. The Fathers doe not deny free vvill. WHIT. pag. 79. August. Enchirid. cap. 30. Ambrose de vocat. gent. cap. 9. Bernard de libr. arb•t. doe deny it.
12Ecelesi•it. 15. vers. 14.
bDVR. Many things were declared to the Prophets by dreams. WHIT. pag. 87. Must I therefore believe every dream written in the Apocrypha books, as divine oracles? neither did that dream make the Maccabees pray to Onia or Jeremiah, but to the Lord only. 2. Mac. 15.21. DVR. The Jews thought that Christ had prayed to Elijah, when Matth. 27.47. he said Eli Eli Lamb. &c. therefore praying to Saints was familiar and common with them. WHIT. pag 87. It is plain that the Jews said this only to deri•e Christ, whom they thought God had forsaken, and therefore he fled to Elijah for help.DVR. Many things were declared to the Prophets by dreames. WHIT. pag. 87. Must I therefore beleeue euery dreame written in the Apochrypha bookes, as diuine oracles? neither did that dreame make the Macchabees pray to Onia or Jeremie, but to the Lord only. 2. Mac. 15.21. DVR. The Ievves thought that Christ had praied to Eliah, vvhen Matth. 27.47. he said Eli Eli Lamb. &c. therefore praying to Saints vvas familiar and common vvith them. WHIT. pag 87. It is plaine that the Iewes said this only to deri•e Christ, whom they thought God had forsaken, and therefore he fled to Eliah for helpe.
