WILLIAM WHITAKERS. The answere to the first Reason.

THat Campian, which made you most cheerefull in the cause you haue vndertaken, and boulder then a Iesuite (being newlie come out of your den or cab­bine where you haue lurked these diuers yeeres) to proclame warre against vs all, and challenge to the combate the most valiant of vs; that, you saie, was the eui­dent apprehension of our distrust and diffidence in our cause. But what manhood is this for so valou­rous a man as you make shew to be, to prouoke and with sharpe warre to pursue so timerous aduersaries, who are readie to betake themselues to their heeles, not daring to stand to it, but distrusting their owne strength? But tell vs in what things our distrust hath bin so sensible. There are many things, say you, which euidently bewray the aduersaries mistrust in the cause. Verelie if boldnes in oppugning and withstanding Religion were of as great force, as vsually it is in ma­king of warre, and scaling the enemies walles, and racing his townes, we might well feare your furious and desperate attempts: for whatsoeuer could be compassed by rage, furie, and crueltie, that hath not in this combate and contention been wanting. But such weapons cannot dare religion and truth, nei­ther can they displace it. Let it be graunted, we haue not been so cheerefull and readie in the defence of a good cause as we ought, and as the cause it selfe well deserued, neither haue we put to flight your forces [Page 24]so soone as we ought to haue vanquished thē, yet we neuer gaue ground, we neuer turned our backs vpon you, neither euer sled out of the field.DVR. You boats much of your valour. but vvhether thinke you is he valorous or fearefull, vvho dare not other­vvise buckle vvith his ad­uersarie, but vpon condition he may forbid him what wea­pons he list, and choose for him­selfe vvhat he list? Now here is your valour, you forbid vs the vveapons of the Church, Councels, Fa­thers. You only leaue vs the weapons of the Scriptures? WH. Pag. 4. He that will ouercome in this cause must onely vse those weapons, which are allowed in this kind of sight. For it is not lawfull heere, as in warre, to take any weapon, by which you can wound your enemie. But weapons must be fetched out of the armorie of the Scriptures, and the spirit of God, or else there vvill be no foyling of an aduersary. And this is that which the Scriptures doe warrant; and Constantine commanded the Fathers of the Nicene Councel to vse against the Arrians, and to end controuersies; the bookes of the Euangelists and A­postles, and the oracles of the old Prophets. Theodoret. lib. 2. cap. 6. And the like teacheth Hillarie de Trinit. lib. 7. August. Epist. 3. and contr. liter. Petil. Donat. lib. 3. cap. 6. and in diuers other places. Why doe you then repoue this thing in vs? Tell me, vvhose cause thinke you is best? vvhether ours, vvho are content vvith the S [...]riptures alone, and being armed vvith them can defend our ovvne, and refel others; or yours, vvhich in no case can be safe, if the cause must be tri­ed by the Scripture only. Therefore at the fi [...]st you are forced to confesse that you must come into the field vnarmed and naked, if no vveapons vvill be affor­ded you besides the Scriptures. For tell vs Campian if you can, and remember the bypast times. Did we euer cūningly auoid any disputation? did we euer refuse any combate? did we euer shift off any of your offers and challenges? But how often haue we publikely entred the combate with you? how often haue we refuted your oft iterated Sophistications? what writing of yours is yet vnanswered by vs? or what course of disputation haue we not yeelded to? Are not all those disputations held at Wittenberge, Ratesbone, Augusta, Spire, Wormes, Bearne, Possia, London, Cambridge, Oxford, most plentifull and pregnant witnesses, with what spirits, with what learning, with what truth we defended our Religion? what shew or signe of feare, or diffidence found you amongst vs? nay rather how true and singular confi­dence did there appeare in vs? you it is, and not we, when it comes to a trial indeed that begins to sweat, chaunge countenance, tremble euery ioynt of you, and bewray your deepe distrust and the naughtines of your cause. Wherefore, Campian, take it from me, [Page 25]if you thinke our distrustfulnes will helpe you any thing, you much deceiue your selfe, for if we haue with courage stood against your predecessors so far surpassing you, we will not yeeld a haire to you? nor feare your manner of conflict, being so childish in the iudgement of all men. But this diffidence, you so cast in our dish, tell vs what it is, and how it ap­peares so clearely, Forsooth we distrust our hold in the Scriptures, and the maiestie of Gods bookes we haue most filthilie corrupted. This indeed is a very great cri­mination you obiect to vs, and an vndoubted proofe of our distrust: for they who are not able to main­taine the Religion they professe, vnlesse they lay vio­lent hands vpon the Scriptures, and impeach the sa­cred authoritie of those heauenly bookes, the cause on their side must be very naught and desperate in­deed. Therfore I graunt vnto you, that it was very fearefull desperation, which made the Manachies re­nounce the old Testament wholy, and cancell part of the new: the same also made Ebion reiect all Paules Epistles, and other heretikes to do so too: for there was nothing fitter for them to vphold those their monstrous opinions, then by denying those bookes of holy Scripture.

But I pray you Campian, let vs see how these things make for your purpose: or what it is wherein we are so like those forenamed Heretikes. Me thinkes it lit­tle beseemeth your learning and eloquence, to slaun­der vs, and to pinne vpon our sleeues such odious crimes of auncient heretikes so vndeseruedly. If we haue shaken hands with the Manachees, if with the Ebionits, tell vs wherein? But if we are culpable of no such thing, the Lord shall iudge your outragious and bold slaunders, and maintaine our vprightnes and innocency. For who euer thought and spoke more honorably, reuerently and with more due regard of [Page 26]the Scriptures then we? who haue receiued and im­braced all Scripture giuen by inspiration, as the very voice of God himself; holding it for the only myste­rie of our faith and religion, and so resting in it, as that we desire no other helpe as necessary to saluati­on? which if we had not with more diligence and deuotion defended, then you euer did, long ere this the glorie of it had perished, and it had bin counted as a dead letter: For what haue we done for these ma­ny yeeres with more endeuour and diligence, then maintaine the maiesty and excellencie of the Scrip­tures, which you haue so vnworthily violated? And yet you blush not to match vs with the Manachees and Ebionits, who haue violently laid most impure and villanous hands vpon those sacred bookes. But, say you, Luther that most wicked Apostata, called the Epistle of S. Iames a contentious, swelling, barren and strawen Epistle, and iudged it vnworthy the spirit of an Apostle: still the fatte would be in the fire, Campian, if you had not one fit of rayling at Luther, for this is to shew your selfe a right Iesuite, as indeed you are, shamelessely and audaciously to breake out into ray­ling, and specially to teare Luther with most bitter reproches. This is your facultie and profession, this you haue vndertaken to do, whatsoeuer you [...] leaue vndone: surely he is an happy man, whom the Lord thus honoreth with the enmitie and hatred of such wicked men: for he cannot chuse but be an excellent man, whom wicked men do so deadly pursue. But you obiect against Luther his Apostasie: look to your selfe Campian, if you may not bee more iust­ly accused of this crime: for doubtlesse you are ei­ther an Apostata, or you were a cunning hypocrite. But if it be Apostasie to forsake Apostataes, then was Luther such an Apostata. For hee abandoned theeues, heretikes, Apostataes, and separated him­selfe [Page 27]from that Curch, in which that daily Aposta­sie from religion,2. Thess. 2.3 which the Apostle did foretell, was now come to the height: they then who would not be Apostataes must flie from the Apostasie of your Church.

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:Lib. 2. c. pa 23. Euse­bius aduētured to write expresly of this Epistle thus.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. 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,Hieronym. in Catalogo. 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 [Page 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,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. 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.Caluin. in argument. in Epist. Ia­cob. I, saith Caluin, willingly and without controuersie receiue this Epistle, because I see no iust cause to reiect it. 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 [Page 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; 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. & 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 theDVR. 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. first and pu­rest Churches. And yet to let Luther passe, we haue no [Page 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. 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 notDVR. 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. expressely vse these words,Rom. 3.24.28. Faith alone. And the auncient do so expound and in­terpret S. Paul. Ambrose saith;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. They are iustified only by faith, it is the gift of God. 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. Basil saith; They are iustified by faith alone in Christ. 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. Nazianzene 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 [Page 31]denies iustification by faith only, yea affirmes that we are iustified by workes. We answere, that the A­postle speaketh of aDVR. 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. 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 isDVR. 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. 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 [Page 32]and Paul, that you may see that we are not broa­chers of any Noueltie. Wherefore, saithDVR. 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. Augustine; Aug. quaes [...]. 85 quae [...]t. 76. 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. 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 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, saithDVR 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. Hierome, Hieron. i [...] Prologo Ga­liato. What­soeuer [Page 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, Epiphan. in lib. de men­sur. & Pon­der. but 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.Hieron. prae­fat. in lib. Solomon. 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. 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:Caietan. in cap 24. Mattb. And verily Cardinall Caietan, feares not to auouch that he that writ the booke of [Page 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 eueryDVR. 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. 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? [Page 35]Take this from me: if you can demonstrate that we haue condemned or reiected any one booke, or anyDVR. 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. 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?

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,Dan. 10. & 12. [...]sal. 91.11. 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 yourDVR. 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. 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 [Page 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, forDVR. 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. S. Paul condemnes Worshipping of An­gels. Coloss. 2.18. And the Angell once and againe called S. Iohn from this kind of worship.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. See thou doest it not, Apoc. 19.10 & 22 9. Tob. 12. I am thy fellow seruant, and one of thy brethren: worship God. As for Raphael inDVR. 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. 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 beleeueDVR. 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. free will, though he an hundred times should repeate [Page 37]that sentence;Ecclesiast. 15.17. Gen. 6.5. before man is life and death: seeing that theDVR. 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? Scripture teacheth that man lost his freedome by sinne: the same thing teach theDVR. 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. 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.Ecelesi [...]it. 15. vers. 14. 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: 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 theDVR. 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. 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 [Page 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 theDVR. 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. 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 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. dreame 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 [Page 39]the one, nor the other, Campian [...] we haue done no­thing frowardly; 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, These are Ba [...]uch, Tob [...]as, Iud [...]th, Su [...]ent a. Ec [...]ejias [...]i­cus. t [...]o Mac­chabees. H [...]ron prae f [...]t. in Ier. seauen 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,Hieron ad Domnion, & Rogatian. 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 [Page 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:Epist. Iacob. Ep ad Heb. Epist. Juda. Epist. 2. Pet. Epist. 2. & 3. Ioan. 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. 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 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 [Page 41]written inDVR. 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. 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,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. 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?

Now you much commend Augustines modestie. VVho, August. de doctrin. Christ. lib. 2. cap. 8. say 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 [Page 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,Caietan. in fine comen­ta. in histor. veter. Te­stameuti. 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, De predest. Sanct. c. 24. least it should be turned out of the Canon, let him looke to it himselfe; 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, Wisd. 4.11. least wickednes should alter his vnderstanding, many of the brethren who were present cried out; It was not alledged out of a Ca­nonicall booke. 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. Now 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 [Page 43]obserue in Eusebius, thatDVR. 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. 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.Eusebius lib. 4. cap. 26. 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.

But you who glory so greatly in Antiquitie, in the voice of the Church, in Councels, what will you an­swere to the Laodicene Councell,Concil. Laodic. Ca­non. 59. 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: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. But which are they? are all those which the [Page 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.

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 [Page 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? sure it is, there is no­thing more inhumane, then cruelty, or more oppo­site to a Christians vertue: for the disciples of Christ ought to be gentle, clement, and meeke, master-like: what then? are we more cruell then you? I will ne­uer deny this triall, that their cause should be iudged the worst, whose cruelty appeares to be the greatest: I call to witnes all the people of the Christian world, who haue yet any sense of humanity and equity re­maining in them. Let Italy speake, also Germany, Spaine, Fraunce, and our England. It were tedious to recite the horrible murders, the fearefull burnings, and exquisite punishments you exercised amongst vs. Your cruelty is knowne, and is yet fresh in me­mory, neither shall euer be buried in obliuion: what like to these did we euer practise, or wherein is our [Page 46]cruelty so great? was it because we suffered not our throats to be cut by you, nor receiued your weapons into our bodies, nor laid our neckes vpon the block, nor willingly gaue vp our liues, that we might giue you leaue to liue as you list. This is it indeed you wished for, for this you labour, and goe about: we poore wretches are accounted cruell, because we liue, and liue to withstand your proceedings. But I doubt not but all indifferent men do sufficiently dis­cerne,DVR Cam­pian himselfe had experience of your cruelty. WHIT. pag. 105. If Campi­an was by publike pro­ceeding con­demned for treason, and put to death: who will ac­cuse our cru­elty, and not the greatnes of his offence, yea and that he suffered not for religi­on, appeareth thus; others who were con­demned with him at the same time, and for the same offence, when they renoun­ced the Popes authority of deposing of Kings, and freeing of sub­iects from o­bedience, were not put to death, as he was. how iniuriously you lay this crimination vpon vs, for these things which you name as the sword, the racke, the gallowes, and fier, are the instru­ments of your cruelty, and had it not been for these, your Church had been ouerthrowne long agoe: for by these weapons it was first founded, after increa­sed, and is now maintained? if once these faile you, questionlesse it cannot long continue.

But you now begin to presse your aduersaries somewhat more forceably; and you demaund of them, for example sake, by what authority they maime; and robbe the corpes of the Bible, I answere we offer no violence to this body, ne [...]ther do we cut off any which doe appertain to the substance, and perfection of it; we dash out no part of it, we pull a­way no member. For (to vse your owne words) we do not cut out any true Canonicall Scriptures, but cull out such as are not Canonical, but foisted in and counterfeit. But you would know who shal be iudge; you make Caluin to answere for vs: the holy Ghost: and you suggesting that he giueth this answere, to escape the iudgement of the Church; if you enquire how we know these writings, which we call Scrip­tures, to be heauenly, and giuen by the inspiration of God, that is, by what testimony we are perswaded that those writings are holy Scripture, which are so called: I would aske you with as much reason ano­ther question, how know you the sonne is the sonne, [Page 47]or how ye come not to doubt, that God is God: for we verely haue as much certeinty that th [...]se bookes are the sacred Scripture, commended of the Lord to the Church, written by the Prophets and Apo­stles, proceeding from diuine authoritie, as that the Moone is the Moone, yea as wee are sure of any thing else, which by vndoubted knowledge we are full assured of; this answere Caluin also hath giuen you,Iustit. lib. 1. cap. 7. sect. 4. cap. 8. toto. writing that many things might be produced, which would easily proue, that if there be a God in heauen, the Law, the Prophets, and the Gospell came from him: yea and with many words at large he vrgeth it with most strong arguments, such as may satisfie any reasonable man touching the au­thoritie, and credit of the Scriptures. There are in the bookes themselues proofes enough, both certeine; and perspicuous, which will proue and demonstrate the credit of the Scriptures, that no man need boubt of them. But because the sense and reason of man is often times weake, and easily distracted into diuers and doubtfull cogitations, the inward and hidden testimony of the spirit must be had, that men may firmely rest in the Scriptures. For though outward testimonies will so conuince vs, that for shame we cannot deny the Scriptures to be the word of God; yet then only do we attaine a certeine and sauing ful assurance, when the same spirit, which writ and pub­lished them, doth perswade our harts of the credit of them. And this is that spirit, which the Lord hath promised to his Church, and which dwelleth in the harts of the faithfull, and is as a seale vnto them, he that hath not this spirit, shall euer in himselfe be vn­certeine and doubtfull, though he heare the Church a thousand times. What is the fault then you find, Campian? Caluin, say you, doth make the spirit Iudge thereby to escape the iudgement of the Church, by whose authoritie all spirits are tried. The iudgement of the [Page 48]Church ought not to differ from the iudgement of the spirit: the same spirit gouerneth the wholeDVR. What an absurd thing is this, that you con­temne the voice of the Church, and allow your common people to iudge rather of the Script­ [...]res, and giue all to the spirit; when the Fa­thers haue ob­iected the Church against heretikes? WHIT. pag. 109. We con­temne not the voice of the first Church, wherein these were written, and from thē commended to succeeding Churches. But, pag. 108. we much regard not the voice of your Romish Church; for as we know there is a God, though it tell vs not so much: so that the Scriptures are the word of God, though it be silent; and by the same grounds that your Church knoweth the Scriptures to be the Scriptures, by the same proofes may euery priuate Christian know them. pag. 111. If you know not, that the grace of the spirit is necessary to discerne the Scriptures, then reade these places John 14, 26. 1. Iohn 2, 26, 27. 1, Cor. 2, 14, 10. Esay 51, 16. Now the same spirit who w [...]it them, seales them vp to vs: without which some knowledge may be had of them, b [...]t no faith; we may acknowledge them, but not certeinly beleeue them without the spirit. And if the Fathers haue obie­cted the Church against heretikes, in the like case we will do the same. For the testimony of the spirit is not of validity to confute others, but to confirme our selues. Church and euery particular beleeuer. But your Church knoweth not this spirit; no maruell then if it dislike the iudgement of the spirit: yet I would haue you take this for an answere once for all: that the authority of the Scriptures doth not depend vp­on the iudgement of the Church: for let the Church iudge what it will, yet can it neuer by all the authori­ty it hath make the Canonicall bookes to be no Ca­nonicall; and that those which are not Canonicall, should be had in reputation as Canonical. The Scrip­ture hath it owne proper authority in it selfe, not bor­rowed frō another. And as little can the Church add authority to the Scripture, as it can to God, the au­thour of it. But say you, how commeth it to passe, that the Caluinists spirit alloweth six Epistles, which the Lu­theran spirit doth disallow? you go in a ring, making only the repetition of the same things without any proceeding. Those Epistles the LutheransDVR. That the Luthe [...]an [...] do not like these Epi [...]iles, t [...]ey of Magde­burg. Centur. 1. lib. 2. cap. 4. tell vs plainely. WHIT. pag. 117. What is that to vs who thinke as honorablie of them as you do? but if they, by the example of auncient [...]hurches haue spokē somewhat hardly of those Epistles, is there heere any such difference of [...]pirits? All things are not reue [...]led to all a like: all haue not the like measure of the spirit. If any be otherwise minded, God will in his time reue [...]le [...]t to him. doe not reiect, nor dash them out of the new Testament; yea [Page 49]they acknowledge them, they make vse of them in vnfoulding of controuersies, they expound them in their schooles and churches, and they reade them both priuately and publikely: vpon many of them Luther hath writtenDVR. By the same reason, if Luther should comment vpon certeine of Ae­sops fables, and Illyricus vpon al, then by their spirit they are certeinly recei­ued into the Canon. WHIT. pag. 117. And why may not Aesops fables be in the Ca­non, if your Church please; seeing your VVolfangus & Hermannus affirme, the Scriptures are of no more authority, then those fables without the authority of your Church? But I adde if you would haue seene it, that they vsed them in prea­ching, in ex­pounding Scriptures, in deciding con­trouersies, and did interpret them both pri­uately and publikely. Commentaries, Illyricus vpon all. That of the authority of those Epistles in times past the Catholike Church made some doubt, they discouer to their Auditors, and shew withall the cau­ses of that doubt, and that done, leaue it vndetermi­ned. I pray you, Campian, what contradiction find you heere, betwixt the spirit of the Caluinists and the Lutherans? Yet still you cauil at this iudgement of the spirit, which of all other is most certeine and heauenly: and heere you produce Anabaptists, Ca­stalio, Brentius, Kemnitius, Luther, and Beza. And by these you hope that you may diminish the authority of the spirit.Sixt. Se­nens. lib. 7. The Anabaptists, (say you) call the hi­storie of Iob a fable, interlaced with tragicall and Co­micall matters. As though we were ignorant, how wickedly and blasphemously they conceiue, not on­ly of the history of Iob, but also of the whole bookes both of the new and old Testament; and that spirit of the Anabaptists, what was it but a kind of frency, and a violent and head-strong madnes; which no spirit euer did more represse, thenDVR. The Anabaptists will aswell accuse the spirit of Cal­nin of madnes and solly. WHIT. pag. 119. Yet I durst make you iudge of this controu [...]fie, & vnles you were also as mad, you would iudge them very vnlike. the Caluinist and Lutheran spirit? Why then doe you mention their madnes, therby to scoffe at the certeine iudgements of the holy Ghost?Prafat. in Cantic. Castalio, say you, made no more account of Salomons Song, then he did of a bandy song and ribauldous talke of a Courtly waiting maide with her louer. I will not take vpon me to defend all that any man hath written at randome, much lesse will I trouble my selfe to defend the credit of Castalio, whom I well know hath erred in many great points [Page 50]very shamefully. Yet in this place I find you haue no­tably abused Castalio: for in that short preface which he hath set before this booke, he hath none of those you speake of, neither a song, nor a Loue, nor court­ly waiting maides, nor wanton talke, nor any such thing, but hath truly, learnedly, and modestly in few words comprised the summe of the whole booke: his first words are these: A conference betwixt the Sa­uiour and his Church. Now you may see how highly Caestalio accounted of this song, and how shamelesse your cauill is against him. I cannot now be much of­fended with you, for casting so many false things vp­on Caluin and Luther, when you are not ashamed so palpably to bely Castalio. And that you say next tou­ching the Reuelation, is much like to the rest of your cauils. In it, say you, Luther, and Brentius, Praefat in Apo [...]al. lib. 3. cap. 24. & cap. 39. and Kem­nisius, find, I know not what, lacking. What is the mea­ning of this, They find somewhat lacking? do they re­iect it, do they disallow it? you cannot say so: there­fore you speake faintly and diffidently: They find somewhat lacking. Howsoeuer, if you will reade Euse­bius, you shall vnderstand that in it many things were found lacking, and that it was not receiued of all, yea plainly reiected of many. But what is this to vs, when as you cannot deny wee haue receiued this booke, and do no lesse reuerence the mysteries that are in it, then your selues? and perhaps it had fitted your turne well, if this booke had either perished, or been of no credit at all: for it doth so liuely paint out your Pope, & your purple whore in her colours, that it cleerely discouereth to all men, who is Antichrist.

Haue you yet any thing more against Luther? Praefat. in nouum Te­stamentum. Luther, say you, casteth a boue among the foure Euan­gelists and preferring S. Pauls Epistles farre before the three former Gospels, in the end concludeth, that the on­ly Gospell of S. Iohn from henceforth is to be taken for the gay, the true, and the principall Gospell; Luther in­deed [Page 51]preferreth the Gospell of Iohn before the other three, because he setteth downe the Acts of Christ more briefly, and his Sermons more fully. Now a Gospell consisteth rather in heauenly doctrine, then in the history of things done. Yet he denies not but that the other Gospels are well set out, true, and very excellent; and farre is he from esteeming this the on­ly gay and true Gospell. Now this very point you speake of heere, I find also in the preface of the first Epistle of S. Peter. And I would intreate the Christi­an reader to take thorough notice of this thing, so shall he easily perceiue both Luthers integritie, and Campians cauilling. First Luther teacheth what a Go­spell is: and writeth that a Gospell signifieth nothing else, But the preaching and publishing of the grace, and mercy of God by the Lord Christ, merited and purchased to vs by his death. He that either preacheth or writeth this grace and mercy of God in Christ, he, as Luther affirmeth, teacheth the Gospell. And therefore not the foure Euangelists only haue taught the Gospell; but also all the Apostles haue done so too, and espe­cially Saint Paul & Saint Peter in their Epistles. And moreouer he affirmeth, that of all those they are the bestDVR. VVhat Scripture tea­cheth vs, that be is an Euan­gelist, which teacheth iusti­ficatio by faith only? Jf any, then Luther was the best E­uangelist. WHIT. pag. 125. I can rec­ken you vp many, but these may suf­fice, Esay 52▪ 7. Rom. 10.15. Now peace [...]i­seth of our re­conciliation with God and remission of sinnes, which things faith only layes hold on. Rom. 5.1. 2, Cor. 5, 19. Rom. 4, 4. And this mat­ter S. Paul principally, in his Epistles to the Romans and Galathi­ans, hath fully and plainly handled, and not Luther so much. DVR. But the Angell tau [...]ht no such thing Luk. 2.10. WHIT. pag 126. If you had looked to the next verse, you should haue found that the Angell did te [...]ch as much in effect. Euangelists, who haue therein specially la­boured, to teach iustification by faith in Christ alone: for this is the summe of the Gospell. And hereupon he concludeth that the Epistles of Paul may more fitly be called the Gospell, then those things Mat­thew, Marke, and Luke haue written: for that he doth more fully & plentifully decipher to vs the grace of God in Christ, then those three, whose history is for the most part spent in the declaration of the Acts and Miracles of Christ. And this is the true cause wherfore he preferred the Gospell of S. Iohn and the Epistles of S. Paul before the three other Gospels; [Page 52]whereby he neither casteth a bone among the Euan­gelists, nor goeth about to make the Apostles parta­kers of his brawlings; neither hath said any thing ei­ther frowardly or preposterously: for why, I pray you, may we not say, that S. Paul hath more cleerely and excellently described the power of the Crosse of Christ in his Epistles, then any of the Euangelists in their historie; when as by it the authoritie of the hi­storie of the Gospell is nothing disparaged? And now I doubt not but I haue sufficiently defended Luthers innocency against your rayling and outragi­ous saucines.

But yet againe you assault Luther: whom you say doubted not to taxe S. Lukes Gospell, Serm. de Pharis. & Publi. as if it were writ­ten in a wanton stile, because therein good workes are of­ten recommended vnto vs. Was there euer read or heard of the like impudencie, audaciousnes, and trea­cherous dealing in any man? The place you note in the margent I haue very diligently and heedfully obserued, that I might discerne; wherin Luther hath shewed such male pertnes: but I haue not found one vnholy, nor dishonorable terme, vnfit to be giuen to S. Luke, as being an heauenly Euangelist. For that which Luther propounds to himselfe is to take out of mens minds a scruple, which S. Lukes often men­tion of workes might moue in them; lest any hap­pilie might thinke that S. Luke by often speaking of works, should detract somewhat from faith, or place our iustification in our workes. And this is, as you af­firme, saucilie to giue S. Luke a wipe; if you can tel me of any greater matter, I will no waies defend or ex­cuse Luthers malepertnes. But what malepertnes is this of yours, Campian, whom neither the feare of God, nor the reuerence of men, can restraine frō wri­ting or diuulging of those things, which your owne conscience tels you are most false? and you cannot passe by Beza neither without the like Calumnious [Page 53]censure. Who, say you, was so bould as to reprehend that mysticall word, Hic est calix, n [...]u [...]m Testame [...]tum in s [...]guine meo, qui (calix) pro vobis fundetur, This is the cup of the new Testament in my blood, which (cup) shall be shedde for you; a [...] corrupted and depraued. I see well where your error is in following that corrupt and adulterous vulgar translation, for [...], you thus translate.DVR. I con­fesse there is a Metonymy in the cup: the cup being put for the blood. WHIT. pag. 130. Then, this cup, is as much, as this blood: Then see what a sen­tence you haue made: This blood is the new Te­stament in my blood, which is shed for you. As if Christ had said: This blood is the new Testa­ment in my blood. And so heere are two bloods, and the one in the other. Hic est calix nouum Testamentum. This is the cup of the new Testament: when the words are rather thus to be placed. Hic ca­lix est nouum Testamentum, This cup is the new Testa­ment: and [...] being a participle of the present tence, you translate by a verbe of the future tence: Qui fundetur, shall be shed for you: for, Qui fundi­tur, is shedde for you. But you dare not goe a haires breadth from the vulgar translation, for feare of in­curring that curse of the Councell of Trent. But heere Theodor Beza apparantly is caught in a haynous crime: for he writeth that Luke hath committed a Solecisme: what then I pray you? a very foule fact and very intolerable. Is it so indeed? how shall we then defend Hierome, who writeth that Paul commit­ted such solecismes in his words, that by no good ordering any good sense could be made of them? In cap. 3. Epist. ad Ephes. If S. Paul might commit Solecismes in his words, why may we not thinke S. Luke may doe as much? and if Hierome without sinne might accuse S. Paul, not to speake properly or scholer-like; why might not Beza note some want of propriety of speech in S. Luke? for you are wide, Campian, if you thinke this any thing di­minisheth the authoritie & dignity of the Scriptures, for Hier [...]me construeth it quite contrarie. Let vs looke therefore vpon the place of the Euangelist, that we may iudge where this fault is.

The words runne thus. This cup is the new Testa­ment in my blood which is shedde for you. If you change nothing in the words and exclude all incongruitie, [Page 54]then these last words, Which is shed for you, must be re­ferred to the first, This cup. And so this should be the meaning, This cup is shed for you: But not the cup, but the blood of Christ was shed for vs. But you will say the cup is put for the wine in the cup. So that whether you will or no, you must acknowledge that in these words there is a trope or figure: though you Papists vsually deny the same, and vehemently cry out, none of them is to be taken figuratiuely. But you your selues in these words make two figures; first you take the cuppe for the wine in it, then the wine for the blood of Christ, which in no hand you can do with­out a figure: therefore heereafter stand not vpon words; for if you will now stand to the words, you must either graunt that the cup was shed for vs, or you must admit a solecisme and vnproper speech. If we will read them as Basill doth;Basil. in Eth. [...]. Which blood is shed for you: the meaning wil be plaine, when these words which is shedde for you, are referred to the blood of Christ. These are Campians collectiōs of such things, wherein our men haue offended against the authori­tie and dignity of the Scripture. These he crieth out do euidently open our diffidence and desperation, these are those things he propoundeth vnto you, that are most learned of the Vniuersity. Whose iudge­ment I am therefore also wel contented to stand vn­to, because I well know your learning and wisdome, together with your studious endeuours in the best authors, to be such, that this sillie foolish sophister with all his slaunders and lies shall neuer be able to remoue or corrupt you: for what matter hath he brought, or what inuention, which may seeme to sa­uour either of deepe learning, much reading, or wit­ty conceit? Therefore you shall do wel to set light by the threats of this Philistine, and to cleaue with con­stancy to that holy religion which you haue learned out of the holy Scriptures: as also proceed in that [Page 55]course of vertue and learning you haue begun, that the Iesuits with all their inchauntments may lose all their labour in seeking to seduce you.

Hitherto Campian hath busied himself in discour­sing vnto vs, what he could, concerning the holy bookes, being desirous also to deliuer vnto vs, such things as we haue depraued in our false translations: saue that, as he saith, he reserues this labour for his old Colledge fellow Gregory Martin, & some others, whom he well knoweth will performe it farre more learnedly and copiously then himselfe. Therefore if you thinke good, we will expect this Martin of whom you speake, and whom I shall easily conceiue to be a man of more learning then your selfe, vnlesse he be a very doult indeed. And I doubt not but we shall be able to maintaine our translations, both La­tin and English, against your Martin and all your Colleagnes. And as for those petty Doctors whom you lastly reproach, I neither know them, nor the na­ture of their offence. But when once your friend Martin shall come abroad, who now perhaps is hammering some speciall peece of worke, we shall learne from him many new and excellent points. This your first reason seemed very iust in your con­ceit to maintaine your glorious challenge of dispu­tation, with some of the learned of our Vniuersi­ties. But Campian, you had delt a great deale wiser for your self, if either you had neuer conceiued thes [...] reasons, or streightway vpon the birth smothered them. For before by your great challenge you begat a maruelous and wonderfull conceit of your selfe in euery mans mind: and now when they shall read [...] those slender reasons of yours, they will easily per­ceiue, there is no cause why you should take so much vpon you, and they wil tontemptuously deride you, as you well deserue, & hisse you out of their scholes. Therefore the counsell which Archidamu [...] gaue to [Page 56]his Sonne headily venturing to right with the A­thenians, the same doe our Vniuersitie men giue to to you: Either adde to thy might, or abate of thy mind: for no man, Campian, euer tooke more vpon him, and performed lesse than you haue done. But let vs see what other things you bring vs.

WILLIAM WHITAKERS. The answere to the second Reason.

WHat could be said touching the Scriptures wee haue heard, wee must proceed to heare what can bee said for the interpretation and exposition of them; for our vsuall inclination in expounding the Scriptures, (saith Campian) hath encouraged and incited him earnestly to desire this encounter. And we also (Campian) haue long a­go desired to buckle with you herein. And at length [Page 59]the Lord hath brought you out of your lurking holes into the broad light, that we might trie it out with you; but what is our disposition you speake of? It is full of deceit, say you, and void of wisdome. Thus you being a man of small reach, and lesse discretion, do conceite our inclination. Assuredly the matter you haue now in hand is a cause of great waight: for the force, the substance, and as it were the soule of the Scripture consisteth in the meaning: very well said Hierome: The Scriptures are not in the letter, but in the vnderstanding: Contra Lu­cifer. in 1. cap. ad Gila. and in another place:DVR. Then Luther and Caluin obtru­ded a new Go­spell vpon the Church; when they brought in a new sense of the words, such as the whole Christian [...]orld knew not; yea it had a far other sense of the Scriptures. WHIT. pag. 138. If this last be graun­ted you, yet it followeth not that they brought in a new Gospell, because they differed from that sense: for the sense is not to be sought for a­mong the multitude; but we must looke to the Scrip­tures and to God speaking in them: as the men of Berea did not take the sense of the most, but searched the Scriptures whether Paul taught things agreeing vnto it. The Go­spell is not in the words of the Scripture, but in the sense. They then haue the best end of the staffe, and are the best patrons of Religion and truth, who find out and keepe the true and natural meaning of the Scripture. For the letter or word is plaine; all controuersies de­pend vpon the meaning of the Word. The state of the question is then thus, whether of vs twaine haue attained the true and naturall meaning of the Scrip­ture: whether you Iesuits, falsely called Catholikes; or we, who oppose your opinion and iudgment. First therefore in generall, and in few words we will see what is your opinion and iudgement: then we will answere to your cauils. Now it is most cleere that you make both the Scripture it selfe, and the inter­pretation of it to depend vpon the authority of theDVR. Js it some haynous offence to require the iudgement of the Church in interpreting the Scriptures? WHIT. pag. 142. We contemne not the iudge­ment of the Church, but highly esteeme it as profitable to the well interpre­ting of the Scriptures. But we contemne the iudgment of your Church, which hath not any thing which a true Church should haue. DVR Whither then should we goe to finde the sense? WHIT. Euen whether Christ biddeth vs, go search the Scriptures, Iohn 5.39. And this vse they haue, saith S. Paul. 2. Tim. 3.15.16. Church. And the Church you call not the whole multitude of Christians and faithfull men, but you [Page 60]restraine both the name and nature of the Church vnto yourDVR. You reprooue vs, that vvee giue the inter­pretation of the Scriptures to Bishops: they verily ought to deliver the true sense they haue receiued from their pre­decessors to the people. WHIT. pag. 144. S. Paul alloweth all Ministers of the Gospell this power to interpret the Scriptures, 1. Cor. 14.29.30. who ought aswell to deliuer the true sense, as Bishops. Besides, you must know that the knowledge of t [...] Scriptures and the gifts of the spirit are not hereditarie, or to be deliuered from hand to hand. Bishops. But your Bishops may differ touching the sense of the Scriptures, so shall we be vncerteine and shall not resolue which of them to beleeue. But you can helpe this, generallDVR. Great and many controuersies haue been decided by Councels. WHIT. pag. 145. It followeth not hereupon, that the interpreting of the Scriptures is to be sought for of thē; or if good Councels by the true interpretation of the Scriptures haue taken away some errors and heresies; that there [...]ore all interpretation is theirs, or that we must looke for the same from imp [...]ous and vnlearned Councels. Coun­cels must decide and determine all questions and controuersies. Shall we then rest in them? no more then in the other: for theDVR. And why not? seeing no Councell is of any authoritie, which was not confirmed by the Pope? WHIT. pag. 146. This is false: for the sixt African Councell, and the Calcedon Councell haue their authority without him. And Emperors, Patri­a [...]kes, and Bishops haue confinued Councels. And the Councell of Constan­tinople by letters desired the confirmation of the decrees from Theodosius the Emperor. DVR.. God set ouer the Iewes one High Priest. Deut. 17.11. Then would Christ neuer neglect his Spouse, but leaue her a chiefe iudge vpon the earth. WHIT. pag. 151. Yet that iudge was to determine according to the Law; Deut. 17.11. But the Pope maketh interpretations, not out of the word writ­ten, but out of his owne braine. Againe it followeth not, if ouer one little na­tion God set one chiefe iudge, Christ must set but one ouer the whole world. Besides the Iewish iudge was a type of Christ. Lastly, it followeth not that Chri [...] hath left his Church no iudge; i [...] he haue not le [...]t it one only; for euery Church ha [...]h her Pastor to teach her, and to d [...]ermine questions in her. Pope must be iudge o­uer the Councels. So in the conclusion, the whole in­terpretation of holy Scriptures is transferred to the Pope, and must be fetched out of his brest: yea and as a proper right he so challengeth the power of in­terpreting of the Scripture, that whatsoeuer he thin­keth, that must be accounted the sense and meaning of them. This is your constant and perpetuall pro­pertie and disposition in interpreting the Scriptures, full of dotage, error, and falshood, void of aduise, knowledge and wisdome. For what an absurd and horrible thing is it, that the sense and meaning [Page 61]of the holy Scripture should depend vpon one mans iudgement and voice? specially being such a one, as commonly the Bishops of Rome haue been, vnlear­ned, wicked, hereticall. And hence haue proceeded all those goodly interpretations, Take, Eate, that is, you Priests say priuate Masses:Dist. 31. Tenere. Drinke yee all of this, that is, only the Priests must drinke. Be yee holy, for I am holy,DVR. Which o [...] the Popes or what Catholike [...]riter euer col­lected this out of that place? WHIT. pag. 159. Pope Syricius did first of all so collect: and after him Pope Innocent, as you may reade in Gra [...]an Dist. 31. cap. Ten [...]re; Dist. 82. cap. prop [...] ­suisti: cap. plu­rimos. therfore it is vnlawful for the Minister of the Word to marry a wife. Giue yee not holy things to dogges, therefore the people must be forbidden to reade the Scriptures. What should I number vp innumerable moe of your interpretations, by which you doe nothing but peruert and wrest the Scrip­tures? Is this indeed, Campian, the right interpreting of Scripture? or must all Christians receiue this ex­position as the oracle of God?

But what should I speake of the constant tenour you keepe in the interpretation of Scripture? for you make the sense of Scriptures so changeable, so diuerse, and inconstant, like to a nose of waxe and a leaden rule,Pighius. that at all assaies it may euer serue your turne. So writethDVR. Cusa­nus hath writ­ten very right­ly, for there are diuers senses of the Scriptures. WHIT. pag. 162. What rule then can be more vncerteine then the Scriptures? or what can be spoken more vilely of the Scripture? how then is the Scripture one rule? Phil. 3.16. how is i [...] firme induring for euer? 1. Pet. 1.25. how no deceitfull ballance. Augus [...]. d [...] ▪ Baptis. cont. Don. lib. 2. cap. 6. Nicholas Cusanus, a Cardinall of Rome,Nicol. Cu­san. Epist. 2. Epist. 7. to the Bohemians. This vnderstand that the Scriptures are fitted to the time, and diuersely to be vn­derstood; so that at one time they may be expounded ac­cording to the common & customable course: but change that, and the sense is changed; so that it is no maruell if the custome of the Church at one time interpret the Scriptures after this manner, & another time after that. Was there euer the like bouldnes heard of; that men would wrest the eternall and immutable word of God, which euer hath but one and the same sense, to serue the will of the Church, that is, of the Pope of [Page 62]Rome?Thom. 1. [...]. 1. art. 10. besides this you haue made so manyDV [...]. The Fathers and Antiquity haue euer made these foure sen­ses of the Scrip­tures. WHIT. pag. 163. To faine such foure senses in euery sentence differeth not much from a learned kind of madnes. Allegories I con­fesse many are in the Scriptures, but such as the holy Ghost himselfe hath made; but to make other Allegories, when the words may be vnderstood with­out a Trope, or when the Grammaticall sense is not absurd and repugnant to sound doctrine, I thinke is too great bouldnesse and temerity. A Tro­pologicall sense is not a new sense differing from the Grammaticall, but one [...]s it were with it. Finally, if the Fathers as men haue erred, must we needs fol­low their errors? The Fathers reiected the errors and false interpretations of their predecessors, why may not we deale so with them? senses of euery place, to wit, an allegoricall, a tropological, an anagogicall sense, that by your Ledgerdemaine, you haue abolished the true and natiue sense. Now, Campian, since you know that this is the manner of your Church in the interpreting of the Scripture, than which what can be more corrupt, how dare you pre­sume to reprehend our manner of interpretation? But we follow no other course then that which the Fathers haue prescribed, and which the thing it selfe argues to be most fit. For that is our course which Augustine aduised: we interpret obscure places by those which are plainer, we obserue the phrase and stile of the Scripture, we weigh circumstances, we compare scripture with scripture, we go not one iot from the Analogie of faith. They who take this course, adioyning their harty prayers, that the Lord would open this sealed booke vnto them; and teach them the true sense of the scripture, shall neuer need to runne to Rome, and enquire of that sacred Oracle of the Pope, who himselfe neither vnderstandeth the true sense of scripture, neither is able to expound them to others.

But to returne now to Campian: what is the vsuall fault he finds in our dealing with the scripture? and what be the arguments by which he doth confute vs? Let vs demaund, saith he, (for example sake) of our Aduersaries what caused them to deuise this new opini­on, whereby Christ is excluded out of the mysticall Sup­per. [Page 63]We, Campian, do notDVR. If you place Christs body and your supper so farre asunder, how do you not exclude h m from i [...]? WHIT. pag. 168. It is true, if things that are seuered could no way be ioyned but by a corporall ouching; but without it, it may fitly be, as all beleeuers are ioyned to­gether, though they be farre distant and di­stracted one from another; as Iewes, Gre­cians, and all other godly, make but one body with Christ: what is that bond of this vnion, but the power of the spirit? Such an vni­on is this in the Sacramēt, and it hath the some bond. exclude Christ out of the Supper, neither do we otherwise thinke of the Sacra­ment then both Christ hath taught vs, and the old Church hath prescribed. We certeinly affirme, that the faithfull in the supper receiue whole Christ, God and Man: we beleeue and teach that they eate his body and drinke his blood. Neither doubt we to af­firme, but that he, that comes to the supper, and doth not in the supper partake of Christ, that he is in dan­ger of condemnation. Doe we now exclude Christ from the supper? But whosoeuer includeth Christ in the supper as you doe, he faineth and forgeth a new Christ to himselfe, he confoundeth heauen and eart [...] together, he offereth violence to nature, and mu [...] needs admit innumerable absurdities. Wherfore we following the scripture, as our schole-masters, not taking vp any new opinion, place the naturall and humane body of Christ in heauen; for so the Apostle Peter speaketh, whom the heauens must conteine, vntill the time that all things be restered; Act. 3.21. yet theDVR. The [...] is Christ as present in Baptisme, and in the word, and wheresoeuer your faith seekes for him, as in the supper; yea as present to the Father [...] in the old Testament as now to vs. WHIT. pag. 169. So quest [...]onlesse he is, vnl [...]sse all men be without hope of life and saluation, who are depriued of the Supper. For John 6.53. yea all Christians communicate of Christ alike, as well such as come to the supper, as they who cannot partake in it: And that he was present to the Fathers it is proued. 1. Cor. 10.3.4. vertue, the communion, the benefit of this body we exclude not from the supper: but stifly maintaine, that in the supper whole Christ is present to each mans faith. This is the summe of our opinion, which I no lesse doubt to be the true sense of the scripture, then that Christ is Christ, or that to be scripture which is scrip­ture. This opinion out of all others which we hold, haue you made choice of, as an example to impugne and gain-say: Let vs see now how scholler-like you acquite your selfe. If they name the Gospell, say you, [Page 64] we ioyne with them. The very words make for vs. This is my body, this is my blood: I acknowledge the words do, but I enquire now for the sense of them: whe­ther they should be so expounded as your Church teacheth: that the bread is Transubstantiated into the bodie, and the wine into the blood of Christ: or by a Trope and in a mysticall sense, that the bread is the Sacrament, the signe and symboll of the body, and so the wine of the blood of Christ, as we inter­pret them. Whether opinion hath more truth in it, we will now discusse. As for that which you tell vs of Luther, I suppose you will not expect any answere from me: and vndoubtedly in this thing Luther was farre more opposite to your opinion, then ours. For he euer condemned your Transubstantiation, as it is, for an accursed inuention and fiction of Satan. Lu­ther we acknowledge was a man, who though he saw the truth in many things, yet he might erre in some things: his good things wee embrace, but wee are bound by no law to defend his errors.

But how shal we find out the meaning of this say­ing? Let vs trie out this, say you, by the words thereto adioyning. Nothing can be spoken more truly, no­thing more fitly, nor more ingenuously. And verely I could wish you would alwaies doe, as you pretend in this place to doe, sist out the meaning of the scrip­ture by the circumstances of the words. But what are the words adioyning? My body which is giuen for you, my blood which is shed for you. Campian, you are too sparing and scant in the point: repeate, and say, that which goeth before. As they did eate, Christ tooke bread, he blessed it, he brake it, and gaue it to his disciples, and said, Take, eate, this is my body, and he tooke the cup, and gaue thankes, and gau [...] it to them saying, Drinke yee all of this, for this is my blood &c. So now, Campian, I will deale with you from the words which are now adioyning. What was it Christ tooke? you will say [Page 65]bread: what brake he? bread: what gaue he to his disciples? bread: wh [...] did he bid them take and eate? bread: what said he was his bodie? was it any other thing, [...]hen the very same bread which he tooke into his hands, brake andDVR. He tooke bread, but he gaue not bread to his disciples, but his bodie. WHIT. pag. 183. Then one body of Christ is made two, one sit­ting among them, another deliuered vn­to them; yea as many bodies as there were Communi­cants. And the disciples did receiue, chaw, and eate him, whom they saw s [...]ting with them: but whē was the chāge made? for before he had spoken these operatiue words, This is my bodie, he brake it & gaue it [...]o his disciples: either these words make not the change, or he ga [...]e to his disciples, bread vnchanged. DVR. [...]f there was no change, then the bles­sing wa [...] without profit. WHIT. pag. 185. As if all blessings were without pro­fit if they change not the nature of things: God blessed our first parents, Gen. 1.28. Noah and his Sonnes, Gen. 9.1 Christ his disciples at his departure, Luk. 24.51. was their blessing without profit, because they changed not their natures and substance? Besides to blesse is nothing else but to giue thankes, as Luke hath it, which was done by words before, not by those, This is my body. gaue to his disciples. Therfore that when Christ saith. This is my body: this is my blood; is as much as if he said: This bread is my bo­dy, and this cup is my blood. But the bread and the body of Christ, the cup and the blood of Christ, are they not differing, and wel-nigh contrary? Then tell vs, how they can affirme, or be spoken one of ano­ther, vnlesse you will admit a Tropicall speech. Yet, Campian, to vse your owne words, the matter gocth hard on your side, and maketh very plainly and ma­nifestly for vs. For Christ saith plainly that the bread is his body, which cannot be true without a figure, that bread made to eate, should be properly Christs body. And this is that figure which we find so often in the Scriptures, specially when any Sacram [...]nt is spoken of. So in Genesis cap. 17. the Lord saith of CircumcisionDV [...]. This is neither heere, nor any where else to be found in the Scriptures. WHIT. pag. 173. Ma [...]ke well. This is my couenant which you shall keepe, that euery manchild be circumcised: what I pray you is, This, but that euery man­child be circumcised, and [...]o you haue it in this place directly: but see, Gen. 17.13. My couenant shall be in your flesh, what is this but circumcision? reade Act. 7.8. DVR. This, signifieth not circumcision, but agreement or couenant betwixt God a [...]d Abraham touching circumcision. WHIT. That agreemen [...], was it the couenant or not? [...]f it was, then see what a goodly sentence you haue made, This my couenant is my couenant. But if it was not: thē you must needs acknowledge a Me [...]nymy; that is, that the name of th [...] thing is giuen to the signe, how­soeuer then it must be vnderstood by a figure. This is the couenant betwixt me and Gen. 17.10. [Page 66] you. Yet Circumcision was not the couenant, but the signe of the couenant. Now tell vs I pray you, what difference betwixt these two: This is my couenant & this is my body? The former you cannot deny, but must be vnderstood by a Metonymy: and can any man make doubt, but that the latter likewise is to be so expounded. The like we reade of the Lambe.Exod. 12.11. DVR. These words are not to be found there. WHIT. pag. 174. Obserue the words. Thus shall you eate it, for it is the Lords Pas­souer. That which was to be eaten is called the Lords Passeo­uer. Now they we [...]e cōman­ded to eate the Lambe, reade Exod 12. ve [...]se 27. [...] is the Lords Passeouer. And yet the Lamb was not the Passeouer, but a memoriall of it: like to this is that of S. Paul. DVR. There is no figure in the word Christ, but in rocke; for the rocke was the signe of Christ. WHIT. pag. 175. Then you acknow­ledge a Metonymy in the word [...], because the rock was the Sac [...]amen [...] of Christ. And if heere there be a Trope, then why not in these words of this Sacramēt? The rocke was Christ. 1. Cor. 10.1. Now as the rocke was Christ, so is this mysticall bread the body of Christ. Thus as yet you see the matter is neuer the better on your side; haue you any thing else? The Gospell, say you, makes for vs, S. Paul accordeth also. Nay S. Paul vtterly ouerthroweth your opinion:1. Cor. 11. for when he speaketh of this Sacrament in one continu­ed speech, he vseth the wordDVR. S. Paul call [...]th it so because it vvas novv Christ, vvho vva [...] the liuing bread. WHIT. pag. 188. many of your fellowes interpret it far otherwise, yea your sh [...]t S. Paul ouerthroweth, 1. Cor. 10.16. The bread vvhich vve breake, is it not the Comunion of the body of Christ? Now not Christ was brokē but the bread. bread, foure seuerall times, and that after Consecration; so that it appea­reth▪ [...]earely to haue the proper nature of bread, though it be said to be the body of Christ. But yet you adde: The words, the sentences, the whole conuecti­on of Scripture, doe often most reuerently repeate the bread, the wine, a notable miracle, heauenly food, his flesh▪ his bodie, his blood. In good earnest you discourse of these things with great reuerence and shamefastnes. For you would proue that in this Sacrament, there remaineth neither bread nor wine, but certeine qua­lities of these things, hanging in the ayre, and void [...] of the things themselues. And for any notable mira­cle, I acknowledge none, but answere you with Au­sten. They may be honoured as religious things, De Trinit. lib. 3. c. 10. but they [Page 67]cannot be wondred at as DVR. Au­gustine spea­keth of thes [...] miracles which are made of a bodily sub­stanc [...], and so are sensible: novv no such thing is seene in the Eucha­rist. WHIT. pag. 191. But if there were a true miracle, it would be sen­sible, and haue the witnesse of the senses, as all oth [...]r mi­racles of the Scriptures haue. For thing [...] that are hid (saith Augustine) are not miracles. He writ three bookes of the miracles of the Scriptures, in which he hath not spoken one word of this miracle. Therefore he knew not the Popish Tran­substantiation. minacles. No man euer de­nied, but that in the Sacrament heauenly food is both prepared, and offered to all the godly. But those heauenly and holy banquets, whereby our soules are nourished vp to eternall life, you make prophane and common, when you imagine, that Christ may be receiued and eaten like other meates, aswell of theDVR. Not vve, but the Scripture, the Fathers, and reason it selfe doth affirme it, but speciallie S. Paul. 1. Cor. 11.27. Whosoeuer eateth this bread. WHIT. pag▪ 195. None of these affirme it, and least of all S. Paul; for he saith not, vvhosoeuer eateth the body of Christ, but vvhosoeuer eateth this bread. wicked, as of the most deuout men in the world; which is an horrible opinion, senselesse and vnsound. For that you adde of flesh, body, and blood, I confesse: for being the Sacraments of these things, they haue their names giuen vnto them: for signes of things (saith Augustine) are said to be the things of which they are signes. But, say you, heere is nothing figuratiue, nothing obscure by doubtfull speeches. True it is there is neuer a riddle in the words, no obscuritie. For the obscurity that is, is not in the words, but in your interpretation of them, which ten Apolloes cannot so vnfold and open, that things might agree and answere fitly one to another.

What resteth yet, is it not that at length wee find out some certeine and true sense of these words? I hope, say you, Antiquitie may be heard. I verily in this controuersie will reiect no Antiquitie, no Councell, no auncient Father, neither will I refuse any monu­ment of true Antiquitie. For that same reuerend hoa­rie head of Fathers which you speake of, could neuer come to the knowledge of this new doctrine of Transubstantiation lately hatched. If those holy Fa­thers and reuerend Elders did now liue, they would neuer acknowledge this mōster, nor indure the sight of it, but iudge it worthy to be abandoned into the vtmost parts of the world. Whereas then you say, They cannot away with that, They say then they are be­trayed. [Page 68]You trifle and say nothing to the purpose: for we can away well with this triall, and feare no trea­chery in it. But will call you very willingly to this re­uerend Antiquitie, as to a barre of triall. Therefore if you please we will demaund of those reuerend Fa­thers, what they iudge to be the meaning of those words, which you haue produced for example sake. And seeing there is no necessity to collect all their sayings, some few of them shall speake, to giue vs a tast of the rest.DVR. Tertul­lian speaketh not of that bread, vvhich Christ in his last supper made his body, but of another bread, vvhich vvas the figure of his body vn­d [...]r the lavv. WHIT. pag. 2 [...]0. The pla [...]e sheweth very plainly that he spea­keth of no o­ther bread, then of tha [...] which Christ had said, this is my body: and which, in the night he vvas betrayed, he tooke, brake, and gaue to his disciples. Tell vs where vnder the law Christ euer said thus, or did thus with any bread? DVR. Bread & wine in the old Testament vvere Figures of Christs body & blood: therfore in the nevv Testament of the bread must the true body of Christ be made, & of the v [...]ine his blood. WHIT. pag. 202. It will well follow frō this, that Christ must haue in the new Testament a true body & true blood: but it cannot be in­forced hereupō, that it must be made of bread & wine. As if because their Sa­cramen [...]s were figures, the [...]fore ours must be trāsubstantiated into the things themselues. Then will it follow, that because the flood, the [...]edsea, & the cloud were types of our Bap [...]isme, therefore it should not be a figure or a signe, but be turned into th [...] very blood of Christ. Tertullian saith,Tertul. lib. 4 contra Marc. Christ professed his desire to eate the Pass [...]ouer, as his owne, and hauing taken bread, and distributed it to his disciples, hee made it his bodie, by saying▪ this is my body, that is, the figure or signe of my body. You acknowledge both Tertullians words and his meaning.DVR Augustine signifieth the Sacramēt by the name of figure. WHIT pag 204. It is true, Christ gaue the Sacramēt to his di [...]ci [...]les▪ but Augustine vseth not the word Sacrament, but figure: to shew that as no figu [...]e or signe is the thing wherof it is a fi u [...]e: so the bread is not proper­ly the body, nor the w [...]ne the blood of Christ. Augustine saith,August. in Psal. 3. Christ admitted Iudas to that banquet, in which he commen­ded to his disciples the figure of his body and blood. In another place also.DVR Augustine disputeth in this p [...]ace against the Ma [...]chees, carp [...]ng at Moses vvords. The blood is the soule of the beast. And saith, it is so spoke, as the Sacramēt of the body of Christ is called his body, the blood is called the soule, because it is as the signe of the soule, which lieth hid in the blood, as the Sacramet is the signe of the body of Christ, vvhich is conteined in it WH T pag. 206. Nay I infer the cōtrary as the soule is not the blood, whē it is o [...] of the vaines, & may be eaten; so Christ is not in the Sacrament. And as the blood is the signe of the soule, which is not in it: so is the Sacra­ment of the bodie which is not conteined in it. The Lord verily doubted not to speake thus. Contra. A­dimant. cap. 12. This is my body, when he gaue the signe of his [Page 69]body. And that you may vnderstand, that this was Au­gustines perpetuall tenor in interpreting of these words, and that he determined farre diuerse to you touching the eating of Christs flesh: heare what he saith in his bookes of Christian Instruction, where he giueth diuers precepts for the vnderstanding of the phrase of the Scriptures. If, saith he, any sentence there seeme to cōmaund any impious act, De doctr. Christ. lib. 3. cap. 16. or to forbid any duty tending to the profit or good of others, it is a figuratiue speech; vnlesse, saith Christ, you eate the flesh of the Son of man, and drinke his blood, you haue no life in you: It seemeth to inioyne an DVR Augu­stine did not thinke that it vvas an hey­nous thing, to eate the flesh of Christ, but to cate [...] (as the Capernites thought) that is, torne and rent in peeces. WHIT. pag. 209. You an­swere some­what as tou­ching the fact, but nothing for the figure. But Augustine saith there is a figure, which cannot be, if the flesh of Christ be ei­ther eaten, as you say, whole, or chopt in peeces, as the Capernites affirme. And if it be an horri­ble fact to eate the smale parts of Christs bo [...]ie, is it not a more beastly & bloody thing to de­uoure the whole body of Christ at one mor [...]el [...]? DVR. It is no more heynous for a Christian to eate the flesh of Christ whole, then it was for the blessed Virgin to con­ceiue & to nourish it in her wombe. WHIT. pag. 211. What is this, but as if you had said, It is no heynous thing to conceiue and bring forth an Infant: Ther­fore it is none to deuoure it after it is borne. heynous act. It is therefore a fi­guratiue speech, commanding vs to communicate in the Passion of the Lord. Doe you thinke this reuerend old man dotes, or hath he not giuen a iudicious interpre­tation, wel agreeing vnto the iudgement of the aun­cient? I thinke matters yet goe worse on your side, then they did before: but perhaps you will say, these are too aunciēt to serue your turne, heare then some of latter times.Theod. Theodoret a Gretian and a learned man writeth thus in his Dialogue [...] DVR Theodorets meaning is, that the signes haue not lost their naturall properties, though their nature be changed. WHIT. pag. 214. If the naturall properties remaine, then certeinly their na­tures must, for esse [...]t [...]all properties can neuer be separated from [...]heir natures: yea in the words follow ng in this very place, Theodoret affirmeth, that the na­ture remaineth. The mysticall bread, saith he, remaineth in the nature it first had, in the figure, and in the forme. Mysticall signes doe not lose their proper nature. This very speech quite ouerthroweth your Transubstantiation, for if their proper nature remaine, without doubt nothing can be Transubstantiated or changed. Now the bread keepeth his proper and old nature, there­fore there can be no Transubstantiation: but I will [Page 70]ioyne to Theodoret Marcarius; whose homilies Mo­relius had out of the Kings Librarie, and hath pub­lished them in Greeke: and I suppose that you being a Frier, will not reiect the testimony of so auncient a Monke: he writeth thus. In the Church, saith he,Marcar. homil. is offered bread and wine, DVR. An an­titype or resem­blance of the type is not the type or figure, but the sub­stance signified by that type or figure. WHIT. pag. 217. An anti­type is neuer properly the substance of the type, though some­time it be ano­ther type an­swering to it, and both of them are but similitudes & figures of the substance. And sometimes a type and an antitype are both one and the same: as Heb. 9.24. The Tabernacle is called an anti­type of heauē, being the sub­stance signifi­ed by the Ta­bernacle and no answering type to the Tabernacle. And in this sense doe diuers of the Fa­thers vse the word Antitype: as Basil, Nazianzen, Theodoret, Chrysost. antitypes or resemblances of his body and blood. What, saith he, bread and wine? but bread is already turned into flesh, and wine into blood. Ought a Monke to speake after this manner? giue you them so slender a name, as similitudes? Par­don mee, Campian, this Monke was neuer vsed to speake after your manner, neither was your Transub­stantiation as yet come abroad? what say you now? are you pleased with this reuerend hoare head of the Fathers? If you rest not heere, it shall be free for you to appeale to any one of the whole reuerend com­pany of the holy Fathers; not one of them, no not a­ny one of them, do I except against. For I make no doubt, but if they may be iudges, you shall euer haue the worst. From henceforth therefore do not cast a­ny such calumni [...]ions vpon vs, and boast your selfe of the bare names of the Fathers; for the Fathers both in this controuersie and in many others are firme on our side. As for the Fathers of whom you name ma­ny, but I beleeue haue read but a few, I thus answere you. We are not the seruants of the Fathers, but the sonnes. When they prescribe vs any thing out of the Law and diuine authoritie, we obey them, as our pa­rents. If they inioyne any thing against the voyce of the heauenly truth, we haue learned not to harken to them, but to God. You as Vassals and base seruants receiue whatsoeuer the Fathers saie, without iudge­ment or reason, being affraid, as I think, either of the whippe, or the halter, if euery thing they speake be not Gospell with you.

In few words, say you, this is their drift, vnlesse thou wilt stand to their owne iudgement, that are guilty, there is no iudgement to be had. Verily this fits you a great deale better then vs, for you will receiue no iudge­ment but the iudgement of the Pope, and Church of Rome; which Church and Pope wee haue proued long agoe to be guilty of most heynous crimes, and there hath been a perpetuall variance betwixt him and vs. Is there any equity then in your demaunds that we should stand to his iudgement, who [...] both a person guilty, and an aduersarie to vs? And well should we deserue to lose the cause, if we would be so witlesse contenders. Much truer speaketh Augu­stine, Let one matter encounter with another, Contra Maxim. lib. 3. c. 14. one cause with another, one reason with another, by the authoritie of the holy Scriptures, which are not proper to either side, but common DVR. How foolishly do you alledge Augu­stine, who ma­keth the Scrip­ture a witnes of the truth, not a iudge, as you would haue it. WHIT. pag. 243. If the Scripture be the witnes, where shall we find a iudge answerable to this witnes? Is it the Church? Then must it be of more au­thority then the Scripture, which heere you affirme not, neither may it be grā ­ted; for the Scripture is the word of God, there­fore he that is the iudge of it, must be the iudge of God himselfe. To deny the Scriptures then the preheminence in iudging, is to thrust God out of his throne Therefore as God, so the Scripture the word of God, hath the autho­ritie both of a witnesse and a iudge. DVR. Augustine euer thought, that the Popes iudgement was the highest tribunall [...]pon earth, where all controuersies must be decided. WHIT. pag. 244. Augustine neuer thought so, but writ the contrary De ciuitat Dei lib. 15. [...]ap. 3. The Lord, saith he, hath penned the Scripture, which is call [...]d Canonicall, because it is of highest authoritie, yea hee neuer once pressed the Arrians, either with the authoritie of the Pope, or of the Coun­cell, which vndoubtedly he would haue done, neither could he haue done better, if the highest iudgement had been in the Church. witnesses for both. And to their iudge­ments would we haue you to stand, not ours. As for other things you speake of, I passe them ouer, for you will reserue them for vs till another place; and wher­as you say, you haue cited many and worthy places of Scripture, we haue weighed those places in their ballances, and haue found them to light to proue what you proposed. And it is your vse indeed, rather to take them by number, then by weight. But you charged vs with scorning at this and shifting them off, we did nothing lesse; all we did was to free them from your cauils. We haue, say you, alledged the inter­pretations [Page 72]of the Greeke and Latin Churches. I confesse it, but we haue wrung all those weapons from you, and haue by them battered all your holds. But say you, what say they then? marry that M. Doctor Mar­tin Luther, or M. Philip Melangthon, or certeinly M. Zuinglius, or without doubt M. Caluin, and M. Be­za, haue faithfully intreated vpon those matters. Tell vs, Frier, what should hinder, why euery one of these you haue nominated, may not as faithfully intreate of th [...]se things, as those who haue liued before them in ages past? what wanted they, which the other had? what skill of art, what knowledge of the tōgues, what other helpes? there is not any one of these, but hath far surpassed in learning, and all deserued com­mendation, the whole society of Iesuits.

But why doe I compare these burning lights, bright starres of piety and religion, with the base scumme of your Doctors? and this now is another of your reasons, why you were so desirous to haue audi­ence in the Vniuersity Schooles. If you be, Campian, so­desirous, as you would make the world beleeue, I maruell why you are so long a comming: for our schooles were euer open for you, but you could ne­uer find the way into them. If you hereafter come, you shall find many in our schooles, that will en­counter with you in all kind of learning. And heere you end your discourse of the right sense of the Scriptures.

WILLIAM WHITAKERS. The answere to the third Reason.

WHat is it, Campian, you further bring vnto vs? you propound vnto vs the nature of the Church, wherein you bring nothing be­sides your accustomed manner of vaine and childish oratorie, neither worthy the hearing of our Vniuersitie men, or answerable to the opinion that is held of you. As touching the Church there are many questions and great controuersies, and at this day almost all disputations about religion are reduced to this head. For yourDVR. Jt is well, that once you will ac­knowledge vs to be Catholiks. WHIT. pag. 247. Triumph not much for the name, my meaning is to giue it you no otherwise, thē vsually the name of man is giuen to a dead and dry corpes, where nothing is but skinne and bone. He is a Catholike, not who fol­loweth the popish A­postasie, but that professeth the doctrine of Christ. Catholikes being tossed with the boysterous stormes of other disputa­tions, haue been willing to takeDVR. Is it so great a fault to flie in­to the hauen of the Church? WHIT. pag. That is not the fault we taxe you for, but that you couer all your errors by pretending the name of the Church. And if we by manifest arguments out of the Scripture, reproue and refell your heresies, you cry out you are the Church, and by that thinks to defend all things, though they be neuer so absurde. harbor in this ha­uen of the Church. Here they dwell, here they place all their hopes of safety and victorie, heere they hide themselues, whensoeuer they are beaten out of the field. Therefore they fortifie this sconce with all the skill they can, and strengthen it with munition on all sides; for which cause I maruell so much the more to find you, from whom so great things are expected, in this controuersie to be so sleight and shallow; for you neither teach, nor conclude, nor yet propound any thing for your Church against ours, which hath in it either forceable reason or proofe. But it may be [Page 77]this is but your first skirmish, you will happely after­wards deale with vs hand to hand; yet I wil trace you out in your owne steps, that I may lay hold of you, if happely I may find you any where certeine.

So soone, say you, as the aduersarie heard the Church but named, he waxed wanne: yea Campian, it made him blush, when he perceiued so chast & holy a matron, so impiously & insolently to be abused by you. The Church doth euer expell you, and deny al commerce with you. Yet you as very audacious & importunate wooers giue not ouer your suite to compasse her. Sure there was no cause why your aduersary should wax so wanne, vnlesse he feared some euill measure from such cutthroats as you are. Yet notwithstanding, say you, he hath deuised one thing, which I would wish you to note well. You will sure acquaint vs with some great and vnheard of matter; verily I much desire to know what is this one thing: yet I feare it will proue starke nothing; and for all your throes, you wil bring forth but a mouse. As for the honorable praises of the Church, you mention, we both acknowledge those, and speake far greater things of it: but verily they agree not to your Church at all; for it is the Ba­bylonish whoore, a branch cut off from the true Vine, a denne of theeues, a broad way leading to destruction, the kingdome of hell, the body of An­tichrist, a sinke of errors, a great mother of fornicati­ons, the Church of the wicked, out of which euery Christian ought to depart, which Christ shal one day fearefully destroy, and giue her the iust recompence of all her sinnes. In vaine then do you reckon vp the praises of the Church, vnlesse you can demonstrate that they are proper to your Church, which you shall neuer be able to doe, so long as Rome standeth. He would not, say you, seeme to gain-say the Church, hee kept craftily still the name of the Church, but the thing it selfe by his definition he tooke quite away. We verily, Campian, DVR. Why do you not then defend her au­thoritie, but di­minish and les­sen it, yea and horriblie blas­pheme, affir­ming that the spouse of Christ may erre and be deceiued? WHIT. pag. 248. It is you that blas­pheme, ma­king the Church equall to God, to whom it is on­ly peculiar not to erre, not be deceiued. For the Church may erre though she be his Spouse, but not persist in any deadly er­ror: as the Church of the Apostles did, when shee thought her husbands kingdome was of this world, yea and after shewed her ignorance of the calling of the Gentiles. reuerence and honor the Church, as our [Page 78]mother, and in our definition wee both retaine the name, and cleerely set out the nature of the thing it selfe. But you hauing lost the Church long since, do yet challenge the name and the vaine title of the church. Our definition of the Church doth nothing like you; why I pray you? because we describe the Church by those properties which doe altogether darken and hide it. Wee ascribe those properties to the Church which comprise the true nature of the Church, whose presence make a Church, and their absence marre or destroy a Church. But what are those properties which you affirme to darken and hide the Church? we verily iudge this to be proper to the true Church, toDVR. The Church is not to be sought for by these, as by notes, but they are to be lear­ned from the Church. WHIT. pag. 252. Will it therefore fol­low because the word is no where else tru­ly preached, but in the Church, nor the Sacramēts purely admi­nistred, that the Church is not to be knowne and found out by then? Yea the contrary followeth, because they are not elsewhere but in the Church: therefore by these notes the true Church is to be knovvne and demonstrated. For if only Peripatetians professe the Phi­losophy of Aristotle, then that kind of learning pointeth out the Peripatetians, and distinguisheth them frō all other sects of Philosophers. DVR. Thus to search out the Church, is but to secke out one vnknowne thing by another, which is more vnknowne. WHIT. pag. 254. As if the Scripture vvere more hidden and vn­knovvne then the Church, and the Scripture could better bee knovvne by the Church, then it by the Scripture: vndoubtedly no. 1. Because the Scripture be­geteth and maketh a Church; and then is a ting hknovvne, vvhen the cause is knovvne. 2. I here are many and diuers Churches, but there is but one con­stant Scripture alvvaies like it selfe. 3. If at any time there vvas euer doubt made of the Scripture; yet there haue been many moe questions and doubts concerning the Church. Lastly the Scripture is called a Canon, a rule; novv the rule as it is straighter, so is it more certeine then the thing that is squared by it. DVR. The notes of the Church ought to be such, as are agreed vpon among all, as are proper to it, neither can be challeng [...]d probablie by any other Church. WHIT. pag. 356. I conf [...]sse as much, and such are our notes in all things; vvhereas yours, are nothing leste. DVR. But euery sect layeth claime to your notes. WHIT. pag. 256. What then, vvhat if you lay claime to the things I possesse, are they therfore not mine ovvne? Be it that heretikes do lay claime to the Scriptures, yet they doe it vvithout all shevv of reason, and out of the Scriptures only can they be confuted. heare the word of Christ, and keepe it, to vse wholly and purely those Sacra­ments, which Christ, when hee departed from his Church, left her, as a pledge of his loue to her, and as a proofe of her loyalty to him. These we maintaine as the most true and substantiall properties of the [Page 79]Church, and this definition, made of the naturall and inbred principles and grounds of the thing, which we define, you shall neuer bee able to ouerthrow. I pray you what is there heere that hideth the Church? doth the word of God; do the Sacraments hide the Church? yea these are they that make theDVR. Why say you then that your Church lay hid for so many yeares together? WHIT. pag. 260. Our Church did neuer lie so hid, but it vvas discerned by your Pope, vnlesse for so many yeares he persecuted shadovves. Church appeare as cleere as any thing at noone day, these giue vnto the Church strength, health and beauty: a­bolish these, there will remaine nothing but the car­kase of the Church. What drowsie dreame then is this, you tell vs of an airy body? as if we denied that the Church could be found on the earth; wee neuer doubted but the Church euer hath been, and euer shal be vpon the earth: though we also grant that the sight of it being sometime so cleere that it may be seen of all: at another time is so obscured & euer sha­dowed, that one can hardly know it. But no Church pleaseth you, saue that which is continually flourish­ing, and which is visible to all mens eies, which hath a continuall succession of Bishops to be fetched from the beginning, and which is subiect to the Pope. Now Campian, as for you, you come to late to tell vs of these frantike popish dreames; wee haue heard, discussed, and distolued them, aboue a thousand times. Doe you thinke you are able to make vs be­leeue, that the state of the Church is such, that it can­not be hid, that treachery should preuaile nothing a­gainst it, an open enemy nothing, Antichrist himselfe nothing? These can neuer quite ouerthrow the Church, they may driue it to straits and thrust it into corners.August. 4.8. Augustine compareth the Church to the Moone, which sometime while it is inlightned by the Sunne-beames, shineth out, a [...] another time it is depriued of the greatest part of the light, and some­time shineth not at all. So the Church sometime shi­neth most brightly, sometime is more obscured, sometime hardly appeareth, and her whole course is [Page 80]continually gayning and losing of light.

Will you that I manifest it to you by examples? while Dauid and Salomon raigned, the Church flou­rished in Israell; but when Ahab raigned, the face of the Church was so far obscured, that the most diuine ProphetDVR. Elias spake not of the whole Church, but of the king­dome of Israell, wherein he li­ued. WHIT. pag. 261. He liued at that time, not in the kingdome of Israell, but in the moūtaine of God, Moūt Horeb. 1. King. 19.8. But grāt he spake of Israell only: it is no lesse for our pur­pose. For that which hapned there, that no good men appeared, though many lay hid, so it may fall out in other chur­ches, and at other times, that none or few of the faithfull ap­peare; yet God may haue a multi­tude of vn­knowne belee­uers. Eliah complained that there was not one remaining saue himselfe. If there could be such a ha­uocke made of the Church,1 King. 14.10. hhm. 10.3. that of all that great number of the godly, there was scarce one to be seene, (though there was a good summe remaining of them.) it need be no wonder that in the kingdome of Antichrist, who surpasseth all Ahabs and Iezabels in all brabarous cruelty, that the Church should be so wasted, that there should appeare a maruellous scarcity of faithfull men. And yet could Antichrist in that great hauocke of religion and the Church, ne­uer so far preuaile, but there was a remanant of many thousand thousands of Saints, who neuer bowed their knees to the beast, neither euer receiued the marke of the beast. Let vs passe along to those times when Christ liued vpon the earth, and consider the state of the Church of Ierusalem. For no Church can be more like to the Church of Rome, then that, as the state of it was, when Christ did performe the worke of our saluation. They had the Scripture, they were a people zealous of the law, they had the Temple, they had Leuits, Priests, yea a high Priest; what was wan­ting here to make a perfect Church? Christ at length sheweth himselfe openly, and bringeth that happie message of saluation; this very Church hated, per­secuted, cursed, and in the end killed this Christ, the Son of God, the lagat of his Father, the teacher of celestiall doctrine; the author of our saluation. This Church then, Campian, was it a true Church or no, what think you? If it was, then the true Church hated Christ, and iudged him worthy of death. If it was not, then where and what is the true Church? for [Page 81]Christ at the first had a very smale number, that if you answereDVR. The Church vn­doubtenly was in Christ and his Apostes. WHIT. pag. 262. See then what follow­eth for our ad­uantage; it it so fell out that the true Church was not amongst them who had a lawfull suc­cession ordei­ned of the Lord; who also had the place, the name, the dignity, and magnificent orna­ments of the Church; but it was in a few, who after a sort were cut off from the Church, it is a thing without question, that the Church is not alwaies to bee sought for in a visible multitude, and an outward succession of men: but often times in obscure places, and amongst a very few. Christ and his company was the Church, then you fall into that crime, which you reproue vs for. If then this might befall theDVR. That which befell the Synagogue of Hierusal [...], cannot befall to the Church of Christ, whieth the Prophets haue plainly foretold should neuer perish. Isay. 19.21. Icrem. 31.31. Eze [...]. 37.26. WHIT. pag. 264. As if the Church of Hierusalem was not the Church of Christ? what then happened vnto it, which may not befall my others? And for the Prophesies you recier, they belong to the company of the elect, and not to your popish Church to which the Lord neuer promised any such thing. Christ verily will neuer endure that his Church should be abolished or perish: but it is one thing for it to perish, and another to lye hid for a time, and not to bee seene; he hath promised it shall euer be preserued, not that it shall euer be vi­sible and glorious. DVR Christ hath promised to be with his Church to the end of the world. WHIT. pag. 265. Will it therefore follow that his Church shall ne­uer be hid, nor shut vp in a few? nothing lesse: for hee hath promised that wheresoeuer two or three are gathered together in his name, he will be in the middest of them. Church of Hieru­salem, that though it had, and by continued successi­on inioyed the name of the Church, yet in very truth it was nothing else but a caue and denne of theeues: I see not what the Church of Rome can challenge to it selfe, why it may not be said long a­got to haue lost the body of the Church, though it keepe still the visard, the name, and the vestments of the Church. What if the Romish Church condemned Luther? shall we say therefore Luther is an heretike, and that it is the Catholike Church? The Church of Ierusalem condemned Christ, and him and his they would haue denied to be the true Church, if by any colour they could, that they might free themselues out of those straights, they were brought into. But happily they will say, there is no such thing to be found in Christs new Church.2. Thess. 2. But S. Paul prophesieth of an Apostasie, that should be before Christs com­ming [Page 82]to iudgement,DVR. The Fathers haue vnderstood the place of Anti­christ, or of a defection from the Romane Empire. WHIT. pag. 268. Nay Cy­rill of Hierusa­lem (a man you much esteeme) Ca­tech. 11. doth interpret it of an Apostasie from the true faith, so doth Chrysostome, Oecumenius, so many o­thers. Yea your Diuines of Rhemes haue so ex­pounded it. which Apostafie is from reli­gion and the Church, as the most auncien [...] Fathers do vnderstand it: and Christ prophesied euidently of the small number of his.Luke. 18.8. When the Soune of man shall come shall he find DVR. Au­gustine de vultat. Eccle­siae cap. 13. saith, VVE vn­derstand this speech, either for the perfecti­on of faith, or for the multi­tude of the wicked, or for the small number of the good. So doth Hierome contr. Luciferano [...]. WHIT. pag. 270. What if these Fathers mistooke the place, must we rest in their exposition? we haue Nazianzene cont. Arran. Theophyla. in 28. Luc. Caie­tan vpon this place against them: nay further when Augustine writeth that there is signified the multitude of the wicked, and the small number of the good, doth he not defend our opinion, that the number of the wicked shall be great, but of the godly small? faith on the earth? If hardly any faith shal remaine on the earth, and the Church cannot be said to be a Church, but improperly without faith, it followeth necessarily that when Christ commeth, their number shall be very small, who may truly be called the Church. You haue now those Scriptures which do thus paint out the Church vnto vs, vnlesse you thinke your selfe better able to puttray it, then the holy Ghost himselfe could do, who hath set out the Church in farre better colours and manner, then I find yours to be, in which there is nothing left but painted walles. But, say you, there are Epistles of Christ written to the seauen Churches which were in Asia; there are also diuers Epistles which were written by S. Peter, S. Paul, S. Iohn, and by others vnto sundrie Churches; in the Acts of the Apostles wee find mention made of manie Churches begun and enlarged. What then, Campian, what think you may be inferred hereupon? These were not knowne to God only, but also to all Chri­stians: who euer denied that? These same Churches of Asia to whom Christ sent Epistles and the Chur­ches of the Corinthians, Philippians, Thessalonians, Colossians, to which Paul writ, were particular visi­ble Churches. Did we euer seeme to make question whether a Church might be visible or no? we verily call all those visible and apparant Churches, which professe the pure word of God and hold those rights [Page 83]and Sacraments which are commaunded by Christ. And so at this day by the blessing of God there are many visible Churches in England, Scotland, Ger­manie, Fraunce, and other parts of Christendome, though it greeue you Iesuits they should be so visi­ble and apparant. But what kind of reasoning is this?DVR. All par­ticular Chur­ches on which the Catholike Church consist­eth, as on parts, are visible: therefore the Catholike Church it selfe is visible. WHIT. pag. 272. All parti­cular Chur­ches which make the Ca­tholike, are not visible: because it consisteth not of the Chur­ches of this time only, but of Churches of the times past, and of those which shall be in the time to come. But say it were compact and made of the Churches of this time only, yet it followeth not that it must be visible: nay so long [...] particulars are visible, it cannot, for when all the parts are growen into o [...], then is the whole visible, but not each seuerall part; so when the seuerall parts may be seene, the whole cānot be seen, because the parts are no [...]ow become one. So the cōtrary to your collection will follow that because the parts are visible, the whole can­not be seene. Those Churches to whom Christ and his Apostles writ were visible: therefore the Catholike Church is euer visible. Haue you learned such Logicke as this at Rome in your famous schoolts of Iesuits? or doe you, Campian, thinke that these manner of Allega­tions should goe for proofes in the eares of our Vni­uersity men? but where are those Churches now, which were then so flourishing? Shew me the Church of Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamus, Corinthes, and the rest. Now they are no where to be seene, and are no lōger Churches. And that which we haue seen alrea­dy befal those Churches, teach vs, I pray you, how it may not also betide the Church of Rome? And though Rome become a heap, yet the Church shall be safe: neither shal the downfall of any citie or Em­pire euer be able to abolish it. And at this day there are many flourishing Churches, which are equall to your falsly called Catholike Church, for the number, & vndoubtedly are far better for the truth they hold.

But you say, That for 1500. yeares we could not spie out one towne, one village, one house seasoned with our doctrine. Nay, Campian, that is very false,DVR. The Arrians, M [...]cedonians, and all other auncient here­tikes may by the same probability say as much. WHIT. pag 272. It the Arrians or any other heretike can proue the doctrine of their Churches out of the holy Scriptures, they may answere the same which we doe, for euery Church which holdeth the Apostles doctrine, may professe that all cities, village [...], [...] which were religous, were seasoned with their doctrine. for in the [Page 84]Apostles time, all Churches, all cities, all townes, euery family embraced the same faith and religion which we now professe. After that by little and little, the purity of doctrineDVR. Tell me then from whom, and in what age any doctrine of our profession was brought into the Church. WHIT. pag. 277. The mo­tion of the Sunne is so very swift, that we may see it hath moued, though we cannot discerne the mouing of it: so such is the mystery of your iniquity that I well perceiue by the Scriptures your doctrines are not Aposto­licall; but the time when, and the manner how they were brought in, is not much to our purpose. And it were too long to tell all, yet heare some, Your Romish Bishop a long time together was but equall to other Bishops th [...]ugh much was giuen to him for the excellency of that Church. After the Christian world was diuided into foure Prouinces, when he became the chiefe of the Patriarkes, after this he began to challenge authority ouer other Churches, and for that purpose counterfeited the Councell of Nice: but he was repressed by the African Councell. Then Gregory the great, greatly inueyed against Iohn of Constantinople, because he sought the name of vniuersall Bishop, and for that ambition called him the forerunner of Antichrist. Lastly, Boniface the eight with a great summe obtained that honor of Phocas the Parricide. And since that hee grew to that height, that hee made not only Churches and Kings, but the Christian Emperour himselfe to kisse his feete. But see another example. Time was when there were no images in Churches: As that of Epi­phanius proueth, who rent a vaile in peeces, because there was in it an image of Christ or of some Saint. But in time they were receiued into the Church, but no honor giuen them: yet after that, good Bishops brake them and cast them out againe; as Gregory writeth that Serenus the Bishop of Massilia did, whom he thus checketh for it. In that you forbad them to be worshipped, wee commend you, but that you brake them, we reprehend you. Gregor. regist. lib. 7. Epist. 9. Last­ly the second Nicene Councell decreed, that they were not to be broken, yea that they were religiously to be worshipped. And thus hath it succeeded in o­ther things, as S. Paul did foretell [...]e saying; The mysterie of iniquitie doth al­readie worke. 2. Thess. 2.7. began to be corrupted, and diuers superstitions spread far and neare; though the holy Fathers did as much as they could, resist,2. Thess. 2.7. vntill that mystery of iniquitie, which tooke rooting in the very Apostles time, spread it selfeDVR. VVhat can be spoken or imagined more wic­ked and impious. WHIT. pag. 278. Then prophesied S. Paul impiously, when he did so [...]ell of a departing, and that Antichrist should sit in the Temple of God. Is this any other then that the mysterie of iniquitie should spread it selfe ouer the Church? by all the parts of the Church, and at length possessed it wholy. Yet Antichrist that man of sinne, could neuer preuaile so farre, but a great multitude of the Saints remained; and those, whose names were written in the booke of life, did vtterly abhorre all those filthie and wic­ked [Page 85]superstitions of Antichrist. For in the Church of Rome it selfe euen in the worth times of it, yet many were euer found, who worshipped the God of their Fathers, and kept themselues vnpolluted with that horrible Idolatrie. And this can histories of all times witnesse, which I could now recite if it were needful, and reckon vp to you, many houses, villages, townes, cities, and countries, where Christ had many and po­pulous Churches. TheDVR. This is very false, for in the Florētine Councell the Emperour Pa­leolus, together with the Greci­ans and Arme­nians freely ac­knowledged the Pope to be the Vicar of Christ, and im­braced the Ro­mane faith, yea and at this day they dissent from vs in few things, as Icre­my the Patri­arke of Con­stantinople hath plainly written. WHIT pag. 279. Why are they then of you accoun­ted Schisma­tickes, or vvhy obey they not the Pope? why came they not to the Coun­cell of Trent? the Pope by al meanes hath sought to haue thē subiect to him, but they stil cō ­temne him to his no small griefe. It is true, the Emperour, the Patriarke, and a multitude of Bishops came to the Florētine Coūcel. They agreed vvith thē in many things, [...]hers they dissented; your Trāsubstantiation they vtterly re­noūced. At that time Iesaphus their Patriarke suddenly died. Eugenius the Pope instantly vrged a nevv election. They denied to make any till they came to Constantinople. See you not hovv vvell they agree? I haue a booke of yours, not of Ieremies, neither vvill a small thing make me beleeue it is his: for both the Grecian [...], and particularly he, hath giuer great approbation of our Chur­ches, as vve find it in his vvorkes published both in Greeke and Latin. Greeke Church could neuer yet be brought to ioyne it self to your Church, and it is [...] opposite to you, as euer our Church was. And yet you so forge these things, as if the Pope of Rome long agoe had had the whole world vnder his sub­iection. Vntill that vnhappy Monke, as you say, by his incest [...] marriage had defloured a Nunne, dedicated to God by [...] sole [...] [...] or vntill that quarrelling Sw [...] had c [...]spired against his country, or that infa­mous [...]gate had vndertaken an vsurped authority in Ge [...]. So, Campian, go on to raile and reuile euery good man, powre out the gall of your bitternes, see­ing you haue vndertaken to spend all your vene­mous darts vpon them. Luthers name is written in the book of life; and his memory shal euer be sacred among all good men, and your reproaches shall not be able to pearce or wound him. It is a true saying, that a false repreach pierceth not the skinne: you call him Monke, & your selfe is but a Frier; now Monkes were euer accounted more honest then Friers. But he [Page 86]by incestuous marriage de [...]oured [...] Nom [...], dedica­ted to God by solemne vow.DVR. But you goe against S. Paul, who di­rectly denoun­ced damnation to those who will marry, ha­uing broken their first saith; which is vn­derstood by all the Fathers of violating the vow of single life by incestu­ous marriages. WHIT. pag. 281. But how proue you that the Apostle vnderstādeth by that faith, the vow of vir­ginity? Nay the scope of the place sheweth vs the contrary, for he forbiddeth that younger widdowes, whom he per­swadeth to marry, should be taken into that office; only such as were three­score yeares old, who may well abstaine from marriages & follow this calling. Now if they be not of this age, he sheweth what may be feared of them name­ly lest that rather then they should not many, they would wa [...] wa [...]on against Christ, and breake their first faith, which is not their vow, but the profession of Christian religion, which such light buswiues would easily co [...], that they might inioy their pleasures. And that this is his meaning the 1 [...]. verse sheweth: For certeine are already turned backe after Satan; shewing what some had done, he admonisheth them to be wary lest others should do the like. And as for the Fathers, if they did also expound these words, (as indeed they doe not) yet the argument is very weake in diuinity: The Fathers haue thus expoun­ded it, therefore the exposition is true. Luther indeed tooke to wife in holy wedlocke, a Virgin that once was in­tangled by a rash & superstitious vow, after she had bin more rightly instructed in the truth of religion. Exclaime bitterly as you list. Call Zuinglius also a swash buckler, seeing your self is a player of a Price. But tell vs wherein he did euer shew himselfe such a cutter? forsooth he boldly ventered his life with his fellow citizens.Slerdum lib. 8. Occo­lam. Ephes. lib. 4. If Zuinglius at the commaund of the Senate went to warre against the enemies of his coū ­trie & religion, where he perished by cruell theeues, who lay in waite for him, what did he vnbefitting a valiant man, a good citizen, and a faithfull Pastor to do. For whereas you challenge him with conspiracie against his country, besides that it is a shamelesse lie, I wonder why you should obiect such a crime to him, seeing with you it is a thing very commendable for men to conspire against their Prince and coun­try. As for Caluin whom you call a seareback: runa­gate, the whole Church of Christ knoweth to be an excellent man, and a most constant seruant of the Lord: who was as farre from lewdnes and dishona­stie, as you are from shamefastnes and honesty. If he was seared, S. Paul was so too,Gal. 6.17. yea & diuers others: but indeed he was not. And whereas you call him a runagate, I pray you tell vs, where you haue liued for [Page 87]these diuers yeares, and remember what your selfe were. Caluin neuer forsooke the Church, hee once tooke vpon him to gouerne, but there he liued with the speciall loue of all, and there he ended his daies: but why doe I answere you anything in defence of those excellent and worthy men, whom you shal ne­uer iustly defame, though you burst your hart with lying.

But let vs now heare your communication as you call it. And heere you demaund, Whether we will sub­scribe to the Church which flourished these many hun­dred youres? we answere, we will subscribe: but say you, to which Church? I answereDVR. He did not demaund whether you would subscribe to that Church, which had con­tinued in the precept of the Apostles, but vvhether to that Church, vvhich hath flourished these many hundred yeares; vvhich if you vvould, you must needs yeeld as ouer­come, vvhen none but ours haue flourished thus long. WHIT. pag. 285. As if no Church but the Romish Church had flourished these many hundred yeares: or for many ages to­gether in the opinion of men, it only h [...] the name of [...]e church: [...] will subscribe to all Churches whether they flourished now [...] they hold the Apostles doctrine: but you shall neuer proue [...] we must ne­cessarily subscribe to place, Sea, & succession, no more then Christ & his disci­ples were bound when there was no true Church flourishing vpon the earth. to the Church which is built vpon the foundation of the Prophets and Apostles: that is, to the Churches of Hierusa­lem, Antioch, Ephesus, and all those famous and ex­cellent Churches of which wee reade in the Epistles written by the Apostles, yea euen to the auncient Church of Rome, to which yours is no more like then an apple to an oyste [...]. Finally we subscribe to those Churches, of whom we reade in histories that they kept the seed of that doctrine, which the Apo­stles taught among them, sound & vncorrupt. These Churches as long as they did continue in the Apo­stles doctrine, were true Churches; & to those Chur­ches we haue and euer will subscribe. And by this I thinke we haue cut off the progresse of your confe­rence, for we haue not giuen you such an answere as you fained to your selfe. Wherefore that which fol­loweth in you hangeth together like a rope of sand. but no answere will please you, vnlesse we offer to subscribe to your Romish Church: but that we iustly disclaime, because it hath fouly corrupted the [...] ­stles [Page 88]writing. You must find you out other subscri­bers, Campian, for wee will subscribe to none but the Apostolicall Churches. But one thing, say you, they will still stand vpon in darkenes, that where and in what place soeuer the Church is, there are con [...]eiued therein only Saints, and such as are predestinate to go to heauen. We speake not so of the Church as you write: for we are taught by the Scriptures thus to distin­guish the Church, that it is sometimesDVR. I be­leeue only one Catholike Church, as the Apostles and Nicene Creed hath taught me, which contei­neth both the elect, and as many as pro­fesse true reli­gion. Now you teach me to be­leeue two Churches. WHIT. pag. 286. This di­stinction ta­keth not away the vnity of the Church, no more then when the Church is said to be m [...]an and u [...] ­phant, vniuersall and particular. For the visible and [...]uisible Church make but one: called visible, for the outward policy or order of it, which is seene and discerned; inuis [...]ble because Gods election and the electes faith is not to be seene with eies. And this distinction we haue, Esay. 1.9. Matth. 22.14. As for the Creedes you mention, we beleeue them in this point aswell as you. But tell vs; this one Catholike Church what is it? If you restraine the name to the vi­sible Church; first, you exclude both that in heauen of the Saints, and that which shall be of these which a [...]e vnborne, and yet do belong to the Catholike Church: secondly you place faith in the sense, which the Apostle saith is of things which are not seene, Heb. 11.1. As for that Catholike Church which we beleeue, it is the company of all the elect, euen as many as haue been from the beginning of the world, and shall be to the end; therefore it is called the Apo­stolike and holy Church, the communion of Saints. And to this communion belong no prophane and wicked men, no hypocrites; because they haue no fellowship with Christ. For the holy Church is the mysticall body of Christ, of which body no member can at any time perish. visible and sometimes inuisible. In a particular visible Church, of which they are members, who will heare the Word, and receiue the Sacraments: we confesse there are many fained Christians, who had rather haue the visard of faith, then true faith indeed. An inuisible Church we affirme to containe only the godly, who with a true faith lay hold on the Gospell. These though they may bee seene as long as they liue a­mongst men, seeing they are men as others bee, yet because neither their faith nor Gods loue, which ma­keth them members of the Church, is visible, we af­firme that this Church, consisting of holy and faith­full men, is altogether inuisible. Christ is the head of this Church, to this only the elect ca [...] ioyne them­selues, [Page 89]wee then acknowledge another Church be­sides that, which cōteineth only Saints (for so should there be no visible Church at all) but what company of men soeuer vpon the earth doth professe the do­ctrine of the Apostles and Prophets, we professe that to be the true Church of Christ, though many wic­ked men be found in it. Neither are we the first who did inuent and deuise these things, as you say of vs, but are ready to proue thē both by the holy scripture and by authority of Antiquity. Comfort then your selfe, Campian, as much as you can, with the wits of our Vniuersity men, and promise to your selfe great things from vs, but see you bring more dexterity of wit, or else without doubt you can neuer deceiue vs with this shallow conceit. If you should propound these foolish and childish things in the populous as­semblies of our Vniuersity men, I perswade my selfe, they would not only teare to pieces these your chil­dish shifts, but do as much by you too, for abusing so shamefully their learned conceites.

WILLIAM WHITAKERS. The answere to the fourth Reason.

THE next place is concerning Councels, not much differing from the former; for what is a Councell but the flower, and as it were a little modell of the whole Church? And therefore whatsoeuer may be said of Coū ­cels, it appertaineth to the nature of the Church; but when as these for more plainnes sake, are sometimes distinguished, I doe easily permit you to propound them distinctly.DVR. But you coutemne the authority of the holy Ghost, speaking by Councels, which al the auncient Fathers haue had in singular respect. WHIT. pag. 290. You ac­cuse vs falsely, for howsoeuer we assent not with you, who make them shoulder the Scriptures with equall authority; because we know that both they might, and also haue grossely erred in many things, as the Fathers haue confessed, and yee your selues cannot deny; yet wherein they are consonant with the Scriptures, we embrace their authority▪ and haue them in singular respect, and estination. And in preferring the Scripture before them, we follow but the ex­ample of the Fathers. August. de Baptis. contra Donat. lib. 2. cap. 3. idem con­tra Maxim. lib. 3▪ cap. 14. & de vnitat. Eccle. cap. 16. Hieron. in Galatas. Am­bros. Epist. 32. Now the name of Councels is ho­norable, their credit singular, and their authority of [Page 95]great esteeme, and you doe neuer more insolently bragge, then in this place: for when you doe but name Councels, you thinke that you haue sufficient­ly confuted your aduersaries, and promise vnto your selfe assured victory. Neither will I go about to exte­nuate the dignity of Councels, wōdering thatDVR. Nazi­anzene d [...]d not iudge inturi­ously nor wri­tet [...] bitterly of Councels, as you suppose; but on­ly a [...]fi [...]med that the fraud and malice of the heretikes of those times, hindred the as­sembling of lawfull Coun­cels. WHIT. pag. 264. It seemeth you haue not read his Epi­stle, or but ve­ry sle [...]gtly, [...]eeing he therein plain­ly set [...]eth downe two reasons why he absented himselfe from the Councell, when he was called: f [...]st the weaknes of his body, and secondly, his iudgment concerning Councels: which was, that he thought such assemblies were to be auoided, because he had seene no good of any Synode, and that hereby occasi­ons of euils were rather increased then taken away. DVR. Yea but he hath shen­ed his contrary iudgment vvriting his Cledonius. WHIT. Nothing lesse: but only hee affirmeth that he vvould subscribe to the Apollinarian heretikes, if they could proue that they vvere receiued of the vvest Councell; vvhich hee knevv they could not. Na­zianzene, Nazianz. Epist. 4 [...]. ad Procop. [...]. should so vniustly iudge, and so iniurious­ly write of them. For he saith, that he had deliberated with himselfe and fully resolued to auoid Episcopall Con­uocations, because he had neuer seene a good issue of any Synode. Which howsoeuer it hath bin true of many, which by reason of the ambition, and busie medling of some, haue not taken away auncient controuer­sies, but rather haue sowed the seed of new conten­tions: yet many Councels haue been approued and commended by their most wished euent. Whereas therefore you appeale to Councels, we will follow you in many, & in their most weighty censures and decrees: for in all neither do you your selues iudge it necessary. But let vs now heare you discoursing concerning Councels.

A waighty question, (say you) concerning law­full cere [...]ies, was cleared in a Councell of the A­postles and Fld [...]rs assembled together. The children beleeued their Parents, and the Sheepe their Shep­h [...]ard, commaunding in this forme of speech; It bath pleased the holy Ghost and vs. Where you make menti­on of a Councell most excellent, and aboue all ex­ceptions: in which nothing was done rashly, per­uersely, and factiously (as sometimes in other Coun­cels [Page 96]it hath been accustomed) but al things diuinely, and by the authority of the holy Ghost himself. and therfore if we did not beleeue this Councell, we were vnworthy of the name, either of children or of sheep. This Councel resolued that important question con­cerning ceremonies, and freed the neckes of Christi­ans from that most grieuous yoke of Mosaicall rites: whereby the greater cause of griefe is offered vs by you, who haue imposed vpon the Church, contrarie to the expresse commandement of this Councell, an­other yoke much more intolerable, then that of Mo­ses. For this is cleare and manifest, that the ceremo­nies brought into the Church by you, and imposed vpon the consciences of men, are twice as many, as those which in time past Moses by Gods expresse commaundement inioyned vnto the people of Isra­ell.August. ad Ianuar. And this is that of whichDVR. Angu­stine vvhen he vvrit this, did not after your manner carpe at Ecclesiasti­call ceremo­nies, but she­vveth that be vvould not haue them in­stituted at eue­ry mans plea­sure. For in his first Epistle to Ianuariu [...] he thus vvriteth. If the vvhole Church vse any of these, it i [...] insolent madnes to dispute, vvhether such a thing is to be done or no? WHIT. pag. 296. Augustine condemneth the multitude of ceremonies in his time, and vvould haue vs rest contented vvith those few ceremonies, vvhich are commended vnto vs in the Scriptures. Ad Ianuar. E­pist. 118. cap. 1. & Epist. 119.19. His vvords vvhich you alleage, I vvillinglie embrace; for vve vse and esteeme those ceremonies, vvhich all Churches haue receiued as necessary for order and comelinesse. But of this kind yours are not, neither can you vvrest those speeches concerning the ceremonies of the Church to approue your Traditions: seeing the Church of Rome long since ceased to be the Church of Christ. Augustine long a­gone complained, namely that by the multitudes of ceremonies, the state of Christians, was become worse then the state of the Iewes themselues, which if Augustine spake of the ceremonies of his time, how much more would he haue thus complained, had he seene the great multitudes, which were afterwards added to them. But if the Apostles and Elders accor­ding to the meaning & iudgment of the holy Ghost, did determine that those ceremonies which the Lord himselfe had ordeined, were to be abolished, how intolerable is your boldnes, who contrary to the de­cree [Page 97]of this spirit, and Councell haue obtruded, vpon Christians your innumerable traditions and needles ceremonies. Did the Lord therfore abolish his owne ceremonies, that he might establish yours? did he a­broga [...] a few, that he might bring in a multitude? did he ease vs of lighter, that he might impose hea­uier. Whereby it appeareth that the diuine institu­tion of this Councel, which, as it was before all other in time, so aboue all other in excellency, is most wic­kedly by you violated. And is it to be thought possi­ble, that you, who haue demeaned your selues so im­piously towards these Parents and Pastors, will be more respectiue towards others? Nay there is not a­ny Councell, which you haue not long ago trodden vnder feete, so that euery one of you, are infoulded in a thousand excōmunications. And dare you, Cam­pian, notwithstanding make mention of Councels, which if they were in any force, surely you should no more be tolerated in the Church, then Publicans and Pagans. There followeth this, say you, for the roo­ting out of heresie, the foure general Councels of the aun­cient Fathers, which were of such strength and authori­ty, that a thousand yeares since, they were had in sin­gular account euen as Gods word it selfe. And we like­wise doe freely confesse, that the authority of those foure Councels was good and profitable.Luthe. de Concil. Reade what learned Luther hath writ of those foure gene­rall Councels, and so also you may know our iudge­ment of them. Notwithstanding there is no reason why we should assent vnto Gregorie, Gregor. lib. 1. Epist. 24. who professeth that he doth imbrace and reuerence these foure Coun­cels, as the foure bookes of the holy Gospell. For this were rather to violate the Gospell, then to reuerence the Councels. Although as I take it, Gregories meaning was, that what was decreed and concluded in these foure Councels, out of Gods word against Arriu [...], Eu [...]onius, Macedonius, Nostorius, Eutyches, and Dio­sc [...]ru [...], that he firmely embraced, and would not suf­fer [Page 98]these decreet, which are approued by the Euan­gelicall writings, and in which this impious heresie is condemned, to be reuoked and repealed no more then the Gospell it selfe, neither can I imagine that it was Gregories purpose to affirme this of all these Councels, that the Councell of Nice, Constantin [...] ­ple, Ephesus and Chalced [...]n, were fully equall vnto the holy Gospell in authority and dignity. And so we our selues do not doubt, that those things which these Fathers haue determined against those here­tikes, before named concerning the consubstantiall subsistence of the Father and the Sonne, of the diui­nity of the holy Ghost, of the one person of Christ in two natures, are as true as the Gospel it selfe; not be­cause these Councels so iudged and concluded, but because in the Gospell, the selfe same doctrine of faith is deliuered. Further you say, That also i [...] [...]r owne country, by our Parliaments, the same Councels retaine their auncient right. It is true indeed, that in these and all other things, which they propound, if they be consonant to the holy Scriptures, they doe still retaine their auncient right and dignity. But lest you should suppose that we did euer attribute thus much to these Councels, that we iudge all that to be necessarily embraced, whatsoeuer they haue decreed; heare you now what our Church hath thought and ordained of these generall Councels. Councels, not only may erre, but also sometimes haue erred, In the Ar­tic. of Reli­gion, Artic. 21. and that in these things, which belong to the rule of piety, and therfore whatsoeuer by them is decreed as necessary to saluation, hath no vertus nor authority, vnlesse it may be shewed that it is taken ou [...] of the holy Scriptures. Cite you now these words, and then contest (as you call it) your sweet coūtry. And in like māner, this your most deare countrie in which you were borne, brought vp and graced, doth contest, intreat, and beseech you, by all those things, which are vnto you most swee [...]e and best esteemed, that you desist any more in this b [...]dde [Page 99]cause to be troublesome vnto her; that you will no [...] corrupt her children with an impious and strange religion; that you will make more preciou [...] account of her dignity, then of a forraine enemie: and that you would at length returne thither, from whence you haue stra [...]ed. And surely you would not con­temne this speech of your country, if you could, e­uen for a litle space, lay aside, that preiudicate opini­on which you haue sucked from Rome, and brought with you hither into England.

But let vs heare, what is this your contestation? If, say you, you will re [...]erence these four [...] Councels, you will chiefely hon [...]r the Bishop of the chief [...] S [...], that is Peter. And so do we ascribe great honour, vnto Peter, and that worthily; neither doe we contend with you a­bout him; but this affirme, that those things which were proper vnto Peter, cannot in any wise apper­taine to your Pope, who was neuer like either Peter or Paul. And in truth what madnes is this, so inso­lently to bragge of Peters great vertues, when in the meane time, you cannot proue that your Popes are indued with any such? Do you suppose that any man that is in his right wits, will thinke that Peters faith, piety, and all the rest of his vertues, haue bin deriued to your Pope by a lineall descent, from so many o­ther Popes, of whom a great number, were not men, but monsters? This doubtlesse is a grosse dotage, and fit to be taken away,Quouis hel­leboro dig­num. with the mad mans purge, and as one saith, for those diseases, reprehension is the best ma [...]r of cure. Should I entitle your Gregori [...] the 13. who now gouerneth at Rome, with the name of Pe­ter? doth he teach? doth he feed Christs sheepe? sure­ly he cannot. Doth he performe the duty of an Apo­stle, or of a Bishop? nothing lesse. How therfore doth he demeane himselfe? Sitting in the Vatican, he pro­uoketh to warre, moueth seditions, armeth subiects against their Princes, and filleth the whole world with vpro [...] ▪ Did Peter thus behaue himselfe? is [Page 100]this to be Peter? can you deny that these things be true, and shall I then yeeld vnto him the like honor, that is due to Peter, being so vnlike him in conditi­ons? But let vs further examine your words; You will (say you) chiefely honor the Bishop of the chiefe Sea, that is Peter; but by what Councell doe you proue that necessary? you alleage the Councell of Nice Can. 6. In which there is not so much as any menti­on of the Bishop of the chiefe Sea, or of Peter; nei­ther in truth could any thing be produced of greater force against your Bishop, then that decree of Ni­cene Synode: for it matcheth all Metropolitanes and Patriarkes in an equall ranke of honor with the Bi­shop of Rome; neither doth it attribute any more to him, then vnto y^e Metropolitanes of Antioch, Alexan­dria, and the rest of the other Prouinces. If you please, you shall heare the words of the Councell:Concil. Ni­cen. Can. 6. DVR. This cause by you alleadged ma­keth much for establishing the authority of the Romane Sea ouer all Churches. For vvhen as the Fathers to proue the au­thority of the Bishop of Alex­andria, alleage the custome of the Church of Rome, they shew hereby that A­lexandria de­pendeth vpon Rome; as the mother Church frō which she hath all her authority. And that this was their mind appeareth by the words of Paschasmus the Popes Legat in the Councell of Chalcedon, & is also proued by the 39. Canon translated out of Ara­bicke into Latin. The same Fathers likevvise assembled at Sardis approued the Su­premacy of the Romane Sea. WHIT. pag. 299. Nothing could be alleadged more direct against the Romish Supremacy then this Canon, wherin their own pro­per limits of iurisdiction are assigned to euery Metropolitane. For if the Pope should rule ouer the whole Church, it had bin absur'd to limit euery one their owne borders, wherein they should haue supreame authority according to the custome of the Church of Rome. Neither doth this proue the supremacy of the Romish Church, because they alleadge her custome and example, as you ig­norantly inferre: seeing an example may be taken aswell from an equall or inferiour, as from a superious. It is no maruell if Paschasinus, being the Popes Legate, spake for the supremacy of the Romane Sea, neither is his testimony to be regarded, being a party. Your Arabicke Canon is meerely Arabicke, and not Nicene; for of this Councel there were only 20. Canons written in Greek, and not in the Arabian tongue. The Canon of the Councell of Sardis helpeth you not, seeing the Councell of Africke testifieth that i [...] was counterfeite. Let the ancient custome be in force, which was in Aegypt, Libya, and Pentapolis, that the Bishop of Alexandria haue the chiefe dignity, ouer all these things: because also this was the custome of the Bishop of Rome: and in like manner at Antioch, and in the rest of the Prouinces, let the Pri­macy and authority be receiued vnto the Churches.

You see (Campian) I suppose that no extraordi­nary prerogatiue hath been giuen to the Bishop of Rome: and that his Prouince and Iurisdiction hath been circumscribed within determined bounds and borders.Ruffin. lib. Decim [...]. And after this same manner doth Ruffinus, (if you do not credit vs) interpret this Canon. This Auncient custome is obserued at Alexandria, and in the citie of Rome, that the Bishop of Alexandria take the charges of Aegypt, and the Bishop of Rome of the Churches of the cities neire adioyning. And therefore let the Bishop of Rome take care of the bordering Churches of the neighbour cities, with which the Ni­cene Synode hath enioyned him to rest satisfied; and hereafter let him not trouble himselfe, with the care of our Churches, which appertaine not vnto his charge. And so you see, that if you had been well ad­uised, you would neuer haue mentioned this Coun­cell.Act. 4.16. But you adioyne also vnto this the Councell ofDVR. The Councell of Chalcedon stan­deth so directly for the supre­macy of the Romane Sea, that you ca with no shifts auoid it. For therein Dioscorus, as for diuer, other faults, so especi­ally for excom­munstating the Pope, vvas de­priued of Epis­copall authori­ty, Act. 3. Be­sides they writ thus to Pope Leo. He extē ­deth his mad­nes against him, vnto whom the custody of the vineyard is committed by our Sauiour, and against thee who labourest to vnite the body of the Church. A­gaine, they desire that their decrees should be confirmed of the same Pope. And Pas­chasinus saith that the Pope of Rome, vvhichus head of all the Churches, depriued him; because as Lucentius addeth, hee presumed to call a Councell vvithout the authority of the Apostolike Sea. WHIT. pag. 302. This councell is so far from confirming the Popes supremacy, that it plainly ouerthroweth it: for though Pope Leo with all earnestnes opposed against the honor and dignity of the Bi­shop of Constantinople, yet he obtein [...] of the Councell that degree of honor which he desired, which he could not haue done if the Councell had acknovv­ledged the Popes supremacy. Concerning Dioscorus, he was depriued for ma­ny notable crimes, as murther, blasphemy against the Trinity burglary, adulte­ry and excommunicating the Pope; and you make this last a speciall cause of his depriuation, as though it were a more heinous crime then murther, adultery and blasphemy. Therein aduauncing your Pope, as your manner is, aboue the blessed Trinity. The committing of the vineyard to Peter, maketh nothing for your Pope, who is not Peter, nor any thing like him. Proue that it was commit­ted to the Pope and you say something. The confirmation of the decrees was not a thing proper to the Pope, but also appertained to the other Patriarckes and Metropolitanes; yea to the Emperors. Paschasinus and Lucentius accusing Dioscorus, say not a word of the Popes supremacy, although they were the Popes Legates. And whereas he calleth Rome the head of all the Churches, his meaning was, that it was the first, greatest, and most famous Church. Chalcedon, that thereby you may proue that the [Page 102]chiefe honour is to be ascribed vnto the Bishop of the chiefe sea, that is vnto Peter. I graunt, Cam­pian, that this sea in time past, was had in the chiefe place of honour, and I know very well that the chiefe dignitie was attributed to the Bishop of this sea; the reason whereof you may easilie per­ceiue out of the selfe same Councell. For this was not done by any commaundement of Christ, that the Church of Rome should excell in dignitie, all other Churches of the world: but the Fathers te­stifie, that the cause why that Citie was inuested with greater priuiledge than others, was this, be­cause it was the chiefe seate of the Empire. You may finde the words themselues in the same acte which you cite.Act. 16. But if (as you say) the Church of Rome ought to haue the preheminence aboue all other Churches in the world, in diuine authoritie, what then ment the Chalcedonian Fathers, to af­firme that there were some prerogatiues graunted vnto that Church, for this cause alone; in that Rome was the head of the Empire, and therefore they thought that the Bishop of that Citie, which was the Empresse of the world, was worthie of some more honour than others? And this honour to speake of was onely this; that the Bishop of Rome should haue the preheminence of place in Councels, the prioritie of speech in deliuering his opinion, and the precedence in rancke and place. And thus neither doe we our selues, now much en­uie this honour to the Romane Bishop, but that if so it please him, he may enioy it; so that he doe not (because he hath the chiefe place) imperiouslie ty­ranize ouer his brethren, as he hath done for many ages, and perswadeth himselfe that he may doe it lawfully. But seeing it pleaseth you to obiect vnto vs, the Coūcel of Chalcedon, that you may challenge the chiefe honor, as due to your Bishop of the chiefe Sea, before I proceed further, I would gladly you [Page 103]should resolue me in this question, why theDVR. This was not the iudgement of the whole Coū ­cell, but of cer­teine men. Nei­ther did the Constantinopo­litanes require that their Sea should be of e­quall authority with the Sea of Rome, but that it should haue the like soue­raignty in Ec­clesiasticall matters, and obtain [...] the next place to it. WHIT. pag. 306. This was the iudgment of the whole Councell, ex­cept the Popes owne Legates Paschasinus, Bonefacius, and Lucentius, who in vaine opposed: for the decree runneth thus. These things we all say, these things please vs all. And contrary to your as­sertion, these Fathers decreed that the Bishop of Constantinople should be matched in equall priuiledge, with the Bishop of Rome; which equality of pri­uiledges, cannot stand with the vnequality of authority. Neither did prioritie of place proue, that the Bishop of Rome had any priority of authoritie, s [...]ing this was only for orders sake: otherwise by the same reason the Bishop of Con­stātinople should haue had the like authority ouer the Bishop of Alexandri [...], because he sate aboue him. Fathers of this Councell, made the Sea of Constantinople, e­quall to the Sea of Rome? for so they decree, and dif­finitiuely determine: that seeing great priuiledges were graunted to the Church of Rome, in respect of the Empire of the citie, they thought it a matter of great equity, that the new Rome that was now gra­ced with the Empire and Senate, should enioy the same priuiledges which old Rome had done. And al­though the Bishop of Rome did most earnestly con­tend and labour, that the Bishop of Constantinople might not be made his equall, yet he could not by his best meanes effect his desire, but that the decree of the Councell preuailed, which had equalised the Bishop of Constantinople, with the Bishop of Rome. And therefore me thinkes you haue but ill defended the honor and dignity of your Bishop, when you al­leadge the decree of that Councell. Moreouer, the Councell ofDVR. The filth Canon of the Councell of Constanti­nople, ascribed greater honor to the Romane Sea, then to any other. WHIT. pag. 311. This honor was only of precedence and place, and not of authority; as plainly appeareth in the words of the Councell it self [...]. Chap. [...]8. and in that the like prerogatiue was graunted in the next place to the Bishop of Constan­tinople, and therefore by the like reason he might [...]rrog [...] authority ouer the whole Church. Constantinople which you also cite,Canon. 5. decreed no other thing for the Romane Sea, then that the Bishop of Constantinople should haue the prerogatiue of honor next to the Bishop of Rome. And this we also confesse, that in times past the Prouinces were so distributed, that Rome had the chiefe, Con­stantinople [Page 104]the next, and so euery one in their owne order. But what maketh that to this cause, which we haue now in hand? For this is not the honor which the Bishop of Rome challengeth vnto himselfe: this not the height of power and maiestie which he so often arrogateth.Ephes. Conc. in Epist. ad Nestor. The Councell also ofDVR. In the Councell of E­phesus diuers things are con­teined, vvhich approue the supremacy of the Sea of Rome, &c. WHIT. pag. 313. Campian cited the Epi­stle of the Councell to Nestorius, wherein there is nothing which any way fauou­reth the Popes supremacy; the which you perceiuing, do rake together other frag­ments concer­ning things which are not in controuer­sie, and leaue out those points which make against you. Ephesus is alleadged by you with as litle reason, seeing it ascri­beth nothing to the Bishop of Rome, which did not also agree to other Bishops: for if you take hold on this, that Celestinus the Bishop of Rome, was called the holy president, & most reuerend Father, because he threatned to excommunicate Nestorius, vnlesse he abiuted his heresie; these things are cōmon vnto the Bishop of Rome with others: neither was he on­ly intitled reuerend, neither could hee alone pro­nounce iudgment against heretikes. But if these would rather please you; This is the faith of the Ca­tholike and Orthodoxall Church, vnto which all the Or­thodoxall Bishops giue their assent; you interpret these words amisse. For in these words all the Orthodoxall Bishops are said not to assent to the Church, but to the faith: and that faith, which the Fathers in those their letters embraced, all Orthodoxall Bishops in e­uery place haue approued, and we also do defend.

But what now followeth in your contestation? Thou wilt (say you) acknowledge the vnbloody sacri­fice of the body and blood of Christ on the Altar. And for this you cite the 14. Canon of the Nicence Coū ­cell, in which there is not so much as any mention made neither of vnbloody, nor ofDVR. The word Sacrifice is in the 14. Canon of the Nicene Councell. And in the institutions of this Councell, it is said that the Lambe of God is on the holy table, which is offered of the Priests without blood, &c. WHIT pag. 316. It is not to be found in the words of the Councell in the Greeke, but they are your words of the Trāslator. And cōcerning the institutiōs, their authority was alwaies doubtfull in the Church, neither do they make for you, seeing we grant that in the right vse of the Sacrament we receiue the Lambe of God, Sacramentally. sacrifice, nor of [Page 105]Altar. But Deacons are there prohibited to arrogate so much vnto themselues, that Bishops or Priests be­ing present, they should take vpon them to admini­ster the Sacrament of the Lords supper, because it was not lawfull for Deacons to deliuer the Lords body vnto Priests. Now it is an vsuall thing to call bread the Lords body, because it is a Sacrament of the Lords body; neither in the meane time do I de­ny that the supper of the Lord is called by many of theDVR. The te­stimonies of the Fathers which you alleadge, vvherein the Sacrament is called an vn­bloody sacrifice, make no­thing for you: seeing that vvith them is called vnbloo­dy, not that is vvithout blood but vvithout effusion of blood. WHIT pag. 318. The word [...], vn­bloody, vsed by them, signifieth such a thing as hath no blood in it. If therefore this be [...], an vn­bloody sacrifice, as the Fathers call it, then it is a Sacrifice without blood, and not only without shedding of blood. Againe if it be a sacrifice wherin no blood is spilt, then is it not the sacrifice of Christ; for in this blood was shed: nor any true sacrifice, for there is no sacrifice that hath blood without the shedding therof. Heb. 9.22. auncient Fathers, an vnbloody sacrifice: both because wee retaine the mysteries of Christs death without any blood, & also offer vp praises & thanks­giuing as it were for sacrifices vnto God; and there­fore Cyrill ioyneth in the supper, these together, vn­bloody sacrifices and praises. Cyril. ad Regin. Eusebius de Demon. lib. 1. And Eusebius writeth, that we build an Altar to the Lord, of vnbloody and reaso­nable sacrifices, according to the new mysteries. Now if you aske what manner of vnbloody sacrifice this is, let Eusebius himself answer you in his own words. He hath deliuered vnto vs, a DVR. Eusebius doth not call it a sacrifice, because it is a sole & bare memoriall of the new Testament, as you suppose: but because vvee offer an vn­bloody socrifice, for a memoriall of a bloody sacrifice. WHIT. pag. 323. Neither doe I affirme it, for this is not a bare memoriall, seeing the thing it selfe, there­by signified, is therin cōteined in the right vse of it. But withall I deny that this memoriall is the same sacrifice which Christ offered, as you would haue it; for how can a sacrifice be y^e self same with it of which it is a memorial? If therfore this be an vnbloody sacrifice, thē it is not the Sacrifice which Christ offered, which was bloody, & the memorial of no other sacrifice. See Eus. de Demon. l. 1. memoriall of his death, which we offer vnto him in place of a Sacrifice. Again, you pro­pound the eleuenth act of the Councell of Chalce­don, which conteineth nothing at all, which apper­taineth to this matter in hand, neither that place of Socrates which you quote.Lib. 1. cap. 8 You might haue dealt better and more simply, if you would haue cited the [Page 106]words themselues, and not only quoted vncertaine and confused notes in y^e margent: but you feared lest you might haue bin too easily discouered, vnles you had masked your selfe vnder the vizard of deceite.

But let vs examine the remainder of your conte­station: Thou wilt pray (say you) vnto the Martyrs and all the Saints, that they would mediate for thee vn­to Christ. Thou wilt restraine effeminate Apostataes from wicked copulation. Whether the Martyrs and heauenly Saints pray vnto Christ for vs or no,DVR. You cā ­not be ignorant of this, that the Saints pray for vs, if in the do­ctrine of faith you insist in the steps of the Fa­thers. WHIT. p. 328. We are ignorāt therof because there is no such thing cōteined in the Canoni­cal Scriptures, which should not haue bin omitted if the spirit of God had thought this know­ledge necessary. Neither is it con [...]ouersed what the Fathers thought of it; not doth it follow because they haue care of vs, they pray for vs; neither if they do pray, therefore we should pray vnto them. we know not: but certaine it is, that they areDVR. We knovv the blessednes of the Saints in heauen, and therefore they are not ignorant of our misery in earth. A­gaine, Christ hath reueiled vnto the Saints liuing on the earth, diuine and heauenly things, and therefore he reueileth to the Saints in heauen, vvhat is done in earth. WHIT. pag 330. Although we generally know that the Saints in heauen are blessed, yet we know not their particular state, their actions, the manner & de­gree of their happines: and therefore if your argument be good, it confuteth your self; seeing therfore it followeth, that they likwise are ignorant of our par­ticular state & actions. Moreouer Christ reueiled to the Saints on earth, hea­uenly things, but not what was done in heauen, only he made those diuine my­steries knowe vnto them, which were necessary to saluation; whereof it fol­loweth not that he reuealeth to the Saints in heauen, what is particularly done on earth, vnles you can proue that there is the like necessity of this knowledge. ignorant of those things we doe. And therefore we rather goe vntoDVR. S. Paul desireth the Romans and Corinthians to pray for him, and therfore vve may desire the same of the Saints in heauen. We knovv that vve obtaine all in the name of Christ, but seeing all are not in like grace vvith God, the Fathers and vve haue made choise of those vvho are most gratious. WHIT. pag. 336. The first part of your answere confuteth the latter, vnles you will say that Paul was lesse gratious with God, then the Romans and Corinthians; and both are weake & of no value: for first Paul praieth not to them as you do to Saints, but only de­sireth them to performe a mutual Christian duty, which the Saints liuing, who are acquainted with one anothers estate and wants, ought not to neglect: if he had made the likesuite to a Prophet departed, Iohn Baptist, or Iames slaine by Herode, you had somewhat to say. Lastly if those are to be made choise of for mediators, who are in greatest grace with God, to whom should we goe but vn­to Christ his dearely beloued Sonne, in whom God is well pleased and we re­conciled? Eph. 16. Matth. 3.17. Ioh. 14.6. 1. Tim. 2.5. Christ, and pray vnto him alone, who [Page 107]both knoweth our wants, and also will and can grant vnto vs such things as we desire. You if you please may seeke after the pirling streames, but wee will draw out of the fountaine it selfe, neither doe we re­gard the inueterate custome of praying vnto saints (for though this custome is auncient; neuerthelesse, it hath flowed from the well-head of humane super­stition, and not from diuine authoritie:) and whereas you adioyne your conceit concerning the restrai­ning offeminate Apostataes from wicked copulation; and for this purpose alleadge some Canons of the Councell of Chalcedon:Concil. Chale. can. 4.15.23. in this you follow your olde wont: for there is only one Canon to be found against ministring widowes, which after they had taken vpon them the office of ministration, married againe: but how vniust this law is, it may easilie ap­peare.1. Tim. 5. For when as Saint Paul would haue these wi­dowes to beDVR. There is nothing de­termined in the Scriptures concerning the age of vvid­dovves. That vvhich S. Paul vvriteth, vvas profitable for the insancie of the Church; but vvhen the Gospell had taken deeper [...]oot in mens harts, they began to preferre cōtiuency before marriage. WHIT. pag. 337. Your impudency is to be admired, seeing S. Paul hath plainly determined that they should bee fixtie yeares of age at the least, 1. Tim. 5.9. neither were such Apostolicall constitutions to indure only for a time, but vntill the com­ming of Christ, as appeareth. 1. Tim. 6.14. And whereas you say the Gospell after the Apostles times, tooke deeper roote in mens minds, it is meerely false; it was indeed further propagated, but the Church was neuer in after ages in­dued with the like measure of grace, and extraordinarie giftes, as it was in the Apostles times, when they receiued the first fruits of the spirit. And I would pray the Reader to consider that Duraeus doth confesse, that in the first age of the Church single life was not so much desired of most, and in later times they onely beg [...]n to preferre continency before matriage. But how much better it had been to haue kept the Apostolike institutions, and to haue chaunged compelled continency for lawfull and holy marriage, the lamentable euent hath sufficiently proued. sixtie yeares old at least; this Canon doth admit of those who are but fortie: and yet not­withstanding permitteth them not to marrie. But you will say they haue vowed single life: First, proue that they ought to make any such vowe, and then, that if they shall perceiue, they can by no meanes [Page 108]performe their vowe, that they haue done otherwise then they should when they married.DVR. You say, to vovv that vvhich vve cannot performe, is to mocke God; but this vve may performe, seeing God bestovveth the vertue of continen­cie vpon those, vvho seeke it by fasting and prayer: and seeing the vestall Nuns and Aegyp­tian Priests atteined vnto it, and vvines also, vvhen their husbands are longe absent vpon necessary occasion. WHIT. pag. 340. God granteth not all things wee pray for, but those things which hee hath promised, as appeareth in the example of S. Paul 2. Cor. 12.8. But we haue no promise of the gift of con­tinency; yea cōtrariwise Christ hath taught vs, that all are not capable of it, but those only to whō it is giuen Matth. 19.11. & the Apostle saith that it is a gift proper to some onely. 1. Cor. 7.7. and therefore wee haue no ground abso­lutely to pray for it with assurance of being heard. The vestall Nuns & Aegyp­tian Priests are fit examples for your imitation, who liued single, but not chast: and yet the Vestals might marrie when they were past thirtie yeares old; and some Aegyptian Priests, as appeareth, Gen. 41.45. Concerning the chastitie of wiues in their husbands necessary absence, the reason is not alike; for it is one thing to impose vpon our selues a voluntary necessitie, and another to vndergoe it when it is imposed by God. God will keepe vs in our waies, Psal. 90.14. but not when wee rashly thrust our selues into needlesse difficulties. To make a vow in things indifferent, which you cannot possibly performe, is to mocke God, and to commit the crime of impious temeritie: but to persist in this wicked vowe is a double sinne. And therefore that which the law prescribeth is to be embraced: The best course in euill promises made, is not to obserue them; and we are so to behaue our selues, as Bernard coun­selleth his sister. In euill promises keepe not touch. Bernard. ad Soror. de modo bene viuendi Serm. 62. DVR. Bernard vvriteth not against the vovv of virginity, but only vvilleth vs to breake a dishonest vovv, neither is this booke, you knovv, thought to be his. WHIT. pag. 342. It is not much materiall who was the author, but his iudge­ment is to be embraced: seeing then that is a dishonest vow, the performance whereof is ioyned vvith dishonestie, it follovveth that the vovv of single life is such, vvhen as it causeth men to burne in the flame of lust, and therefore is rather to be broken then obserued. In a dishonest vowe change thy purpose. Doe not performe that which thou hast vowed vnaduisedly; for that pro­mise is impious which is wickedly performed. Now what can be more wicked and odious in the sight of God, then to be inwardly inflamed with the fire of lust, and to refuse that lawfull mean [...] whereby it might be quenched? But you are alwaies harping vpon this string; that they are bound by the lawes [Page 109]of a vowe:Cyprian. lib. 1. Epist. 1. 1. Pet. 1. therefore let Cyprian make you answere.DVR. The words of Cy­prian are not to be vnder­stood of Vir­gins already consecrated vnto God, but he willeth those who will not perseuere in virginitie, that they doe not consecrate themselues to Christ, but ra­ther marry, WHIT. pag. 343. Cyprian speaketh plainly of such Virgins as vvere al­readie con­secrated, for hee repre­hendeth such as hauing consecrated themselues to Christ, did liue in­continently, and vvilleth them, if they vvill not per­seuere in chastitie, to marrie. lib. 1. Epistol. 11. And Eras­mus thought thus as appeareth by a marginall note of his. Here marriages are permitted to holy Virgins. If they haue by their vowe, consecrated themselues to Christ,1. Pet. 1.let them perseuere honestly and chastely without any feined deuises. But if they will not or cannot perse­ [...]ere, their best course is to marrie. And would Cypri­an, thinke you Campian, haue giuen this counsell to Virgins, if he had iudged such marriages wicked, or no better than publike incest, as you in your intem­perate stile tearme it? And indeed how much more honest course were it for you Monkes and Friers, to auoid your too too publike and notoriously wicked fornication, by imbracing chaste marriage? for so it might come to passe,Plus secund. as your olde Pope Pius was wont to say: That many of you might be saued in mar­riage, which are now damned in single life: But he that is filthie, let him goe forward in his filthines vnto his olde age; and let him that is holy, [...]lie vncleanenesse, and prefer sanctimonie of life, before vice and wic­kednes. And these are the maine matters which you haue deliuered vnto vs, in that your graue contesta­tion, and haue laboured to perswade by interposing the authoritie of Councels. But you might haue con­sidered (Campian) that the counterfeit names of Councels, ought to be of farre lesse authoritie with vs, then the most vndoubted truth of Gods word. And whereas you further affirme, that The Synods of other times, and namely that of Trent, are of equall au­thoritie and credit with those first Councels: I must tell you, I beleeue you not, although you promise and take vpon you to proue it, when need requires. You promise indeed much, but performe nothing. But here I intreate the godly Reader, and beseech all Christians, that they would attentiuely marke, what Campian here auoucheth, to wit, that all Synodes, and namely that of Trent, are equall to the foure [Page 110]generall Councels: which foure Councels, are byDVR. Gre­gorie doth not match the foure Coun­cels in equall authoritie vvith the foure Gospels; but onely saith, that as hee doth vndoub­tedly and cer­tainely beleeue the scriptures, so also the foure Councels. WHIT. pag. 348. Gregorie saith, that he doth imbrace and reuerence the foure Councels as the foure bookes of the Gospell, E­pist. libr. 1. Epist. 24. And what is this, but to make them equall? For if there bee any ine­qualitie, wo cannot im­brace and re­uerence them both alike. Gregory, whom Campian citeth, marched in equall authoritie with the foure Gospels: from whence it necessarily followeth, that all Councels of other times are of the same authoritie and credit with the foure Euangelists. I will not vrge this poynt further, neither will I now shake you vp, as you vsually doe Master Luther, but rather leaue you to bee beaten with the rod of mens silent iudgements. After this you being shadowed with this impenitrable shield of Councels, enter the lists, and obserue whether your aduersarie conuaieth himselfe; for so great a warrier you are, such a skilfull Champion, and so fierce in fight, that assoone as you but shew your selfe, forthwith all your enemies betake them to their heeles; and eftsoones you declare how you meane to behaue your selfe in this fight, and what a great slaughter you intend to make. But take heede, Campian, least that may worthilie be applied to you, which is spoken in the Prouerbes: He that is rashly confident, before the conflict, is commonly a coward in the combate.

You speake much of the dignitie of Councels, which we also acknowledge to be very great, but neuerthelesse, the holy Ghost is not bound to mul­titudes of men, to stately preparations, nor to sump­tuous pompe. And we may often obserue that in Councels there is much contending amongst con­trarie factions, and sometimes the greater part pre­uaileth against the better. You say that Luther durst presume to affirme, that hee preferred the iudgement and suffrages of two good and learned men, before the Councels. And in truth why might he not preferre them; and who could iustly finde fault with that speech? Seeing Gerson the Moderator of the Coun­cell of Constance, doubted not to preferre the iudgement of one man, before the whole Councell. [Page 111] DVR. Ger­son did neuer preferre the iudgement of one man before a vvhole Coun­cell. WHIT. pag. 349. It is vn­true, for he thus writeth. We ought ra­ther to b [...] ­leeue in a point of [...]o­ctrine a simple man not au­thorised, but yet excellent­ly learned in the scriptures, thē the Pope. Againe a man thus learned, ought to op­pose himselfe against a ge­nerall Coun­cell, if he per­ceiue that the greater part incline to that which is con­trary to the Gospel, either through ma­lice or igno­rance, Gers. de exam. doctr. 1. par. Conside­rat. 5. We are, saith he, to giue more credit vnto a man learned in the holy Scriptures alleaging catholike authority, then to a generall Councell: Tit. de elect. can. signifi­ [...]sti. which also Pa [...]ormitan hath confirmed, writing in this manner: We ought (saith he) rather to beleeue a simple lay man, alleaging the Scrip­ture, than the whole Councell together. You say further, That Kemnisius dared to peise the Councell of Trent in the ballance of his owne giddie braine. But Kemnisius did not examine that Councell by his owne square, but by the rule of Gods holy word: And what gained he? (say you) and answering your selfe in your owne question, you say, nothing but infamie: If Kemnisius haue not your good word, it is no great wonder; for he hath atchieued that by his learning, vertue and industrie, that he may seeme worthie of enuie and hatred from such as you are. But if true and deser­ued praise be due to good deeds, he hath obtained an honourable reward; euen the euerlasting glorie of a good name. Yea (say you) if he take not heede, he shall be buried with Arrius. But it behooued you, Campian, to trouble your head, rather about your owne, then Kemnisius his funerals: and take you heede, least for your euill deedes, there be a sepul­chre prouided for you amongst the damned.

Now here againe you begin more highly to ex­toll the Councell of Trent; as though we knew not the notable carriage and behauiour of that famous and goodly Synode. But for my part I easilie allow you to be so farre in loue with it, neither in truth will I become your riuall.Sleidanus. Illyricus. Kemnisius. Caluinus. Ioan. Iuel­lus. Others haue spoken of it those things that are most true: both how it was called, how handled, and how it was dismissed; and there­fore I will not goe about to refute your affections. Let it enioy, for me, that credit and estimation which it can. Although euery one knoweth thus much, that it was not to bee esteemed a Councell of the whole Christian state,An assem­blie of cer­taine men. but rather a Conuenticle of a [Page 112]few men running together into the same place. There was there present a sort of sill [...]e Friers which did sus­teine the greatest part of the burthen, by disputing, writing and playing the Orators. For as for the Bi­shops and chiefe Cardinals, they busied their heads about other matters, for which they were speciallie assembled. But as I said, let it be such as it was, for I am not offended at your commendations. And let the Bishops make their glorious bragges, that they long abode in that schoole; out of which as yet, as farre as I know, not many, either learned diuines or good Pastors haue come. You also vsher in Antonie of Prage greatly congratulating with himselfe; for you would needs shew him some kindnes, because he made you a Priest. Well; Campian was created Priest by Antony Archbishop of Prage; surely I feare lest you trauelled too far to buy such base wares. But now you may celebrate your Masses, seeing you are shauen and annointed, and made a Priest.

Moreouer you demaund & exceedingly triumph, why your Aduersaries called hither, and secured by the caution of publike promise, did not make all hast to come vnto it? In which you are sufficiently answered in the Apoligie of our Church. For what should wee doe there? or to what end should we vndertake so long a iourney, either that being mocked and abused, we might returne home againe, or being burned in the Councell, we should pay for our rashnes? For what place of disputation was left amongst those, who had euery man plighted their faith to the Bishop of Rome, & had religiously bound themselues by oath, that they would neuer either doe or say any thing a­gaing his dignity and pleasure? what therfore might be hoped for from these, which might draw any to the disputation? besides theDVR. Iohn Husse was not called by the Councell of Constance, nei­ther receiued from it any publike pro­mise. And whereas you say that it was decreed in this Councell, that faith is not to be kept with here­tikes, it is false. WHIT. pag. 352. The Em­perour Sigis­mund gaue him his pub­like warrant, which the Councel most dishonorably infringed. And after they had put Husse to death contrary to publike pro­mise, they enacted a law that a promise made vnto heretikes by the Emperour or by any King or secular Prince, should not hinder any Ecclesiasticall Iudges from proceeding against them according to law. Concil. Constant. Sess. 19. calamity of Iohn Husse [Page 113]of Bohemia, and Hierome of Prage, whom the Fa­thers burned in the Councell of Constance, brought iust cause of feare. And yet Husse came to the Coun­cell, trusting in the protection of a publike promise. Yea but (say you) the Constantine Fathers made no pro­mise, and therefore did not breake any. But Sigismonde the Emperor gaue his publike warrant, vnto whom it was fit that he should giue credit. Notwithstan­ding, comming to the Councell, he was presently apprehended and cast into prison, and pleading his cause before the Councell he was condemned and burned, although Sigismond stormed at it. Neither did hee flie, as you falsely report, neither in truth could hee escape: but thus this holy and innocent man was deuoured like a sheepe by furious wolues. And what I pray you, did the Emperors authoritie, commandement, or publike warrantize profit him? The Emperor (say you) signed it, but the state of Chri­stendome, greater than the Emperors, did repeale it. And who then can be safe, if the Emperors beare no sway in the Councell? Neither doth the horrible murther of Iohn Husse, contrarie to a publike war­rant of protection, so much discourage vs from com­ming to your Councels, as that decree published by the Councell it selfe, That promise is not to be kept with Heretikes. Should I then beleeue you, who I know will keepe no promise? If I doe, surely I am worthy to perish after the same manner. Hierome of Prage likewise came to the Councell of his owne accord, and making publike profession of his faith, was burned. So that the case of these two, (than the which all Christendome at that time had not any more holy or learned) shall remaine as a perpetuall monument of your treacherie and most horrible crueltie; and as a notable caueat vnto all the godly, to beware of you for the time to come. Concerning Luther, whom you, cursed Frier, call the hatred of [Page 114]God and men, the hand and power of God himselfe so defended him, that you could neuer hurt him. For will was not wanting to you for the destruction of Luther, but opportunitie. But he was safe (say you) vp­on the Emperors word: neither in truth durst the Pope attempt Luthers death, after the Emperor had pro­mised him safetie. For would Charles the fifth, thinke you, haue endured it? It was not behoofefull for the Pope to haue attempted any thing, whereby the Emperors faith might appeare falsified: for Charles would neuer so easilie haue put vp such an indignitie as Sigismond had done in time past.

But (say you) they doe too much brag in corners, in which when they haue but sounded three Greeke words, they would seeme to be very wise. They might perhaps seeme wise to you, who scarcely (as I suppose) can sound three Greeke words. They cannot (as you say) indure the light, which would bring a Scholler into account, and would recall him into some place of recke­ning: and is this it, Campian, which you hunt after, a name, same, places of account, to be poynted at with the finger, and to be thus spoken of, This is the man aduanced to greatest grace, excelling in worth, and worthy place? Doth this grieue you that you are not highly esteemed of, and doe not sit in high place? Well man, proceede in your vertuous courses, and goe forward in the way, into the which you are en­tred to your great praise, and there is good hope you may ascend vnto such an high place as you are wor­thie of.

But wheras you desire, That the English Catholikes may obtaine a Patent of impunity, if they loue the salua­tion of their soules, surely you require a thing vniust & vnequal. For what liknes is there in this, that learned men should assemble from all parts, vnto a publike Councell, and that Runnagates should be permitted to returne vnto their countrie? We will (say you) with [Page 115]winged speed hast vnto the Court, relying our selues vpon the Princes word. And so indeed you safely may: for if shee giue her word, you may promise vnto your selues assured securitie. And I the more easilie be­leeue you speake the truth, seeing some of you al­ready, haue hasted into the Gourt, hauing no pro­mise from the Prince to rest vpon. But Campian, flie you rather to the Indians, that you may take a sur­uey of your Popes new Prouince: for our most wise Prince desires no such guests, but banisheth you as farre as she can from her.

But now at length you returne thither whence you haue digressed, and gloriouslie conclude this poynt, concerning Councels: saying, The generall Councels make all for me, the first, last, and middle. You haue gotten an easie and speedie victorie: I am al­most perswaded that you are become another Cae­sar: V [...]ni, vidi, vici, I came, I sawe, I ouercame; but this is not to dart your Iaueling, which you say is looped for the purpose. I see words as it were tied together with strings, or rather franticke speeches; but as yet I discerne no speare: either a Iauelin, or a thongue, or strength, or (which I rather beleeue) all these are wanting vnto you. Surely we of the Vni­uersities, Campian, doe greatly desire to trie how skilfully you haue learned to tosse your speare, and we hope it will come to passe, that you being pier­ced with our darts, will at length know and ac­knowledge your audacious temeritie and slothfull ignorance of this fight.

WILLIAM WHITAKERS. The answere to the fifth Reason, which is the Fathers.

NOw Campian calleth vpon the Fathers, from whom, because hee presumes of a firme defence, he earnestly desireth a conflict, not like those light skirmishes of men in the streets, but a se­rious and constant disputa­tion, such as Philosophers vse: Campian (you see) hath a better minde to con­uerse with Philosophers, than with Diuines: for be­ing furnished with Rhetoricke and Logicke, and ha­uing spent most of his time in often declaiming and in inuenting and answering sophisticall captions, he doubteth not of a famous victorie, if Philosophers were Iudges. But (Campian) these matters are not to be disputed among Philosophers, which are o­therwhiles [Page 123]deceiued with probabilitie and appa­rance of truth, following that opinion which them­selues iudge most agreeable to reason. This question in hand, must be discusted in the assemblie of most graue and learned Diuines, whom no iugling of words, no subtiltie in disputation, no wit, no cun­ning, no youthfull insolent boldnes, in quarrelling lying, or soolish vaunting, can once moue, much lesse remoue them from the truth they are perswa­ded of. Here can you not haue libertie to bragge of your counterfeit deuises, Philosophie may not sit as iudge in these controuersies, neither will those things, wherein you chiefely trust, be heere of any authority: you must leaue your owne erroneous and endlesse walkes, and be drawne perforce into the compasse and limits of Scripture and true diuinitie. For Christ and his Apostles (as that discreete man said in the Nicene Councell) commended not Lo­gicke and vaine subtiltie vnto vs,Socrat. lib. 2. cap. 8. but a naked opinion, consisting in faith and good works: And this simple and sincere word of truth, will easilie dissolue all your cauils, will dispell your artificiall mists, and will hold you fast as in a net, so that the more you strug­gle to get out, the faster and straiter are you tied. But you haste to the Fathers, and say, If we may once come vnto them, the warre is ended. Now I must tell you, you make too much hast, and ouerslippe many things. Is the battaile ended, say you? Why, who had the victorie? This is verily childish and too ridicu­lous, but yet vsuall in your combats, to triumphe before the victorie. But I would heare how you haue finished the warre, with such admirable expedition: For (say you) the Fathers are as surely ours, as Grego­rie the thirteenth himselfe; the most louing Father of the Children of the Church. Giue me leaue to answere you in your owne words: My friends who are pre­sent, can you forbeare langhing? What could be af­firmed, [Page 124]more weakely, fondly, or absurdly? Call you him, the most louing Father of the Churches Children, whom wee knew to bee their furious and mortall aduersaries? And conclude you that other to bee as true as this? I graunt aswell the one as the other, for both are most false. What thinke you? haue you not got a famous victorie? And thus (Campian) you vse to make an end of bat­tailes, and put to flight great armies of aduersaries. What remaineth, but that as Conqueror, you bee crowned with a Laurell garland, and carried with triumph into the Vatican, and solace your self many yeeres with your deare Father Gregorie, that good old man? But now (Campian) proceed and prosecute the victorie, which you haue gotten. We haue (say you) whole volumes of the Fathers, which doe fully, di­stincty, and purposely declare that Euangelicall religion, which we now defend. Now you muster and reckon vp your armies; whereby you procured this victorie, looke well to them, you were best, and lay sure hold of them, lest they reuolt, and forsaking you, come to our Tents: for you force them to bee with you a­gainst their wils. So that in the most dangerous and important fight, they flie vnto vs with speede, and doe most sharply assault and batter you. But let vs consider your volumes: The two fold Hierarchie of Denys the Martyr, what orders doth it teach vs, what sacrifices, what rites? Assuredly it teacheth vs nouel­ties, vnheard of in the Scriptures; we therefore leaue both them and their author wholy vnto you. For, though this Denys, whosoeuer he were, was both for time ancient, and in his stile of writing, not vnlear­ned; yet, that he should be the Ar [...]pagit [...], whom Paul at Athens conuerted to the Faith, is altogether incredible. If you aske me a reason of this my opi­nion, I pray you reade diligently and consideratly that which Laurentius Valla, and Eras [...]us of Rote­radam [Page 125]haue written of him. Both of them perswade, by no fained surmises, but by very weightie reasons, and such as (I weene) you will hardly gainsay, that this Denys cannot be the partie you report him to be. You then haue no reason to be angrie with Lu­ther or Caussaeus if they handled thisDVR. You say that Deny [...] is counterfeite, but proue it by no reason. But Origen, Nazi­anzene, Zo­ph [...]ine Arch­bishop of Hie­rusalem, Da­mascene, Ni­cephorus, Eu­themius, Dio­nysius Archbi­shop of Alex­a [...]dria, ac­knowledge his bookes & him to haue been a disciple of S. Paul. WHIT. pag. 357. But I say that Antiquitie was altoge­ther ignorant of his bookes; which could not be if they bad been written of Denys Arc [...]pagita: for Eus [...]biu: diligently searching out, and setting downe all auncient writers, and all th [...]r bookes and Epistles which they writ, mentio­neth not [...]im, nor his workes, neither doe any [...] the Greeke and Latin Fa­thers speake of him. But who can thinke that the bookes of a disciple of Saint Paul should be vnknowne, and not highly esteemed [...] of all in those daies? Be­sides he citeth the Epistles of Ig [...]tius, as also the Gospell and Reuelation of S. Iohn, which must needs be written diuers yeares after the death of Denys A­r [...]pagita: hee writeth▪ an Epistle to Polycarpus and calleth him a ruler of the Church, when at his detah Polycarpus must needs be very yong▪ for Denys was slaine Anno Dom 96. Polycarpe died 1 [...]6. being but 86. yeares of age; he cal­leth Timothy his sonne, who was conuerted before euer that Ar [...]pagita vvas: he acknowledgeth that his maisters had their learning from the Apostles, doth he not thereby deny himselfe S. Paules scholer? finally the Church Hierar­chie and all the names of the officers reckoned vp by him, were neuer knowne in the Apostles time▪ For your authors they are all new and late wri­ters, but two. The first Origen, whom Erasmus denieth Annot. in Act. 17. once to haue made m [...]otion of him in all his writings: neither euer doth Nazian­zene. counterfeit somewhat roughly, and censured him freely. Where you say Caluin and the writers of the Centuries were offended with Ignatius, Ignatius. I confesse they had iust cause of offence. If heretikes alleaged him, to bee a patron of a wicked and detestable opinion, Caluin might with reason and discretion reiect him: how aptly and truly he was by them alleaged, I cannot tell, let them look to it. Howsoeuer it be, the truth ought not by his authoritie to be borne downe, whose cre­dit is little, if any at all: you are not ignorant what the iudgement of all the learned is those Epistles of Ignatius. Eusebius indeed makes mention of some of his Epistles, and Hierome of others: but now ma­ny more goe vnder his name, which they haue not [Page 126]mentioned. Hierome DVR. If di­uers of those things there ci­ted out of him bee not to bee found, hovv. follovveth it that those works of his vvhich are extant, bee forged and noue of his? WHIT. pag. 360. From thence verely it will follow that his works are not per­fect, yea ma­ny things are found in his Epistles, which are incredible to haue been taught in those daies: as the strict kee­ping of Lent, and fasting vpon the Sab­bath daies; yea it was but latelie that these Epistles were printed and published, and so of the lesse credit and authority. also reports a saying of his;Hier [...]n. Dial. 3. con. Pel. Theod. Dial. 3. and Theodoret another, which are not found in those Epistles which are caried about: what would you haue more? Gratian himselfe fauours not ouermuch this your Ignatius. You see then, of how obscure, suspected and vncertaine reputation are these two, which you place in the forefront of your armie.

You are offended, that the Censors, as you call them, vpbraide Irenaeus, as in some thing fantasticall. We vse not to speake reprochfully of Irenaus, whom we confesse to haue been both holy and learned: but what is this to the purpose? If Iraneus haue written something foolishly, must be therefore by and by, be wholy yours? And if some where we haue noted his opinion, as not true and sound, doe we therefore reiect all his works? Is this your man­ner of disputing (Campian) is this your skirmishing? are you of opinion, that neuer any word passed from Irenaeus vnaduisedly, or which might iustly be tear­med vnreasonable? Then tellDVR. You that acknovveledge, and admit nothing but the Scriptures, can by no argument confute this err [...]r. WHIT. p. 362. What may worse beseeme a liuine, then thus to speake? What thinke you of these places: Christ when he began to preach the Gospell was about thirtie yeares of age? Luke 3.23. After his Baptisme Iohn maketh menti­on of three Pasleouers, and that in the third he was put to death? Is not the time then very plainely set downe? and indeede what can be more plaine and casie? Hence we may obserue that the Fathers haue plainely erred, where you would hardly beleeue any man could erre. me, Campian, Lib. 2. cap. 39.40. how Christ preached onely one yeare, yet was baptized the thirtieth yeare of his age, and died the fiftieth? what, shall we beleeue, that Christ taught onely one yeare, and that the fortieth yeare? will you denie this to be a very new, strange, and almost franticke noueltie? Besides that, many write Irenaeus to haue been one of them, whom the Fathers call Millena­ries; thinke you that was not a franticke opinion? And can you doubt of Clemens, whether hee hath [Page 127]sometimes sowne Tares? what call you that, where he denieth, that Christ indeed did either hunger or thirst? Againe, that Christ taught but one yeere, which he had of Irenaus? Againe,Clement. Stromat. lib. 3. idem lib. 1. idem. lib. 5. that the Philoso­phers in hel expected the comming of Christ, & be­ing taught by owne mouth beleeued? Wil you deny those to be Tares? and many of this kind are his to be found in the worthiest writers of that age. If you denie it, bring me one whom I will not conuince to haue erred by your owne iudgement. You dare not say,Tertul. we haue wronged Tertullian: But you will vs to remember, that the book of Prescriptions was neuer taxed; which, for ought I remember, neuer was: though I confesse that writing, which you name, is notable, in which many things are written, very di­uinely, against your Church.DVR. But you tell vs not any one particular whereby this may ap­peare. WHIT. pag. 365. I sup­pose you ne­uer read this booke, or else you would not make doubt of it. Is any thing more against your traditions, then that hee pronounceth a curie to them that shall bring any doctrine, but the selfe same which the nations receiued from the Apostles, and they from Christ himselfe? And that men cannot be other­wise perswaded of the things of faith, then from the writings of faith? when he gathereth from Christ sending of his Apostles, that no Ministers are else to be receiue, but such as Christ hath ordeined? when whatsoeuer is later brought is forraine and false? when he w [...]eth, that faith must be built and borne vp, vp­on the writings of the Law and of the Prophets, the Euangelists and Apostles? I wonder you are not ashamed of Hippolytus; of whom Harding himselfe was almost ashamed.Hippolyt. Thinke not that we are ought moued withDVR. VVhy do you reiect this booke of Hippolyte as counterfeite? Hierome af­firmeth, that he was a Bishop, and hath written many Commentaries vpon the Scrip­tures. WHIT. pag. 367. Will it therefore follow that this booke is not coun­terfeit? nay it is the rather forged, because Hierom doth not number it amongst his bookes. Hyppolitus was a very worthy man, of whom Eusebius. Hierom, Theo­doret, Nicephorus haue made verie honorable mention. But this booke is chil­dish in the beginning, and in the whole altogether vnanswerable to his elo­quence and iudgement. authors of so small credit, so lately drawne but of darknes, as they scarse yet haue lear­ned to looke vpon the light. For what was this Hip­polytus? He writ, you say, of Antichrist. But how worthily? that foolish booke of Hippolytus, which a [Page 128]certaine man, I know not who, of late daies publish­ed, gesseth, that the Diuell is Antichrist, and faineth many other things: which neither can be true, nor were euer esteemed for true. And yet you marueile we set him so light, whom no man regards or reads, or almost knowes. I can giue you good leaue to recken him for your owne, and if you will, let him haue a better note in your armie.

The accusation concerning Cyprian, Cyprian. is more hay­nous, whom all men reuerence for his singular faith and excellent learning. But Caussaeus tearmeth him senselesse and without God. They of Magdenburge, call him a corrupter of penance. Shall I be tied to take vpon me, and defend euery speech, which any man hath at any time vttered? This Caussaeus I neuer saw, nor before this euer heard of him. But in as much, as you so odiously accuse him, I suppose him to bee some learned and godly man. Vnto that he saith of Cyprian, I answere that which I remember I haue read inDVR. That Cyprian which Nazianzene speaketh of, was not our Cypri­an the Father of the Church. WHIT. pag. 367. Nazian­zene certaine­ly speaketh of the same Cy­prian. for see how hee de­scribes him; He did not on­ly gouerne the Church of Car­thage, and all Affricke, but the vvhole VVest, and almost the East, the Southerne and Northerne parts: how thinke you, is it not the same Cyprian? Nazianzene, viz. that he was in his youth dissolute and giuen to much vice, and worshipped Diuels, and vsed the helpe of Diuels: He was (saith Nazianzene) a worshipper of Diuels, and after a dis­ciple of Christ. Nazian. de Cypri. Your vnreasonablenes forceth me to mention those things, which I had rather haue con­cealed. For in the Fathers imperfections, you sticke fast like a burre, and cease not to rub vp the remem­brance of those things, which you should doe bet­ter, not once to touch, If these things which Nazi­anzene reporteth of Cyprian be true, then Caussaeus might say, that Cyprian at that time was foolish and godlesse. For I cannot thinke that Caussaeus would write so of him, but in regard of those times, or that any man would conceiue so iniuriously, of that god­ly Martyr: whereas they of Magdenburge com­plaine [Page 129]that hee corrupted the doctrine of repen­tance, therein they forge against him no new accu­sation, but rather disclose that which all men know to haue been too true. Cyprian wrote some thing of Repentance very vnseasonably and vndiscreetly, and not heDVR. O sin­gular impu­dencie! O in­tollerable arro­gancie! what, haue all the Fa­thers in that age erred so sousely in so great a mat­ter? As if they were ignorant that the works of repentance had any vertue any where else. but from the merits and blood of Christ. WHIT. pag. 369. What neede all this heate? It had been your part to haue shewed that the Fathers who then li­ued, haue spo­ken nothing vnfitly of re­pentance, so had you con­futed that I charge them with, which your heare will not cure. And what if the Fathers haue thought that mens works haue all their vertue and power from the merit of Christ; will it thence follow they haue spoken nothing vn­fitly of repentance and works? As if Christ by his death had onely merited that we might by our works and merits deserue eternall life; or that they who hold the foundation may not build timber or haie vpon it. alone, but all the holy Fathers of that time, were tainted with that error. For being desirous by seuere lawes, to limit and restraine the euill man­ners of men, they made the greatest part of Repen­tance to consist, in certaine outward disciplines, which they appointed: which seuere censuring of sinne & sharpe punishing of wickednes, might hap­pely be borne withall: but when they thought the punishment of sinne to be discharged, Gods iustice satisfied, freedome from sinne, and certeine forgiue­nes with righteousnes hereby to be procured; here­in they diminished the power of Christs death, they attributed too much to their owne inuentions, and in a word depraued the doctrine of repentance: be­cause our sinnes are clensed and remoued, by no offi­ces or workes of ours, but only by the blood and passion of Christ. And so your obiection of Repen­tance is answered. We doe not for all this deny the workes of Cyprian, nor reiect the bookes of any Fa­ther of that age, as you falsely affirme, seeing both he and they agree with vs in the greatest questions: but this is the priuiledge of you and your fellowes, that you euen greedily hunt after, and pursue, whatsoeuer is faulty in any author, as if all the Fathers errors, serued to make vp the body and faith of your religi­on. Something, you say, Cyprian wrote to Cornelius, [Page 130]which if we giue credit vnto: then Peter Martyr and his cōfederats, must be held for worse thē adulterous & sacrilegious; but what that is, I cannot so much as couiecture. I know that Cyprian sent many letters to Cornelius, but none of them accuse vs, either of adul­tery or sacriledge; neither can you out of those let­ters alleadge any thing to our preiudice or your ad­uantage: but this is euer your manner, to proue no­thing clearely and distinctly, but only to name the Fathers, and from their names, to raise certaine ro­uing & vncertaine suspitions. That which you write of Chambers and pillowes, I passe ouer as nothing else, but scoffing and reproachfull taunts, such as is com­mon in euery varlets mouth. Now you come to the next age, and heere you mention Chrysostome, Nazi­anzene, Ambrose, and Hierome. But to what purpose I pray you?Chrysostom. for what if Luther do censure Chrysostome sharply, because by too much aduauncing our works and merits, he obscureth the righteousnes of faith? what though Caussaeus find some thing fabulous in Nazianzene? Nazian. DVR. You freely graunt that Chryso­stome, Nazi­anzene, Am­brose, and Hierome are on Campians side: and yet you pleasantly demaund are these Fathers wholy yours? we, who are then true sonnes, doe not challenge them as halfe Fathers, but wholy our Fathers. WHIT. pag. 370. When did I euer grant Campian so much? I should certeinly doe the Fathers great iniury, if I should adiudge them for Campian, who are so farre different from him. And for your kindred with them; it is but as the Iewes were Abrahams children: for if you were the children of the Fathers, you would hold the faith of the Fathers. For the Scribes and Pharisies were not the children of Moses, because they sate in Moses chaire. Neither are they the children of the Saints, who hold the places of the Saints; as Hierome. Neither haue they the inheritance of Peter, which haue not the faith of Peter; as Ambrose: neither ought faith to be tried by persons, but per­sons by saith, as Tertullian hath written. We verily loue and duly reuerence the Fathers, yet wee acknowledge but one Father in heauen, and one teacher, which is Christ. And if you acknowledge them wholy your Fathers, why doe you forsake many of their opinions? therefore are these Fathers wholie on your side? what is this else but dotage, and to speake without witte or feare? Some body said that Ambrose was bewitched by the diuell;Ambrose. whether any [Page 131]euer said it or no, I neuer knew, neither is it greatly materiall; the best & most righteous men, may some­times be so farre bewitched, as they doe not in some things perceiue the truth: and you doe too openly bewray your malice, by labouring to raise an euill opinion of him, and to make vs infamous for such speeches as may haue a good construction, though at the first they seeme odious. Certeinly I haue read many Papists, and heard of some, all passing shame­lesse, and malepere; but more impudent then your selfe, in all my life, did I neuer know any. There is no end of your lying, you feare no mens censure, there is neither faith nor truth in any thing you speake. E­uen now you set vpon Beza with a fresh lye. He (you say) hath written that Hierome is as surely damned, as the diuell, because he was iniurious to the Apo­stles, a blasphemous, a wicked, and an vngodly man. That Beza affirmeth not these things, I protest and a [...]ow: let any man that will, see the place; if it be o­therwise, let me be accounted very infamous. For as for those first words, that Hierome was damned aswell a [...] the diuell, either they are by malicious cauelling fetched out of some other place, as all the rest are, or altogether forged, as the most. In the place alledged, there is no such thing: Concerning that he saith of Iniury and Blasphemy, I will set downe Beza his owne words, that all men may know your impudency. E­uen Hierome, Beza in an­not. noui Testam. in Act. Apost. cap. 23. saith Beza, if it be true that Erasmus vp­on this place saith of him, is not only iniurious to the A­postle, in that hee findeth want of moderation, in this speech, wherin rather appeareth his Diuine courage but also is openly blasphemous, in that euen in Christ him­selfe he hath found some signe of imperfection. Thus far Beza: the matter of his complaint, is about S. Paules sharpe answere vnto the high Priest, in which Hie­rome, (as Erasmus testifieth) in his Dialogues against Pelagius, findeth some want of moderatiō, & not on­ly [Page 132]so, but euen in Christ himself, he looketh for some imperfection of piety; which reports of Hierome, if it be true as Erasmus affirmeth, why might not Beza iustly esteeme him, in the one iniurious to the Apo­stle, in the other so blasphemous against Christ? For what can bee deuised more vnworthy the Apostle then that in his answere to the high Priest, he should shew too much spleene, or what could be spoken more blasphemous against Christ, thē that the grace, wherewith he was indued, was imperfect. But Beza further reprehendeth Hieromes exceeding boldnes, in wresting the Scriptures, wherein he hath most iust cause of complaint: for either Hierome wrested the Scriptures, or they are so weake and easie of them­selues, as they may be any way turned. And truly he must be very desperate, that should defend Hieromes interpretations. Gregorius Massonius esteemeth more of Caluin, then of a thousand Augustines: Luther is not moued though a thousand Austens, Cyprians, Churches▪ be against him. The answere is ready: whosoeuer spea­keth truth, in that respect, is more to be esteemed, then a great multitude that could not discerne the truth. They therfore that haue obserued the errors of the Fathers, either those you haue named, or the rest, which heere also you recken vp, Optatus, Athanasi­us, Hilarie, Cyrill, Epiphanius Basil, Vincentius, Fulgen­tius, Lee, and Gregory of Rome, and haue admonished the Readers of them; are so farre from malepertnes herein; as that cōtrary, they haue performed a work, for the Church needfull, profitable, and acceptable to all good and godly men. For as the true expo­sitions of Scriptures, are to bee expounded to the Churches, so are the contrary to bee reiected.Hierom. Paul. August. Hie­rome saith well, it is the worst kind of teaching, to depraue sentences of Scripture, and to draw them per­force to serue our turnes. Wherefore we professe with Augustine; All writers and their sayings must bee [Page 133] DVR. That trial must not be made by A­postate Monks, but by lawfull Pastors and do­ctors. WHIT. pag. 372. And why not I pray you? is it be­cause they are Monkes? I thinke not: or because they haue departed frō you? That is the matter; as it none might touch, reade, & exa­mine the scrip­tures, but those who haue plight their troth to you, neuer to assent to the Scriptures, though they directly cōtradict popish doctrin we would willingly harkē to law­full Pastors, examining & interpreting the Scriptures, such as you haue none. Because with you examinatiōs must not be made by the rule of y^e scriptures, but after the wil of the Pope, and all your Pastors haue tyed thēselues to the iudge­mēt of the Romish Antichrist: that, y^t which they see, they wil not see, if it dis­please y^e Pope, by whose spirit they are guided. iudged, according to the holy Scriptures, the authori­ty wherof is more excellent, then the whole nature of man is able to conceiue: not that I disallow the opinions of the most worthy Fathers, but I follow those that come nea­rest vnto the Scriptures, and when the Scripture it selfe is manifest, I embrace it before them all. Whereas then we consider the sayings of the Fathers, and examine them by the light of Scriptures, we do here nothing vnwonted, nothing boldly or arrogantly; but you haue alwaies been fliers of the light of Scriptures, as Tertullian speaketh:Tertul. de Resurrect. and therefore do so diligently prouide for lurking holes in the Fathers, that you may alwaies haue some place of refuge. For seeing Scriptures faile you, what remaineth, but that you seeke aide from any, euen the meanest?

But you tell vs, why we do so much anoid the Fathers. I had rather you would tell vs why you doe so care­fully auoide the Scriptures. For (say you) they that cannot away with set times of Fasting, must needs be of­fended with Basil, Naziancene, Leo, and Chrysostome, which haue published excellent Sermons of Lent. Christ ordeined no set and ordinary fasts in the Gospell,DVR. Who hath but so much as saluted the Fathers, and knoweth not this to be salfe? for the obseruation of Lent is most auncient and ordained by the Apostles. WHIT. pag. 371. I deny it not to be most auncient, but not instituted by the Apostles; for Apollonius writeth that Montanus first made lawes for let and certaine fasts; and Tertullian when hee was become a Montanist, writeth as much in his booke wherein he defendeth the fasts of Montanus. Againe, the Apostles neuer put any religion in choise and change of meats, Rom. 14.17. Coll. 2 16. Tit. 1.1 [...]. and so ordeined not Lene. Lastly the Churches of the Apostles differed much in this fast, both in their times, & in their kinds of meat; as Eusebius & [...]ocrates record; which would ne­uer haue bin if it had bin Apostolical, at least as Papists do affirme, who take in for a truth, that those Churches would faithfully persist in the Apostles decrees. Lent was appointed long after, and the manner of [Page 134]obseruing it in those times, was not one & the same in all Churches. We both allow and vse publike and Christian fasts which are fitted to the time and the Churches occasions: as for your appointed, and yearely solemne fasts, we do with good reason reiect them, because they are full of superstition, and iniu­rious vnto Christian liberty. Our iudgement of fa­sting is the same which Augustine hath taught:August. E­pist. 86. I find it not set downe in any Commandement of the Lord, or his Apostles, what daies we ought to fast, what not. Au­gustine then knew not these your set yearely cere­monies of fasting, not your Lenten fast, which hath a certeine time and number of daies prescribed. Fur­ther (you say) they that haue set their soules to sale for gold, lust, excesse, and worldly ostentation how can they be but most opposite to Basil, Chrysostome, Hierome, and Augustine, whose bookes of the profession of Monkes are in euery mans hands? what will you censure all to be couetous, lustfull, gluttonous, or ambitious that are not Monkes? backe with that foot you were best, for feare of your head: for neither the Pope, nor his Cardinals and Bishops, hold it either necessary, or conuenient for them to lay aside, their abundant wealth, continuall pleasures, their dainty fare, their kingly honor, and thrust themselues into a Monaste­rie; whosoeuer liueth after their fashion, cannot be well affected to Basil, nor any man that is holy.DVR. VVhen you are o­uercome by the truth, you slander our liues, and speake euill of our persons. WHIT. pag. 377. I do not slander you, nor detract from you, the world hath vnderstood long agoe what manner of men you vvere. If you be grovvne better I should be glad of it. But I knovv men haue iudged othervvise of this order, and such as did not hate your Mo­nasticall life. For the Romish Cardinals and Priors did vvrite thus to the Pope himself. There is another abuse amongst the orders of religious men, for ma­ny are so deformed and out of order, that they are a great scandale to the people, and hurt much by their example. VVe thinke that all orders ought to be abolished. For they are altogether so drowned in sensuality and ex­cesse, making themselues drudges vnto their ambiti­ons, banquets, and delights. And to conclude: in the [Page 135]whole course of their liues, so behauing themselues, as becommeth better sensuall and voluptuous per­sons, proceeding out of the gardens of Epicures, then graue teachers out of Christs Schoole. Who knoweth not that the whole world crieth shame vp­on you, and hath done continually and most deser­uedly? you for all that blush not to lay those things to our charge, which are well inough knowne to bee your owne fault; your Prelates and Monkes, whose goodly order and straite rule of seuere discipline, (you report) differ as much from other men, as the Tarrentines were wont to affirme that they excelled all others, who giuing themselues wholy ouer to pleasures, (while the most tooke great paines and al­waies did something whereby to liue) thought their life the only true life. Such is and hath bin your life, that others must seeme not to liue, if that be to liue which you haue esteemed. But what need I answere you any more of fasting and Monkish orders, which haue not one Monke in your whole Church any thing resembling those of auncient time, neither do you obserue the old manner of fasting? but you goe on, and vpbraide vs with fouler matters. They that haue brought a bondage vpon mans will, which haue ta­ken away Christian funerals, which haue burned Saints reliques can they (say you) be well pleased with Augu­stine? we (Campion) haue wronged no Saints, we haue neither burned their reliques, nor taken away their funerals:DVR. There­fore you haue taken away the reliques of the Saints, and the funerals of Christians, as superstitions and iniurious to the maiestie of God. WHIT. pag. 370. Are you so vvithout iudgement, that you cannot distinguish betvvixt things and the super­stitious vse of them? It is not these not any comely buriall vve dislike, but Po­pish pompcions funerals and impious vvorshipping of reliques. only we could not suffer any prophane superstition, iniurious to the Maiestie and glorie of God; and for this we haue the direction of God him­selfe, being our patterne whom we follow, and Au­gustine also herein consenteth with vs: But we haue [Page 136]captiuated the will of man, and then (you say) how can we be well affected vnto Augustine? well inough, why not? for (say you) he writ three bookes of free will. A most witles and ridiculous collection: Augustine writ three bookes of freewill, ergo Augustine affir­meth that men haue freewill. If that reason be cur­rant, then this also: Augustine writ a booke of two soules against the Manichees; also a booke of lying; another of the quantity of the soule; ergo Augustine defendeth two soules in a man; ergo he praised lying; ergo he attributeth greatnes & quantity to the soule. I pray you what difference is there? I graunt Augu­stine writ those bookes you mention, but they ouer­throw not our opinion, who affirme that the will of man is in bondage: & if euer you had perused those bookes, you would neuer haue affirmed it, nor once named the bookes in this matter. Augustine writ these bookes against the Manichees, wherein he dis­puteth not of mans freewill, which is the point in controuersie, but of the cause of sinne which procee­ded from freewill, and he entituled those bookes of freewill, because in them he intendeth to shew, that the originall and beginning of sinne is to be found in mans freewill, not in God. This you might easily haue learned out of his retractations; for thus he writeth.Retract. lib. 1.1. q. The discourse was vndertaken for them that deny sin to haue his originall from the free action of our will, affirming, that from this would follow, that God himselfe the author of nature is culpable. And so pro­ceedeth, vtterly denying, that he had any purpose in those bookes, to speake of that will, which is made free by Gods grace. And whatsoeuer in these books passed his pen, which seemed to fauour the Pellegi­ans, then Patrons of freewill, as you are now, all that he carefully collecteth out of the whole worke, and cleareth it from their cauils. Haue we any cause to be offended with Augustine, which in this question is [Page 137]not against vs? And that you may plainly perceiue, how indiscreetly you alledged these bookes of free­will, marke what hee writeth of the will of man in those same bookes:DVR. Wher­to tendeth this but to bewray your ignorāce? all Catholikes beleeue that the will of man, though free, is able to do no­thing to merit heauen by, but by the grace of God. And you are ignorant that the free­dome of will consisteth in this, that by no necessitie it is carried to ei­ther part. WHIT. pag. 382. Pelagians in former time beleeued as much. But as Pelagius affirmed that the will was only helped with grace, and not made good by grace: so you teach that no new will is infused, but the natural is helped, and as it were vnloosed by grace; which is not much from Pelagianisme: for both of you defend that the liberty of wil remaineth in mans corrupt nature, that it need not be giuen him from aboue, but only by the helpe of grace, to be drawne out of certeine diffi­culties, in which the corruption of sinne had left it. And as for my ignorance I confesse it, and thinke it more learned then your knowledge; for if those who do things necessarily, do them not freely, then neither God nor the diuel wor­keth not freely; for God worketh well, and the diuell euill, necessarily. So you see necessity is not opposed to freewill: for not necessity, but force and com­pulsion taketh away the freedome of the will. Hold thou fast (saith Augu­stine) this principall of piety, Delibere Arbit. 61.2. cap. 20. that no good thing happens vnto thee, either when thou thinkest or vnderstandest, or any way imaginest, which is not from God. And this was Augustines constant opinion of freewill: after that being stirred by the Pellagians, he throughly vnder­stood the question, viz. that he iudged it, to be vtter­ly lost and gone.DVR. The meaning of the place is this, that man so lost his freewill, that be lost himselfe; yet so as no man in his right wits will deny, but he is a man still. WHIT. pag. 384. You graunt as much as we desire: for as man lost himselfe, and yet remained a man, but not such as he was, good, iust, holy, indued with perfection, but cleane changed: so the free will of man was lost, not that no wil remained, but that it was changed from good to euill; for we say not there is remaining no freewill at all; but no good wil: as we affirme not, there is no man at all remaining, but no good man. Man (saith he) by abusing his free­will lost both it and himselfe. Enchir. 3.

But yet further you vrge Augustine against vs, for (say you) they that make their captious deuises, the rule of their faith, must not they bee offended with Augustine, which hath an excellent Epistle against Manicheus? An Epistle (Campian) do you call it? it was euer accounted a booke: but what is there in that Epistle (as you call it) against vs? in which he pro­fesseth himselfe to agree with Antiquity, vnity, perpetuall succession, and with that Church, which alone amongst so [Page 138]many heresies, hath attained vnto the name Catholike by prescription. We also agree with that Church, which hath all these. And yet to these must be added (as Augustine saith in the same place) sincere wisdome and truth; else all the other bind vs not; for they are of no value without that wisdome; but this wisdome and truth, though without these, is of it selfe to bee preserred before all things: so saith Augustine, Cont. Fun­dam. cap. 4. if the truth appeare manifestly, so as it cannot be doubted of, it alone is more to be esteemed then DVR Au­gustine af­firmeth, that these cannot be without the truth. WHIT. pag. 387. Nay Au­gustine shew­eth the con­trarie: for if truth cannot be separated from these, he had spoken very vnfitly, when he said, he preferred the truth before all these. If you can take or rightly challenge the pos­sessiō of truth, in the next place you may inquire of An­tiquity, Vnity, & Succession. all those reasons, that keepe me in the Catholike Church. Thus then Au­gustine setteth more by the truth it selfe alone, and sincere wisdome, then all those things you mention, Antiquity Vnity, Succession, and we perceiuing this truth and wisdome so manifestly in our Churches, that none, that will see the truth, can doubt whether we hold the truth or no; do willingly giue you free liberty to bragge, whilest you list, of antiquity, vnity, & succession, without the truth. There is then, as you see, no cause, why we should be angry with Augu­stine, either now or before.

But at length you leaue Augustine, and call out Optatus, Bishop of Miletum; of whom you say, you desire to know, what our opinion is. I verily thinke he was a good Father, and very like vnto Augustine, and I take the things to be true, which many worthy men haue said in his commendation. But he dispro­ued the Donatists by the communion of the Catho­like Church. Why should he not? or what doth that cōcerne vs? Augustine also obserued the same course, and it was a good motiue, that the communion of the Church should be obiected to the schismaticall Donatists, which seditiously without cause, separated themselues from the Church. But wee deny your Church to be Catholike, and therefore you cannot thus conuince vs, though Optatus might therby con­fute the Donatists. It must first appeare, that it is the [Page 139]Church, before we can be conuicted of schisme. TheDVR. So in­deed Caluin answereth, but it will not serue your turne: for Opratus pro­ueth himself to be in the Ca­tholike Church, because he ioy­ned himselfe to Saint Peters chaire. WHIT pag. 388. And what call you Peters chaire? the externall seate, or the succession of Bishops? you shall neuer proue it, and the contrary I cen easily ob­iect out of Op­tatus himselfe. Optatus cal­leth Syritius Bishop of Rome his fellow, and the companion of other Bishops who held a sound and Catholike iudgement. With all those Syricius agreed in one socie­ty and fellowship, by their letters sent one to another as witnesses of their con­senting in doctrine and lawfull ordination: Optatus then proueth that he was a Catholike, because he kept the Catholike confession and coniunction with Syrrcius and other Bishops. Finally his argument was good against the Dona­tists, who did separate themselues from the communion of the Catholike Church, while they consented not with these Churches, where the doctrine of the Apostles and a lawfull ordination of Bishops did euer flourish. But it is no­thing to vs and you. Church of Rome was then the preseruer of Religi­on, the maintainer of the true faith, and shined like a starre in the sight of all other Churches: no maruell then though the most holy Fathers, esteemed much the reuerence of this Church, & vrged the heretikes with the example of it,Irenaeus. August. as a great preiudice vnto them. Hence it is, that sometimes they alledge the decrees and succession of the Bishops of Rome, ther­by prouing that the heresies, by them refuted, were not heard of, in the most famous and honorable Church. But since that time the course of the Church is turned, and the Sea of Rome hath declined and degenerated from her sincere faith, to detestable fals­hood. Restore vs (Campian) the old Church of Rome, and we will neuer separate our selues from her: but of that Church you haue nothing left, but the walles and old rubbish, yet still you bragge of the name of the Catholike Church. And whereas you mention Altars, on which the members of Christ are carried, and Chalices containing his blood, I know well ma­ny things concerning Altars, are to be found in the auncient Fathers, which Altars in Africa, were not of stone, butDVR. VVhat difference is there? the Donatists ouer­threw vvoodden Altany, and you Altars of stone. WHIT pag. 389. They trou­bled sacred tables by their sacriledge: not reprouing the administration of the Sacrament, but the ordination of Bishops, which yet was lawfull: we haue cast downe Altars wickedly erected for the wicked Masse and prophane Idolatry. Is there no difference, thinke you? woodden, as you may see in Augu­stines [Page 140]Epistle to Boniface: and I graunt the members of Christ, and hisDVR. Opta­tus writeth that the body of Christ dwelleth vpon the Altar. WHIT. pag. 390. I answere that the sacra­ment of the body of Christ is after a sort Christs body, and the name of the thing is giuen to the signe,, as is vsuall in all Sacraments. For the body of Christ is no where properly but in heauen at the right hand of his Father, where it shall remaine to the end of the world. blood are receiued in the holy mysteries, but after a heauenly and spiritual manner,Epist. 50. appropriate vnto our most holy faith. As for your deuouring of flesh, Optatus was not acquainted with it, and the auncient Church of Christ, not so much as euer dreamed of so great a monster.

They sing (say you) in their Churches, the Creed of Athanasius, but they fauour him not; and why? because he praiseth Antony the Hermit. You speake wisely; asDVR. But doe you thinke Her­mits are worthy of any praise, whom Athanasius praised in the person of Antony? WHIT. pag. 391. Graunt vve vvell approue of the old Hermits, yet may we thinke bad enough of your Monkes, as vve haue done and professe it for iust causes, seeing they differ both so much in manners and iudgements. Antonius the Hermits grandfather vvas vvont to say, that it was as dangerous for a Monke to go out of his hermitage, as for fishes to leaue the water. If you praise Antony so much, vvhy do you not follovv him? vvhy do you svvarme in all cities and fa­mous places, and doe not rather liue in some remote wildernesse, as fishes swim in the Sea? so should you be more like to Antony, and free these parts from great damage. though we were so enuious, that we could not with patience endure any man to be praised: nay there is somewhat else.Athan. Ep. ad Fel. 2. He with his Synode of Alexan­dria, humblie appealed vnto the sentence of the Aposto­like Sea: this Epistle is all counterfeit, compacted of many lies, and monstrous flattery. Prudentius I grant as aDVR. Because he was a Poet, forgate hee to be a Christian? or did he any thing in verse, which infinit & learned [...]athers haue not done before in prose? WHIT. pag. 392. Who knovveth not that Poets vvere vvont to vveigh vvhat the verse required, more then vvhat piety called for, and to follovv the elegancy of poetry more then the streight doctrine of the Scriptures? And such liberty of Poets men commonly find no great fault vvith: yet see hovv foo­lish it is to auovv poeticall exornations for reasons in the controuersies of re­ligion. And if Prudentius follovved so many Fathers, vvhy name you not one of them▪ For 300. yeares after Christ there vvas no such custome in the Church, vvhich you affirme so infinite a number of Fathers vsed: and it rose vp in the Church but a little before Prudentius daies; but both this and all other super­stitions must be corrected by the authority of the vvord. Poet, sometimes called vpon the Martyrs, whose acts he describes in verse, and the superstiti­ous [Page 141]custome of praying to Saints had now taken deepe roote in the Church: which as a Tyrant haled sometimes the holy Fathers into the same error. As for Vigillantius and Iouinian, against whom Hirr [...] writeth most bitterly; if they taught those things that are laid to their charge, we maintaine them not. ThatDVR. It see­meth you haue nothing to an­swere to Am­brose at all. WHIT. pag. 393. Haue I answered no­thing, when a few lines be­fore I affirmed that this su­perstition had got great foo­ting in the Church? was it not answere enough to shew I allowed not the corrupt iudge­ment of some Fathers? What gaine you by this, if we professe freely that some Fathers were infected with the errors of the time, who yet kept sound do­ctrine in the fundamentall points; whereas notorious corruption hath spread it selfe ouer your whole Church & cōsumed it, & the beginnings of corruptions in them, is growne to an height in you without hope of cure? Ambrose should be carefull, to commend and set sorth the praises of his friends Geruasius and Pro­tasius, we willingly permit. Neither doe we wholy mislike Gregory, with whom surely you haue more cause to be offended, then we. But wheras he said that Images were lay-mens bookes, hee neither learned inDVR. Answere me, in vvhat schoole did you learne to breake downe Images? not in the schooles of Christians, but of Iewes. WHIT. pag. 395. I learned it out of the schoole of the holy Ghost, Deut 5.8. Iosh. 24.23. where wee are taught to worship one God with religious worship, and to cast out of the Church, to breake and burne the Images of men, though neuer so holy. Moses beate the Calfe to powder, & the holy Ghost commended Hez [...]a for breaking asunder the brazen Serpent, though it was set vp by God [...] authority, when the Israelits abused it to super­ [...]ion; how much more ought we to destroy prophane Images & monuments of cursed idolatrie? Epiphanius being taught in this schoole rent the vaile which was hung vp in the temple, hauing painted innt the picture of Christ or some Saint. As also Serenus Bishop of Massilia, who tooke downe & broke the Ima­ges of his time. I haue learned this then not out of the schooles of the Iewes, [...]innike [...] and Idolaters, but out of the schooles of Christians, which may not be polluted with Images. the schoole of the holy Ghost, nor foundDVR You shevv your ignorance or impudency, vvhen you knovv not, or deny that vvhich is euery vvhereto be read among the Fathers, as in Theodoret, Domasen, Augustine, Gregory Nissen. Metaphrastes, Athana­sius and others. WHIT. pag. 399. These testimonies do rather shew your rash­nes & desire to deceiue; for they are partly faired, as that of Gregory Nissen and Athanasius, & partly not to the purpose by them I vnderstand that Images were made, but they proue not that they were placed in the churches & worshipped. Your reason concludeth not, There were Images among the Christiās before the times of Gregory: therfore they placed them in their churches to teach the people, and to be worshipped of them with holy worship. it in the [Page 142]books of the Fathers y^t were before him; and thus at length, haue you finished this longe catalogue of the Fathers. The reason I would faine know, that moued you to go thorough them on this manner. For what? are you so blockish your selfe to thinke, or hope you, that any others will like of this kind of reasoning: viz. Luther, Caluin and their confederates, doe write that Irenaus, Tertullian, Cyprian, Chrysostome, Augu­stine, Hierome, Ambrose, Gregory, Basil, and Nazi [...] ­zen, do otherwiles erre in some questions in this or that booke, and they saw not the true meaning of some Scripture, but were sometimes deceiued, that is, they were men: therefore they banish, reiect and condemne all these Fathers? Is this your meaning, Campian? why then do you your selues, being verie often by plaine authorities of the Fathers cōuinced, deny flatly that you are tyed to the authority of any father, and from them you appeale to the iudgment of the Church? Would you not thinke your self hard­ly dealt withal, if hence I should inferre, that you dis­allow the Fathers whole volumes? But this is the issue of your disputation, and the marke whereat all this your discourse aymeth, namely, that because we dis­like some things in the Fathers, which in their wri­tings cannot be defended, therefore we violate all, we offer great wrong and reproach to the Fathers, we commit a hainous and vnhard-of wickednes.

Thinke not (Campian) our Vniuersitie to be so childish that they cannot discerne the indifferencie of our proceeding herein, from your vniust calumni­ation. The Fathers wee esteeme highly, wee peruse them daily, we commend them to the reading of all such as exactly and diligently studie Diuinitie. By this meanes we encrease our knowledge, and are better furnished with armour of defence against you. You are afraide to want time, and therefore you omit many things, Epistles, Sermons, Homilies, [Page 143]Orations, Works, Disputations of Fathers, by which the Catholikes opinions are confirmed. Some frag­ments perhaps, say you, throwne in corners, which without much paines and wearines you could not collect, yet your fellowes of late yeares haue dili­gently sought out and published: Whilest they (say you) are to be solde at the Stationers, so long our mens bookes are in vaine prohibited: we are sorry you should write such things, as we must of necessitie restraine, your bookes are such as it behooueth vs to stoppe their passage, vnlesse we would suffer the State to be stirred to sedition, the Church in danger of heresie, and mens minds filled with cursed opinions. For if Magistrates ought carefully to preuent, lest the in­fection of the plague, be from other places brought into their cities; much more care is to be had, that pestilent and pernicious bookes bee nor openly spread abroad, out of which simple and vnlearned men doe sucke poyson of deadly error. Neither are we the first that haue taken this course. You may re­member in Queene Maries time, that they procee­ded by marshall law against all those, with whom a­ny of our bookes were found. If this were in vs a matter worthie of death, so that we were by and by drawne to punishment, as men guiltie of high trea­son, and that without any iud [...]al proceedings, small reason haue you to looke, that your bookes now, should haue such free libertie, to bee euery where publikelie solde. We take order, that the bookes of the holy Fathers, are brought vnto vs from euery matte, we buie them, we haue them in our priuate studies and publike Liberarie a wo [...] place them in o­pen view, that they be knowns; nor onely by face, but by dailie familiaricie. Where you affirme, that neither Sanders, nor Harding, nor Allen, nor Stapleton, nor Bristol, doe more [...]gerly inneigh against those dreames, then the Fatherd before mentioned: you haue [Page 144]added this saying as an ouerplus to the things that went before. These your old souldiers haue imploy­ed in this case, whatsoeuer, either reading or leysure, or cunning, or wit, or diligence, or malice, could sup­ply vnto them, and for all this haue gained nothing: and hope you, that are not worthy to be compared with these, to performe that, wherein they haue fai­led? yet you said, that thinking of these things, your courage increased, and you desired the combate. I be­waile (Campian) your rashnes, and foolish hardines, which will needs take vpon you, the patronage of a desperate cause, with the vndoubted losse of your credit and safety; and I wish that the day may once come, wherin you may make triall of your strength in the combate which you desire.

Iohn Iewel (say you) challenged the Catholikes, when you were a young student, calling vpon and desiring the helpe of the Fathers, as many as flourished 600. yeares af­ter Christ. That worthy man, did that he knew him­selfe able to performe: he had read ouer all the Fa­thers with speciall iudgement and diligence; hee saw how you deceiued the ignorant, he had a care to preserue his countrimen from your dangerous error. And hereupon without any boasting, as you would haue it, but trusting only in the power of God, and the truth of the cause, he calleth forth all the genera­tion of Papists vnto this triall, viz. if they could con­firme their opinions by the holy Scriptures, or by the witnes of Fathers and Councels, they should o­uercome: if they failed, they should confesse them­selues were vanquished. Certeine renowmed men (say you) liuing as Exiles as Lo [...]ane, entertaine th [...] offer, and allow of the condition. Harding was the captaine of these, he aduentured himselfe hand to hand, in this combate, but how worthily performed he the con­dition? I [...]wel calleth for Fathers; Harding produceth certeine Clements, Abdies, Martials, Hippolyes, Am­philochytes, [Page 145]and others of this rancke, Fathers of wor­shipfull antiquitie: If all the auncient Fathers of the Church, be (as you bragge) of your side, why should Harding turne his backe so cowardly, bringing in for witnesses in a most waighty cause wherin we de­maunded the iudgement of antiquitie, a company of vpstart bastards, I know not fromwhence, whom no man before had saluted, seene or heard of, passing by of purpose, the knowne and truly noble Fathers? Is this the reuerend antiquity you talke of? must wee haue these fellowes digged out of their graues, to helpe you in your desperate cause? heare me (Campi­an) that which Iewel then said most truly and confi­dently, challenging you to the triall of sixe hundred yeares antiquity, offering also to yeeld you the vi­ctory, if you brought one plaine and manifest autho­rity, out of any Father or Councell; that same we do all professe and promise, and will surely performe it.

Twentie yeares are expired, and not one of you hitherto could performe the condition: if you per­swade your selfe to haue more sufficiency hereunto, then your masters before haue had, why stay you? why sit you still? why discontinue you the defence of so good a cause? But alas, you are no body, you haue read nothing, you haue no strength answerable to such an endeuor. The learned Humphrey did not taxe Iewel, as if he had too liberally vndertaken for the Fathers, or performed lesse then he promised; but only that he had yeelded further vnto you, then he needed, and called backe the cause which was alrea­dy determined by the Scriptures, to the authorities of the Fathers; which yet he did not, as though he distrusted any thing, the triall of Scriptures; for hee knew that they were sufficient to refute all popish errors: but that hereby he might beate downe that their insolent and most false bragge of antiquitie, which preuailed with many. You say further that you [Page 146]haue conferred sometimes familiarly with To [...]y Mat­thew, and w [...]led him to answere freely, whether hee that read the Fathers diligently, could bee of that part which [...]e fauoured. Although in priuate and familiar conference wee say many things, which we would not haue further reported, or dispersed, yet I doubt not, but the worthy Mathew gaue you such an an­swere, as was both agreeable to the truth, and fit for his iudgement and wisdome. Wee must not in all things beleeue the Fathers, nor doth our faith de­pend vpon their word. Sometimes they haue erred and been the occasion of errors vnto others; yet may we reade them, & by their truthes be more learned, by the contrary more wary. And this also thinketh Matthew Hutton that famous man, whom you sur­mise to bee the only man amongst vs conuersant in the Fathers. And this also is all our opinions. After you haue thus finished your discourse, you will now (as you say) without feare come into the battell and fight with vs. You are still telling vs of ar­mies, skirmishes, warres, campes and of your bat­tailes: but you should remember that the triall of warre is common to both sides, and the issues of battailes vncerteine. The and of warre lieth in the strength of armes, not in the stoutnes of words.

WILLIAM WHITAKERS. The answere to the sixth Reason, which is the foundation of the Fathers.

I Cannot wel cōiecture, Cam­pion, what these new foun­dations of the fathers may bee, which you propound vnto vs. As touching the fathers we haue giuen you your answere, and haue plainely prooued, that they affoord no foundation for you to build your cause vpō. And it is probable that you thought so your self; therefore you iudged it not safe for you to rest in them, vnlesse you brought foorth certaine foundations by which you might strengthen the fathers themselues. For after you had said what you could remember touching the fathers, that you might shew you esteemed their sayings as diuine Oracles, because you saw that was too slender, and that no man would iumpe with you in that point, you now indeuour by certaine foun­dations to fortifie and strengthen the authoritie of the Fathers. Now the strength, and as it were the bond and sinewes of this disputation is this [Page 150] DVR. Cam­pian doth not dispute so; but say he do, what reproue you? for he speaketh not of one Fa­ther, but of the consent of all, vvho flourished in one age, whom Saint Paul saith, Christ hath made Pastors and teachers of his Church, Eph. 4.11. WHIT. pag. 408. Then, as you confesse, I swarued not much from his sense. But thinke you the reason is of force? The auncient Fathers haue diligently read and searched the Scriptures, therefore they neuer erred in their interpretation. If i [...] hold in the Fathers, why not in others vvhich do search the Scriptures as vvell as they? vvhich if you once grant, you ouerturne your owne cause. And though they were Pastors of the Church, yet vvere there many other Pastors and teachers of the Church, vvho either vvrit nothing at all, or their vvritings are perished; so that vvhat they deliuered, vve possibly cannot knovv: vvhat a vaine thing is it then to bragge of the consent of all, vvhen you can hardly name tvventy in the most flourishing age that e­uer vvas, vvhose bookes came to our hands. Besides, the consent of all in one age in no controuersie can you bring against vs, except it vvere in the most corrupt ages. Lastly, the Pastors Christ gaue to his Church, vvere men, such as might erre, and vvho had no promise to be kept from error, if at any time they turned aside from the Scriptures. The Fathers haue searched the Scriptures most di­ligently, they haue heaped vp store of testimonies out of the holy Scriptures, they haue attributed the chiefe place to these: therefore wee ought to bee con­tent with their exposition of Scriptures; and without sinne wee may desire no better. This either is the sense of this place, or else there is no sense in it. And verely I professe you haue laid these things downe so faintlie and looselie, that I can hardlie discerne their scope: for what, I pray you, can bee spoken more loosely? The fathers haue diligently laboured to vnderstand the Scriptures: therefore in their exposition of them they haue neuer erred. But we find many strange differing and dissenting expo­sitions in the Fathers; which all may well be false, but more then one of them cannot be true. I will giue you one example for a thousand.DVR. VVe confesse euery Father may err [...], but we deny that all the Fathers of one age did euer fall into any error, which vvas contrary to faith. WHIT. pag. 412. As if this vvere not a matter of faith, vvhe­ther S. Paul lyed, or vvhether he ingenuously reproued S. Peter as he professed he did. For if S. Paul did it dissemblingly, then may it be lavvfull for vs to dis­semble, and after confirme it vvith a lye; both vvhich are contrary to sound do­ctrine. But particular dissentions you stand not vpon, you desire to see some ge­nerall, vvhen you grant euery particular may erre, vvill it not follovv that all may? But see an example. In the Councell of Constantinople held vnder Leo the Pope, the Fathers there decreed to abolish Images out of Churches. But the Nicene Councell vnder Iren. condemned this Canon, yea and by a third Councell held in Germany, this decree vvas againe condemned. One of these certeinly must needs be deceiued. Againe, haue you forgotten that Augustine vvith Innocent the Bishop of Rome, & other Bishops of the Church, did thinke it necessary that the Eucharist should be giuen to Infants? vvhich error continued a long time in the Church. Thinke you these are not points of faith? S. Paul writeth,Gala. 2.11. [Page 151]that at Antioch hee withstood Peter to his face: what a kinde of opposition this was you would know, but cannot of your selfe find it out. You wonder that Paul would oppose Peter, one Apostle another, and happely you suspect some mystery may be hid in it: you goe to the fathers, you enquire of Hierome, August. & Hieron. in Epistol. and of Augustine, two very famous lights of the Latine Church. What do they tell you? Au­gustine thinke that S. Paul spoke ingenuously and as he thoughte Hierome that he spoke fainedly. If you approue the one, you must needs reiect the other; for you cannot consent with both. Sixe hundred of this kind I could propound vnto you. I know how, sayth Hierome, otherwise to account of the Apostles, then of other writers. Hieron. in Epist. ad Theophilis. They euer sp [...]k [...] the tr [...], these as man haue erred in some things. Yet they read the Scrip­tures, they were conuersant in them, and spent them­selues wholly in meditating vpon them. From these you may discerne how your accusation is most vn­iust, and our defence most equall and iust. I desire not to diminish the fathers due and worthy com­mendations: so you will confesse they are men, ex­toll them with all the prayses you can to the very heauens, where they are now free Denizens. I could wish, that that which they constantly did, either you would do, search the Scripture, or suffer vs to do: then I doubt not but this fight would haue a good issue. But the Scriptures which Christ ratified with his owne voice, and commended to our diligent search, you flie from and abhorre, as theeues doe the gal­lowes, [Page 152]you abandon them out of mens sight, and yet you haue neuer done searching; for you compasse sea and land to find out old traditions and customes long ago dead and buried, mens inuentions, decrees of Popes, the corruptions of Churches, fained and forged bookes, diriges, scrappes; dreames and fables, but the holy Scripture you touch not at all, lest, as I suppose, they would make against you. At length for shame cast away those your trifles which you so busily hunt after, and search the Scriptures, DVR. VVe allow all to read the Scrip­tures, as many as can vvell and safely do it. And then vve account the search good and sound, vvhen men are able to inter­pret them not out of their ovvne heads, but by the autho­rity of the auncient Fathers. WHIT pag. 415. You shew your good nature, that you will not reproue that which is well done. But may none else reade the Scriptures, but men qualified as you write? then very few must spend their labour in them. But Christ commanded to search the Scriptures, not the opinions and expo­sition of the Fathers, yea and he commaunded all whosoeuer to seeke eternall life, and desire to know Christ, Joh. 5.39. and not the learned only. as Christ hath commaunded,Origen. in Isas. hom. 1. and the ancient fathers haue done. And would to God (as Origen writeth) we all would doe that which is written, Search the Scriptures) If we were commanded to search the fathers of the Church, vnwritten verities, the Popes Canons, wee would willingly set vp our rest there; but when wee are called from them to the diligent search of the Scriptures, doe not much blame vs, if we so farre, as you speake, subscribe to the fathers, as they agree with the Scriptures. For you cannot iustly blame that in vs which you confesse is commendable in them.DVR. If you thinke Christ commanded all, you are greatly deceiued, for hovv should the rude and ignorant search the Scriptures? vvho as Augustine vvitnesseth must be saued, not by sharpnesse of vnderstāding, but by simplicity of beleeuing. Moreo­uer Christ gaue vnto the people, Pastors and Doctors, and not the bookes of the Scrip­tures. WHIT. pag. 417. Christ verily spake to the people, not to the learned, and if he commanded all the Iewes to search the Scriptures, why not all Chri­stians? but that they ought, is proued by these places, Act. 17.11. Coll. 3.16. Chrysostome vpon that place, Hom. 9. Hierome vpon the same. Origen. in Jsaiam hom. 2. Chrysost. in Euangel. Ioan. hom. 13. Further if the people be ignorant, you take the way to keepe them so. But they verily ought to haue knowledge; and you very learnedly make an argument from their defect. Augustine as you would haue it, doth not maintaine the ignorance of the people, only he requi­reth not of them any subtile knowledge: all must beleeue, vvhich none can doe vvithout the knovvledge of the Scripture, but the same quicknes of vnder­standing is not required in all. Finally Christ who gaue them teachers, gaue them also the Word; neither vvere the Pastors to teach them any thing, but the Scriptures; vvhy then speake you thus? as if these things ordeined one vnder another vvere contrary: It is vvorthy the obseruing, that in your iudgement Christ gaue not the Scriptures vnto the people; if then they reade them, they meddle vvith other mens right. For Christ commanded vs aswell as them, to search [Page 159]the Scriptures. That therefore which is inioyned vs both, to search, it ought to be the purpose of both to finde out. And doe you iudge it equall,DVR. VVho vvill beleeue that you haue found out, that they could not? or vvho are you that accuse them of igno­rance and er­ror? WHIT. pag. 423. I verily acknowledge that the Fa­thers excelled in all kind of learning, I am so farre from accusing them of ignorance. But if the Fa­thers haue of­ten and great­ly erred, which you must con­fesse vvhether you vvill or no: vvhy may not vve, vvho are commanded to reade the Scriptures asvvvell as they, hold fast the truth vve haue found, and reiect the errors they haue de­liuered? vvho vvhile they liued, ingenuously confessed themselues ignorant of many things, and that they erred not in a fevv, and vvould also doe no lesse if they vvere aliue againe. that if they haue erred in searching, wee should treade in their steps, and reiect the trueth wee haue found out? For wheresoeuer they find out the truth they sought after, wee receiue it and consent with them. And therefore, Campian, make you no doubt, we speake vnfeinedly; wee will subscribe to the fathers, while they consent to the Scriptures. Doth this thing please you? so it seemeth. For you say, You will see that these most ancient writers, S. Denys, S. Cyprian, S. Athanasius, S. Basil, S. Gregory Nazianzene, S. Am­brose, S. Hierome, S. Chrysostome, S. Augustine, and S. Gregory the great, shall come foorth well armed with the whole furniture of the bible. But what if they will not obey your commandement, neither serue for wages in your tents? will you compell them against their willes to beare armes in your campes? It is more then you can doe: they will not indure them­selues to bee thus compelled or forced. You call them man by man, but they wil not answere to those names: yea, both these now named by you, and all auncient fathers doe proclaime open warre against [Page 160]you, and if you please, let vs spend a little time in the triall of it.

This Deuis whosoeuer he was cannot be on your side, while you maintaineDVR. VVe Catholikes nei­ther defend nor acknowledge a priuate Mass [...], for all Masses are said by a publike Mini­ster of the Church, in the name of the whole, and for the saluation of all the children of the Church is it offered. WHIT. pag. 428. It is chil­dish to con­tend about the Word, you defend such a Masse as the Church knew not in the daies when De­nys liued; for your Masses are performed by one, but the forme he speaketh of, is performed by many. And what if a publike Minister do it, yet that being done of one must needs be priuate, specially when either there are no people pre­sent, or if they be present, yet they do nothing but looke on: and what profit can come to them by that hee doth? as if that meate the Priest eateth feedeth the people. Besi [...]es Christ neuer ordained such an offering, himselfe once offe­red, is the sacrifice which is profitable to the whole Church. Againe, what nee­deth the people once to communicant with him, or what greater fruits shall they haue by it, if they doe? Lastly if the whole people may receiue saluation from that Masse which they neither tast, see, nor yet dreame of, why will you not grant that Christ may be present to our faith, though we be farre disioyned from his body. priuate Masse. For he hath described the publike communion of the whole Church, such as Christ at the first instituted, and the ancient Church euer held. The very same thing doth Iustine the Philosopher and martyr,Iustin. A­pol. 2. who in his Apo­logie before Anthony the Emperour, layd open the order of discipline, which Christ held in his holy as­sembly. At that time the whole people receiuedDVR. Jf you had but lightly read ouer Iustine, you would neuer haue been so impudent, for hee altogether alloweth our iudgement, and no vvhere speaketh he of bread and wine giuen to the people. WHIT. pag. 430. If you had read the place, you might haue seene the contrary to your opinion and to all that you say, his owne words shall manifest all. They, who with vs are called Dea­cons, giue to euery one that is present part of the bread, wine and water, for which thankes are giuen. Can any thing be said more contrary to your, and more ma­nifest for our opinion. bread & wine, now with you they receiue neither.DVR. Yet Cyprian vvrit thus Epist. 55. The premacie is giuen to S. Peter that it might appeare there is one Church and one chaire. WHIT. pag. 433. They are not Cyprians words, but Pamelius vvho hath cor­rupted Cyprian, bringing out of the margent into the text, as appeareth by aun­cient copies. And Gratian also obserued the same, Causa. 24.9.1. loquitur. Cyprian makes all the Apostles equall with Peter, Cyprian. de Simplicitat. praelat. Lib. 1. E­pist. 4. and directly affirmeth that they haue like honour and authoritie with him, and forbids all appeales to the Bishop of Rome. Therefore he must needes de­est your Pope, who preferreth himselfe both in dig­nity [Page 161]& authority before all other Bishops, & from all parts drawes vnto his courts all appeales.DVR. Cypri­an in this place speaketh not at all touching a­ny appeale. WHIT. pag. 434. If you consider the place well, you shall find that he inueigheth against cer­taine false Bi­shops, who be­ing condem­ned by the voices and censures of the Bishops of Afrike for iust causes, vvould haue the causes pleaded againe at Rome before Cornelius the Bishop. And in his discourse. 1. He shevved that causes ought to be heard vvhere the crimes are committed. And so not things done in Afrike, at Rome. 2. He affirmeth that e­uery Bishop hath his portion of the flocke, for which he must giue an account. Then not the Bishop of Rome the vvhole, nor the administration of all causes: finally he calleth them desperate and forlorne men, vvho thought the authori­ty of the Bishops of Afrike to bee lesse then of the Bishops of other countries, and so vvith reproach hee reiecteth the supreame authoritie of the Bishop of Rome. Is there heere any thing lesse then vve haue affirmed? Lactan­tius writeth that it is a thing without questiō.Lactan. 2. cap. 19. DVR. Lactan­tius speaketh not of the Images of Christians, but of the Idols of the Heathen, vvhich he condemneth because they are made of the earth: besides the Ieves had their Che­rubins. WHIT. pag. 436. He nameth not Idols, but Images, such as your Church is full of, and so can there be no religion in it. Besides your Images are no more heauenly then theirs, but made of the earth as theirs, who pretended for them­selues, as he vvriteth lib. 2. cap. 2. as you do, that they vvorshipped not the Ima­ges, but the God, expressed by them. Further for the Cherubins, they were pla­ced in the most holy place, into vvhich the people might not enter, not yet looke in: and shevv vs particular precepts for yours, as they had for theirs, and vve haue done. But he that commanded theirs, forbiddeth euery vvhere all o­thers. There can be no religion wheresoeuer there is an image. If hee now liued and saw your Churches full of images, would he acknowledge any signe of true Religion? Athanasius affirmeth,Athanas. conts a Gen­tas. That the holy Scriptures giuen by inspiration are sufficient to instruct men in all trueth: wherein with one word hee hath put to slight the whole armies of yourDVR. VVill not all your Ʋniuersity men account you a cosener, vvhen A­thanasius ioyneth the bookes of the Fathers with the Scriptures. WHIT. pag. 438. If Athanasius, say asmuch as I affirme: The Scriptures are sufficient of themselues, vvhy do you reptoach me? but he addeth the bookes of the Fathers: he doth, but not as traditions differing from the Scriptures, but as Commentaries vpon them. For, saith he, by reading of them a man may in some measure vnderstand the sense of the Scripture. These vvords make not for you, neither against vs, there­fore I vsed neither cosening nor disceite. traditions. Epiphanius sharp­ly reprooueth certaine foolish women,Epipham. lib. 3. Haeres. 79. who wor­shipped the virgine Mary with a certaine new kind of worship, and condemneth all that superstition. [Page 160] [...] [Page 161] [...] [Page] DVR. Epi­phanius spea­keth nothing of the adoring of the Saints, but reproueth [...]o­men for offering vp sacrifi­ces to the Vir­gin Mary a [...] to a G [...]ld [...]e. WHIT. pag. 440. Nay he speaketh a­gainst the ado­ration and honoring of Saints and not of sacrificing only; his vvords are plaine. [...]et none of the Saints be adored. The vvord he vseth signifieth to bovv and pro­strate our selues, and to vvorship one vvith Diuine honor; vvhich being proper to God you impiously giue to the Virgin Mary and to other innumerable Saints Let none, saith he, worship the Virgine Mary. What would he say if hee now saw not onely foolish wo­men, but also men, and all mortall wightsDVR No C [...]t [...]o [...]ike doth offer vp sacrifice or performe vowes to the Vir­gin Mary. WHIT. Yet you confesse you do such things to the honor of the Virgin and other Saints: I pray you what may be the meaning of this; you offer vp sacrifices and vowes to God in honor of the Saints? let me demaund of you as Epiphanius of these women; what Scriputre [...]peaketh any thing of this matter? Then answere; your Masses are they offered to the Virgin Mary, or for her? whether soeuer, Epiphanius saith It is foolish, strange, and that vvhich proceeded from the spirit of Diuels Againe, who knoweth not that you offer vp prayers and intercessions to the Virgin Mary and all Saints? And no man is found either so greatly couetous, or so little superst [...]tious, but he voweth somewhat to some Saint, specially to the Virgin Mary offering vp sacrifices and vowes to the Virgine Mary? Basil. in E­pist. ad Cle­ric Neocae­sariae. Basil is the author, that in his dayes there was aDVR. Basil doth not say it was the custome of all Churches. WHIT. pag. 442. It seemeth you haue not read Basil, reade the place and you shall find these words there. The c [...]ome we now keepe, is con­sonant and agreeable to all the Churches of God. And he reckoneth the Churches of Aegypt, Afrike, Thebes, Palestine, and all who vse singing of Psalmes. custome in all Churches, that the people repeated the Psalmes in the holy assemblies. But in your Churches the people canDVR. As if the publike prayers of the Church did not profit the people, vnlesse they vnderstand the [...]: what a foolish dreame is this. WHIT. pag. 443. We had rather dreame with the Apostle, then watch with you; for thus S. Paul speaketh 1. Cor. 14 4.5.6. He that speaketh a strange tongue, speaketh not vnto men, but vn­to God, vers. 6. If I come vnto you speaking diuers tongues, what shall I profit you? Strange tongues then profit not, vnlesse your tongues haue some more Diuine power then the Apostles tongue had. neither heare nor vnderstand those things which are read; but are onely deluded with ridicu­lous gestures and pompous shewes.DVR. Gregorie neuer thought so, but in the same place he commendeth the solitary life as more excellent then any humane condition; neither speaketh he of the common life of Christians, but of that vvhich is spent in the duties of charity. WHIT. pag. 444. I proue it easily out of his words. Hierome the Philosopher, saith he, proposed vnto himselfe to know whe­ther of our liues vvas more to be vvished for, and more profitable, to the end he might make choice of it. And when he knew that euery man was not borne for himselfe only, but for all others, who beare the same nature with him, he embra­ced this common life rather then that solitary life. Doth he not now preferre this life? and from the praise he giueth the other, he hath somewhat detracted, when he sheweth that it is only for themselues, and so lesse profitable and fruit­full? Finally what is a Christian life, but that which is spent in the duties of cha­rity, for all Christians are bound vnto these duties. Then notwithstanding all these, Gregorie is still with vs. Nazianzen. de haer. Phi­losoph. Nazianzene speaketh no lesse honourablie of this ciuill and soci­able life, than of the solitarie life of Monkes: which [Page]your cloister men cannot indure.Ambros. in Rom. cap. 1. DVR. Am­brose codem­neth suffraga­tors, not inter­cessors, that is, such as might informe God, what we are, not such as might commēd our vvants to him. WHIT. pag. 446. As if God did not know as well our wants, without an in­tercessor, as what we are without a suffragator. If he do, why should the one be allowed more then the other? This new distinction of yours, I thinke our Vni­uersity men, neither know, not wil acknowledge: or what is intercessiō but a suf­fragation? or what do you els desire of the Saints, but that they would speake fa­uourablie for you to God? Ambrose en­ueigheth bitterly against them, who thinke it neces­sary for them, when they would goe to God to vse some mediatours, as men doe in courts of Princes, before they can bee brought to the King himselfe, they must seeke the fauour of some of his neere at­tendants. Doth not this thing touch you, doth not this speech draw blood of you? who neuer aske any thing of God in your prayers, but first you seeke some of the Saints to bee a mediatour for you, to whom you commend the care of your businesse and requests.Hieron. Ep. DVR Hierome neuer vvriteth thus, but affirmeth that there is the like difference betwixt a Bishop a Priest, and a Deacon, as was be­twixt Aaron, and his sonnes and the Leuites. Epist. ad Euagr. And if there be equa­lity, it is in iurisdiction, not in povver of order. WHIT. pag. 447. It is strange that you deny that which Hierome directly affirmeth in the beginning of the same Epistle namely, that the Apostle doth plainly teach, that a Bishop, and a Priest are all one: and this he proueth by many testimonies of the Scripture. And vpon the 1. chap. to Titus, hee affirmeth plainly that a Bishop is aboue a Priest by custome, not by Gods ordinance. And so must that be vnderstood you bring out of the forenamed Epistle. And where you acknowledge the same iu­risdiction of both by the law of God (which happely slipped from you vna­wares) their vnequall power must needs be only by the law of man. Hierome did too much contemne your Pope, and other your glorious Bishops, when hee writeth that a Priest and a Bishop, by the law of God [Page]are all one; doe you iudge him worthy to bee a Fa­ther of the Romish Church, the Bishop whereof you make not onely to be farre aboue all Priests, but also all Bishops?DVR Leo the Pope did decree this first of all, and Ge­latius the fourth after him confirmed it, least any of the Manichies. vvho supersti­tiously and vvickedly ab­stained from blood, might looke among the Catholikes. WHIT pag. 451. I will accept your answere, though your Gratian bee against it. But who seeth not what a goodly patron you are of the popish cause, who make the Ma­nichies the first author of the dismembring of the Supper. But whosoeuer did it, Gelatius censureth it thus. The diuision of one and the same mystery cannot bee without great sacriledge. And so by a Pope is the whole Popish Church con­demned of sacriledge. Gelasius who himselfe was a Bishop of Rome, condemneth your drie and maimed supper as Sacrilegious, and strictly commandeth, De conse­crat dist. 2. Comperi­mus. Vigil. lib. 1. cont. Eutych. that either the whole be receiued, or it be wholly omitted. Will the au­thoritie of the Pope moue you no whit at all? Vigi­lius writeth that Christ is departed from vs in his hu­mane nature.DVR. Vigilius meaneth that Christ withdrevv from the vvorld the visible presence of his humanity, and not the humane nature himselfe. WHIT. pag. 453. But the words that follow after shew the cleane contrary. He therfore is vvith vs, and not vvith vs, because whom he left, and from whom he de­parted in his humanity, he hath not left, nor forsaken in his Diuinity. And againe, in lib. 4. contr. Eutych. vvhen he vvas in the earth, hee vvas not in heauen: and novv that he is in heauen, hee is not in the earth. And againe: hee vvas circum­scribed in a place according to his humane nature, and not conteined in a place ac­cording to his Diuinity: this is the Catholike confession and faith, vvhich the Apo­stles haue deliuered; the Martyrs haue confirmed, and the faithfull haue kept to this day. If this be the Catholike faith, then are not you Catholikes vvho iudge farre othe [...]vvise of the humanity of Christ. The Sonne of God in his humane na­ture is gone from vs: but in his diuine nature hee is al­wayes with vs, whereas you say Christ is present in both natures.DVR. Chrysostome, because hee savv many so addicted and giuen to theaters, stage plaies, and impious Interludes, did thus admonish them, lest they should distast the reading of the Scriptures. WHIT pag. 458. Be it so: haue you also no impious places and spectacles and prophane exercises? And yet vvith you any thing is lawfull, saue reading of the Scriptures. But vvho so readeth Chrysostome, in Ioan. hom. 13. in Epist. ad Coloss. hom. 9. de Lazaro hom. 3. shall find that he required this simplie, necessarily, and generally of all men. Chrysostome exhorteth lay men and all the people that they would get them Bibles,Chrysost ad Coloss. hom. 9. & in Ioan. hom. 8. reade the Scriptures, and that at home in their hou­ses the husband with the wife, the father with his children, would conferre among themselues of the [Page 165]Scriptures. But this neither can, nor lawfully may be done in your Church, yea, it is a certaine proofe of an heretique, for any to haue the Bible in his house. What shall I say of Augustine, who in the greatest and most principall controuersies, as of grace, pre­destination, free will, iustification, the Scripture, the Law, the Gospel, sinne, good workes, Sacraments, and Church is wholly and fully ours. I should neuer make an end if I should pursue particulars, and col­lect but a little of euery thing.Gregor. lib. 4. Epist. 30. & 34. Gregory the great, though he was a Bishop of Rome, yet will he take our part against you: For tell mee, doth hee not touch your Pope to the quicke, when peremptorily he af­firmed, that whosoeuer should call himselfe theDVR. Gre­gory condem­ned Iohn, be­cause he sought for such an au­thority ouer all Bishops, as the Emperour had ouer the Kings, vvho are subiect vnto them. WHIT. pag. 460. Whether Iohn of Con­stantinople sought such a povver or no; it is not certaine: but no man can be ignorant, how the Pope affecteth it: And long ago hath not only got authori­ty ouer the Bishops, but hath subdued the Emperour himselfe: which Iohn of Constantin [...]ple neuer once assayed to do. Gregory telleth vs what he meaneth by vniuersall Bishop, he vvho endeuoureth to bring into subiection to himselfe all the members of Christ by the title of vniuersall. Whereby he toucheth home your Pope, who subiecteth all the members of Christ to himself as to their head: nei­ther did euer any Emperour rule more tyrannously ouer his Kings and vassals, then the Pope hath ouer the Bishops of all Churches. vniuersall Bishop, vndoubtedly was the forerunner of Antichrist? Touching which title there hath been deadly hatred and bloody contentions betwixt the Bishops of Constantinople and Rome. Iohn of Con­stantinople being a proud man, and very insolent, and ambitious, first challenged this vnto himselfe: Gre­gory while hee liued earnestly and constantly with­stood him. And within a while after this title was taken from the Bishop of Constantinople, and giuen to the Bishop of Rome. Leaue trifling, Campian, and euen tell me plainely,DVR. VVho seeth not in vvhat sense th [...]se Bishops of Rome vvould not this name vnto themselues, though they alwaies professed them Bishops of the vniuersall and Catholike Church, and the Vicars of Christ. WHIT pag. 463. It seemeth you did not meane to be vnder­stood of any who speake on this manner: but tell vs, is the Pope vniuersall Bi­shop or no? If he be, how commeth the change, that, that which was Antichri­stian in the Patriarke of Constantinople by the iudgement of Pelagius & Gre­gorie, both Bishops of Rome, should be Catholike and holy in the Pope? For that which so insolently Iohn of Constantinople tooke vnto himselfe, and enioyed for a while, not long after Boniface the third earnestly tooke vnto himselfe, and translated to his successors, as saith Platina in vita Bonifac. 3. & Sabellicus Ennead. 8. lib. 6. Vispergensis in Phoca. They then haue not only the thing, but the name, and so are Antichristian. if that name in the Bishop of [Page 166] Constantinople was a signe of the approching of An­tichrist, why may wee not iudge it in the Bishop of Rome, a notable ensigne of the same Antichrist? now I haue giuen you a taste by which you may iudge o­ther things: you must either get you other fathers, or for all these you must needes yeeld as ouercome. Doe wee at length speake without riddles? what is it you els desire of vs? wherefore Campian, get you into this campe, and shew forth all your valour: you shall verily finde you haue to deale, not with naked and vnarmed beggars, but with well appointed and well harnessed aduersaries.

WILLIAM WHITAKERS. The answere to the eighth Reason, which is the Paradoxes of our aduersaries.

HIerome said that hee would not haue any man to bee patient, if hee were suspe­cted of heresie. And there­fore, Campian, in so much the worser part do I take it, that these which you terme Paradoxes, being so false, so many, and so horrible, be now by you obiected against vs. And certainlie you that haue euer exceeded all other Papists in im­pudency and audaciousnes, haue in this place in very [Page 192]deed surpassed your selfe: for vnlesse you had quite and cleane put off both all religion of God, and re­uerence toward men, and now of late made ship­wracke of your owne conscience, and cast off vtterly all humanity, you would neuer haue admitted so much impietie into your selfe, as to vpbraide vs with these monstrous opinions. But I perceiue what you intend: for you hope that by slaundering boldly, as he being most like you, was wont to say, somewhat would alwaies cleane fast. For sith you lacke true im­putations, whereby you might oppugne our Chur­ches, it remained that either you should leaue off writing, which had been your honestest way, or at lest deuise some slaunders, which you would cast like vnomed darts vpon vs; which thing is both in it selfe very filthy, and also a sure argument of your desperatenes. But now if I shall so wipe away these your Paradoxes and impossibilities, that al men may perceiue, they were ascribed to vs by you most falsly and most impudently; I do craue not only of all men of our Vniuersities, but also of all Christiās, that haue care of true religion, and of their owne saluation, that they will not suffer themselues to be misled by any lies and impostures of the aduersarie, from that holy doctrine which they haue learned. Wherefore I will set vpon these your monsters, Campian, that af­ter I haue stopt your mouth, being ful of blasphemy, both the glory of God, which is in hand, and our in­nocency, which is oppugned, may be preserued from your violence. You say, the disputation shall be, if they please, of God, of Christ, of Man, of Sinne, of Righteous­nes, of the Sacraments, of Manners. But we are readie to dispute with you not only about these, but also a­bout other points, which are now in difference: of the Scripture, of the Church, of the Bishop of Rome, of Transubstantiation, of Freewill, of Indulgences, of Purgatorie, and of the rest of your doctrines. Neuer­thelesse [Page 193]either many are deceiued, or else you do ra­ther thinke of fighting then disputing. And I hope that you shall once haue freedome granted you for that disputation, which you so often desire. But now let vs attend how you endeuour to make vs know these positions of our men.

God (say you) is the willing, Of God. suggesting, efficient, commaunding, and working author and cause of sinne, and such a one as therein gouerneth the impious counsels of the wicked. It is an horrible thing and not to be vt­tred, Campian, that any one should make God the author of sinne: such an one were worthy to be smit­ten instantly by the Lord, with a thunderbolt into the deepest pit of hell. IfDVR. But if I do not shew, that Caluin is the maintainer of this so horri­ble ablasphemy. I refuse no pu­nishment for so great a slāder: thus he writeth Instit. lib. 1. cap. 18. sect. 1. Absolom defi­ling his fathers bed with incest committed a detestable crime: yet God pronounceth that this was his worke. WHIT pag. 525. I wonder that there is any mā found like to Cam­pian, who will [...]uow that to be said and defended by our men, which they haue euer most plainly condemned, as Melanct. on Rom. 1. &c. Pet. Mart on Iudg 9. and Caluin on Iam. 1. vers. 13. Beza against Castellio, of eternall predestination: for touching these words which you obiect to Caluin, what doth he affirme, but that which the Scripture hath deliuered, 2. Sam 12.11.12? vnlesse perhap [...] you will deny that to be Gods deed, which God himselfe witnesseth to be his. Neither will your sophisme follow hereupon, ergo God is the author of sin: for Caluin ascribeth not the sinne, but the worke to God. For if in that incest you can consider nothing but sinne, it must bee imputed to your ignorance. Caluin, or Martyr, or Phi­lip, or Luther, or any of vs do affirme it, I do not de­nie but we are all guilty of horrible blasphemie and impiety. If I would largely prosecute this whole cause, which you doe but touch, I should make no end: therfore I will declare in few words, both what we teach, and wherein you lie. We professe, not only that God is good, but also goodnes it self; yea good in himself & in his owne essēce: in whom there is no euill; from whom nothing but good can come: who is so good, that all his doings be very good, and that not so much as any of his thoughts can be euil. These things we speake, these things we teach, these things we beleeue with our harts, and confesse with our mouthes. Seeing therefore God is so perfectly good, [Page 194]that all his things be in a certaine excellent manner good, it hath been in times past inquired and most grauely disputed, whēce that euil sprung, which had spread so far, & what might be the cause of this euill. This question Augustine often handled, because of the M [...]nichies,In 12. quest. 79. art. 1. & 2. and therein also Thomas of Aquine imployed himselfe much and diligently. Wee say that this euill was brought in by theDVR. But Caluin saith, that when the Diuel moueth men to sinne, hee is ra­ther the instru­ment of God, than th [...] author o [...] sinne. Instit. lib. 2. cap. 4. Ser. 5. WHIT pag. 528. This alle­gation is full of slander. This is Caluins meaning, that albeit the Di­uell be rather an instrument than the au­thor of the action, yet hee is the supreme and chiefe of the sinne in the action. Diuell, who although hee were made good in the beginning by the Lord, yet by his freewill he made defection from the Lord and sinned; [...]nd did perswade, and was the author vnto man, to commit sin: from hence, what­soeuer is sin either in the diuels, or in men, did who­ly flow, and not any the least peece of it had being from God, whom we do maintaine by infinite testi­monies of Scripture to be the author of noDVR. But what is more often in the mouth of Caluin & all Caluinists, [...]hen this, that God doth not only permit but will sinne, that he doth moue and thrust vs forward to sinne, nay that be doth by the efficacie of his will impose a necessity of sinning vpon vs? WHIT. pag. 529. God willeth sinne, but not simplie, and so farre forth as it is sinne, but as it is a chastisement, so 1. Pet. 4.19. and God doth stirre vp and moue that sinne which lieth hidde in vs, yet he doth not frame or put sinne into vs: as the Physitian, is not the author of d [...]seases, when he purgeth out the most cor­rupt humours. And man not indued with the holy Ghost, falleth of his ovvne accord into a necessity of sinning, so as he sinneth, not by any fault of God, but by his ovvne fault. sinne; and so do teach it in our schooles and Churches.Psal. 44. Zach. 8.17. Gen. 18.25. 1. Ioh. 1.5. For he hateth sin, he loueth righteousnes: he which is the Iudge of the whole earth, it must needs be that he is euery way most iust: God is light, and there is no darknes in him. And these are the things which wee teach the people concerning God, that all may vn­derstand hee is a most seuere reuenger of all sinnes. Now then, Campian, with what face dare you, seeing you know these to bee our doctrines, impute vnto vs such a slāder not to be vttred, in so much as you af­firme that we speake and thinke things flat contra­ry? But you say Caluin and Martyr haue taught this [Page 195]this thing. Nay rather they are wholy bent vpō this, that they maintaine, that can by no meanes bee. It would be long to set down their words. I do beseech the Reader, to reade with an attentiue and peaceable mind, these same very places, which Campian hath a­bused vnto slander. And if they doe not both deny most plainly that God is the author and cause of sin; and also if they do not proue that they do most truly deny this, which they deny, I will submit my selfe to any punishment. But yet there is doubtlesse some­what, which these men say, and which Campian doth attribute to them: what that is, let vs consider.

There was a certaine inueterate opinion among men, that whatsoeuer sinne was committed by any, all that was done, God only permitting, and not wil­ling it: now they did separate this permission vtter­ly from all will of God, so as they affirmed that God did no way will those things which he had permit­ted. But now seeing the Lord is to be held toDVR. Here you, while you, vvould defend that God is not the author of sinne, yet do nothing else but make him the author of sinne: for if he do not only permit, but also willeth that man sinne, tell me which way, if the will of God be the first and effecting cause of sinne, God is not the author of sinne. WHIT. pag▪ 535. There is no need that I should expound to you that which you demaund for we do not make the will of God to be the first and [...]ffecting cause of the sin, but of the action, which as it commeth from a wicked man, is vitious, so then not the vvill of God, but the naughtines of the instrument, is the cause that those things are done vvic­ [...]edly, which the Lord doth rightly. permit those things which are done, not only that they might bee done, as if hee did no whit intermeddle himselfe in those things, nor had nothing at all to do therein, but also doth by his speciall prouidence so gouerne all things, as that nothing in the whole world happeneth against tha [...], that he hath willed & decreed: certainly it cānot be denied, that God doth will after a sort those things, which the wicked doe, & that this wil of God is so effectual, that in the wic­ked actions of men, God doth execute his owne de­cree. For in sinne two things are to be considered, the action it selfe, and the corruption of the action: which thing your Aquine might teach you, which [Page 196]also he learned from Augustine. The action so farre forth as it is a thing and a worke, is good; for God effecteth it: but so farre forth as this selfe same acti­on is vitious, it proceedeth not from God, but from the corrupt nature of man. Although therefore God who worketh all things in all, and against whose will nothing can bee done; doth bring to passe a certaine worke of his in the euill actions of men; yet hee doth those things that are iust, nor ought he any way to be thought to be guiltie of the sinnes of the men themselues: therefore that which a wicked man doth, that, as it is a sinne, and as it hath the proper nature of sinne, the Lord neither willeth nor suggesteth, nor biddeth, nor effecteth; nay he detesteth and reuengeth it, and iudgeth it worthy of euerlasting punishment. But that which is spoken of the thing, that you applie malitiously and vnskilful­ly, to the qualitie of the thing, that you may con­clude, that God, because he is the author and cause of the action, is also the author and cause of whatso­euer corruption is found in that action. I will not prosecute any long digression, nor ouerwhelme you with that multitude of Scr [...]ptures, which I could here vse: for I haue not taken vpon me to expound any poynt in the Schooles, but briefely to confute your filthie slaunder.

Now answere me, Campian, doe you thinke that that which any one doth, how wicked soeuer, is done whether God will or no? If you hold that any thing is done against Gods wil, what prouidence or omnipotencie doe you leaue him? For he which per­mits that to be done, which he would by no meanes haue to be done, it is certaine that he is not endued with so great power, as that he can forbid that which he would not haue done. Wherefore you must need [...] confesse that all things which are done, are done by the will of God; not that God doth will, that is, [Page 197] DVR. You say that God willeth euill, but that he doth not allow it: as if God could will that vvhich he doth not allovv, or as if he could not allovv his ovvne iudge­ment and de­cree. WHIT. pag. 538. It is no hard thing to proue this, that God doth vvill many things vvhich he doth not allovv: for if is do happen to Princes, that they doe not simplie allovv of vvarre, as being dange­rous to them and their sub­iects, but they vvould vvil­lingly shun it it they could, and yet they are compelled sometime to vvill it for the publike peace sake: and so to a Magistrate, vvho spareth the liues of his people, and neuer liketh of murther, yet novv and then doth vvillinglie deliuer some one or other malefactor vnto the executio­ner; shall vve thinke that the like cannot happen vnto God, that hee vvilleth some thing in some sort and for some other respect, vvhich hee doth not allovv simplie and of it selfe? Thus then God cannot but allovv the action, vvhich he hath destinated to a certaine end: but he doth not allovv the corruption and sinne of the action, vvhereof not he but man is the author. allow the sinnes of men, but because by this means he doth exercise his iudgement and execute his de­cree, which he both willeth and alloweth. God can vse euill instruments well, and bring to passe by wicked men, those things which agree with his will and liking. Now whatsoeuer things God doth by euill instruments, those he neither doth nor allow­eth, as they be euill things, but as they be his good and holy iudgements: so as although he both wil­leth those things which be done, & doth moue the wils of men, and doth exercise in euill instruments, though vnknowne to the instruments themselues, an effectuall power, and doth gouerne the wicked counsailes of impious men, that they can doe no­thing which hee willeth not; yet both men are wic­ked, albeit they doe those things which the Lord willeth; and the Lord is holy, howsoeuer he willeth those things which the wicked doe. This may be made manifest by examples; but I had rather you should heare Augustine than me. When the Father (saith he) deliuered the sonne, August. Epist. 48. ad Vincent. and the Lord his body, and Iudas the Lord by treacherie, why is God iust in this deliuerie, and man guiltie, but because in one thing which they did, the cause was not one for which they did it? Againe, In that the wicked sinne, it is their owne: in that in sinning they doe this or that, it comes from the power of God, who diuides the darkenes as he seeth good. And in another place: It skilleth much (saith he) what will agreeth to man, and what to God, and to what end each one referreth his will, so as it may be allowed or [Page 198]disallowed. For God fulfilleth certaine of his wils, being surely good, by the euill wils of euill men: as by the ill willed Iewes, through the good will of the father, Christ was slain, which was so great a good, that the Apostle Pe­ter, what time he would not haue had it done, is termed Satan by him who was willing to be slaine. And else­where: God (saith he) hardened Pharao by iust iudge­ment, De Grat. & lib. arbit. cap. 23. and Pharao hardened himselfe by his owne free will. And that you may plainely perceiue there is nothing taught by vs touching the will of God, but that which the Church of Christ long since hath taught, I will annexe some other sentences which the same Augustine hath written in another place: Great are (saith he) the works of the Lord distinguished into all his wils, Enchirid. ad Laurent. cap. 100. so as after a wonderfull and vnutterable manner that is not done without his will, which also is not done against his will: because it should not be done, if he did not suffer it, neither certainely doth he suffer it vn­willing, but willing. And againe: God worketh in the hearts of men to incline their wils whither so euer hee will, De Grat. & lib. arbit. ca. 21. whether to good according to his mercie, or vnto euill, according to their merits. And that certainely in his iudgement sometime open, sometime secret, but al­waies iust. I can vse infinite testimonies in this mat­ter, but I thinke, not very needfull. I will raise vp out of your owne schoole Hugo de Sancto victore, who shall most clearely approue our opinion with his owne words. For thus he writeth:De Sacra. part. 2. c. 14. His will is ne­uer idle, so as that is not done, which he willeth: neither in a word can any thing bee done at any time which hee willeth not. And a little after:Cap. 15. The will of God is euer fulfilled, and wicked men are not therefore excused, be­cause the will of God is performed in them and by them, for that they are not directed by their owne will, to fulfill the will of God, but by his secret prouidence.

Doe you perceiue at length (Campian) that no new paradoxe is defended in our Churches, which [Page 199]was not both receiued in times past in the Churches of Christ, and is also defended as the truth it selfe? For that which you adde, As the calling of Paul, so al­so Dauids adulterie, and Iudas his treacherie, were the proper worke of God: from whence you drew these positions I know not. These works of God not one of our writers doe so compare together, as that wee should say that God wrought alike in Dauid and Iudas to the committing of hainous offences, as he did in Paul for his effectuall conuersion. Indeed the Lord wrought both in this and in them, but not af­ter one and the like manner: he did inspire inward­ly the heart of Paul by his spirit, and endued his minde with true faith, which he lacked before: but to Dauid and Iudas hee did cast in no new kinde of impietie or inclination of will, nor did hee stirre vp new motions vnto sinning (God forbid that any Christiā should so much as thinke it:) but they run­ning of their owne accord, and stirred vp by and of themselues, be did so hold and bend, that they vn­witting to themselues, and not imagining any such thing, did execute Gods decree. For by this adulte­rie of Dauid the Lord did both chastice Dauid, in that he did punish sinne with sinne, as hee is wont, and also hee made a way open for his purposes in time succeeding. Like hereunto is that of Absalom: he defiled Dauids Concubines:2. Sam. 17.22. the h [...]inousnes of which offence cannot bee vttered: yet this way the Lord had decreed to take punishment of Dauid. But the treacherie of Iudas, if you respect the couetous­nes and perfidiousnes of the man, did so displease God, that neuer any thing did offend him more: and yet the Lord vsed both Iudas treacherie and the Priests crueltie for the finishing of that worke of our s [...]luation, and he would haue these wretched instru­ments to effect that diuine worke. Therefore the A­postles doe testifie that all these did nothing else but [Page 200]those things which the hand and counsaile of the Lord did decree to bee done.Act. 4.28. And yet there is not here any monstrous thing, wherof either Philip Me­lanchton or any other ought to bee ashamed, vnlesse perhaps the holy doctrine of the Scripture seeme monstrous to you.

As for that that you demaund with what minde Luther did take away this verse from the Church prayers, O holy Trinitie, one God, haue mercie vpon vs, certeinly you are too suspitious. If Luther did think erroneously touching the Trinitie, conuince him: his bookes are in mens hands, and they are read by you, as it seemeth, very diligently. Alleage, if you can, any one word, iniurious either to the Trinitie or Vnitie. For if out of all his writings, which are innu­merable, you can draw no probable inkling of this suspition, why doe you make question about one verse taken away from the Church prayers? which whether it bee taken away or no, I know not: and though it bee taken away, yet how appeares it that it was taken away by him? But Luthers condition is very hard, who must stand vnto, both what hee hath written, and what hee hath not written. And these are those our paradoxes concerning God, which you could carpe at in the bookes of all our writers, which haue come foorth in a manner infinitely. The matter is safe and sound: the aduersarie hath viewed ouer all of them, and yet hath found nothing.

By and by you proceede to the person of Christ,Of Christ. and you demand what these words of Caluin meane; Christ i [...] the sonne of God, God of God, God of himselfe▪ What reprooue you here Campian? what, that hee said, Christ is the Sonne of God? or for that hee ter­med him God of God? or else, that he affirmeth him to be God of himselfe? But which of these assertions is it, that is not holy, not granted, not agreeable to the Catholike faith? which if you deny, you doe not [Page 201]conuince any Paradox of ours, but you bewray your owne heresie. But this is the point, vnlesse I be decei­ued, wherin you haue found, I know not what, knot, as it were in a rush. The Nicene Fathers doe professe Christ to bee God of God, to the end they may teach that the Son is of the same substance with the Father. This saying, some afterward catcht at so, as that they did maintaine that Christ is not God by himselfe and of himselfe, but that hee receiued it of his Father: wherein they quite tooke away the Diui­nity of Christ. For vnlesse he be God of himselfe, he cannot be God at all. For that hee may be God, hee must needs be God of himselfe. Wherefore howsoe­uer those Fathers did say that Christ is God of God, yes Calain maintaineth that it is most firmely to be beleeued, that Christ hath this, to be God of himself, vnlesse we will rob Christ of his Diuinity. To be the Sonne, he receiued that indeed of the Father: for he is the Son of the Father. To be God, he hath that ofDVR. If the Sonne of God haue not his es­sence from the Father, surely be is not the Sonne of the Father. WHIT. pag. 542. And vvhy so? did Caluin euer deny that the Son hath his essence from the Father? he and vve all teach that the Sonne vvas begotten of the Fathers essence; and that the Sonne hath the vvhole essence of the Father, and that not by decision or propagation, as the wicked Prithe [...]s dreame, but by cōmunication. And yet h [...]e you multiply Scriptures and Fathers needlesly. This vve say, Christ is God of himselfe, but in this sense, that, that essence vvhich is in the Sonne, is not from any other es­sence, but of and from himselfe, seeing that the essence of the Father and the Sonne is one and the same. For essence, as Basil truly vvriteth against Eunomi­us, cannot be generated: and pag. 543. vvherefore Christ, so farre forth as he is God, is of himselfe; and so farre forth as he is the Sonne, is of the Father: for he cannot be God, vvhose essence is not of and from it selfe, so Basil and Au­gustine. himselfe, because he is God by himselfe. What say you now Campian? God of God, is with Caluin, God of himselfe: and say you so indeed? hath not Caluin admonished you of this, that the name of God is to be taken for the Father, when as Christ is termed the Sonne of God? That therefore which the Nicene Fa­thers deliuer, that Christ is God of God, that is so to be vnderstood, that we should confesse the Sonne [Page 202]to be begotten of the Father, and not that we should attribute the name of God only to the Father: for we must looke to it, that wee doe not so determine the Sonne to bee of the Father, as that wee should deny him to be God of himselfe. And these things Caluin hath interpreted most diligently and most holily, nor hath he set forth any one word at all different from the faith of the Scriptures and of the Catholike Church. Remember that sentence of Augustine: Christ in respect of himself is termed God, Hom. de Temp. 38. but in respect of the Father he is termed the Sonne: wherein you may acknowledge the opinion of the auncient Church.

Now you set vpon Beza: for like to the fashion of mad dogges, you stand not in one place, but flie hi­ther and thither, and vpon whomsoeuer you light, you bite him shrewdly with your venomous teeth. Beza saith (as you say) he is not begotten of the essence of the Father. Why are you angrie with Beza, if he say the same things, which are wont to be said & main­tained by your owne selues? For you cannot be ig­norant, what your Lombard teacheth touching the oslence of God, which both he, and the schoole men that haue followed him do affirme, neither to get, nor to be begotten. For that essence is not begotten by essence, but person by person. If Beza would imitate these, in saying that Christ was begotten not of the essence but of the person of the Father, why doe you reproue him? and yet we may not imagine that the essence is separated from the person, as if the essence of the Sonne were another from the essence of the Father: (for there is but one simple essence of the Deity) but for asmuch as person is distinguished frō essence; albeit not in the thing, yet by rolation; and sith tho Ancient were wont to speake after this man­ner, that they said Christ was begotten of the person of the Father, rather then of his essence: it is no mar­uel that the same forme of speech did like Beza best, [Page 203]whose iudgement it was euer, that we ought to set downe determinations touching the highest myste­ries very warily and with great consideration. Now that the essence is not begotten, the whole auncient Church held, as Basil writeth expresly:C [...]ntr. Eu­ [...]m. lib. 1. God is not be­gotten either of himselfe [...] of any other. Albeit I do not very wel know, whether these be Beza [...] words which you recite: surely I remember not that I haue euer read them in Beza, nor can I find them in this place which you quote. But those that follow, are very ma­litious. Beza said once, that there be two personall vnions in Christ, as you say, the one of the soule with the body, the other of the Godhead with the manhood. Which speech of his Iames Andreas reproued: and indeed not without cause; albeit this doth not fol­low out of that speech, that there are two persons in Christ, though there bee two personall vnions: but that, because it was written ambiguously, Beza pro­fesseth that he would willingly mend it. And what can you desire more? if he haue erred, yet he persisted not in his error, but hath amended his fault: with what face therefore can you vpbraide him with that, which fell from him but once ere he was aware, see­ing he corrected it after? And touching the person of Christ, Beza euery where teacheth those things, than which nothing can be more true and sincere: nor is there any of vs that is wont to affirme or defend that which you obiect concerning those two personall vnions. For we confesse but one person, constituted of the two natures, as also we acknowledge but one personall vnion: for although Christ did assume both body and an humane soule; yet these parts are not so personally ioyned together in Christ, as that they do make any person separate from his Godhead, lest we should imagine that Christ consisteth of two per­sons.

Now againe you make recourse to Caluin, whom [Page 204]I thought you had quite giuen ouer before. Caluin denieth▪ that the place of Iohn, I and my Father are one, doth shew that Christ is God of the same substance with the Father. What then Campian? was it so hai­nous an offence, to dissent from the auncient Fathers in the exposition of one place? Did he euer deny that Christ is of the same substance with the Father? you cannot maintaine it. For hee alwaies taught it most constantly, and confuted the Arrians by other innu­merable texts of holy Scripture. For what? doe you thinke that he cannot be of the same substance with the Father, vnlesse this place teach it? he that heed­fully readeth ouer that dispute of Christ with the Iewes, which Iohn in that chapter setteth downe,Ioh. 10. shal easily perceiue that ratherDVR. What is this that you say? Iohn sig­nified the vni­on of power & will, and not of essence: are you so rude, as that you are igno­rant that in God, povver, and essence are the same? WHIT. pag. 546. I am not so rude, but that I well vn­derstand, that the power of God is the es­sence of God: but doth it fol­low, if Christ being endow­ed and enui­roned with the power of God could not be ouercome, but that God also should be ouer­come, that the essentiall power of God and Christ is the same? an vnity of will and po­wer, then of essence, is signified. Christ affirmeth that no man can take his sheepe out of his hands: & that he may perswade it plainly, he adioyneth, I and my Father are one. I doe not see how you can thereout conclude an vnity of substance, vnlesse you still vn­derstand that same word, One, of the substance. What is it then that Christ saith, not of himselfe only, and his Father, but of all the faithfull,Job. 17.21. 1. Ioh. 5.8. that they all may be one, as thou O Father art in me, and I in thee? That place in the Epistle of Iohn, These three are one, the Ordina­rie Glosse doth thus expound, that is, witnessing of the same thing. Erasmus in annot. in 1. Iob. c. 5. But Erasmus doth much more vehement­ly find fault with the old Fathers, because they abu­sed these words, I and the Father are one, against the Arrians. Not, I think, for that he did any whit fauour the Arriāt, but because he thought it was done by the Fathers with no great reason. But you say, that, that word, Homoousion, was odious to Luther. For he saith, my soule hateth this word, Homoousion. Luther neuer said that: only this he said, if he had hated that word, [Page 205] Homoousion, yet he should be no heretike as long as he held the thing it selfe. These are Luthers words: But if my soule did hate that word, Homoousion, and would not vse it, I should not bee an heretike: for who should compell me to vse it, so as I hold the thing, which was determined in a Councell by the Scriptures? DVR. What more foolish then to hate a name vncopa­ble of hatred? WHIT. pag. 547. Then is he no heretike for hating the name, when he loueth the thing: and out of these words to faine and cast such a po­sition vpon Luther as this; My soule ha­teth that word, Homoousion; it is a deuise most worthily deseruing per­petual hatred. But howsoeuer he did hate the name, yet he did loue the thing it selfe as his owne soule. And with this same name, it is certaine that many and those very excellent men were in times past offended, in so much as they haue wished it had neuer been heard of. For this name being once brought in, the Chur­ches were at such conflicts betweene themselues through hatreds and contentions, that the holy Fa­thers themselues did not a little repent them of that name: nor if a man would haue perhaps some name to be taken away, which hath giuen occasion of many dissentions, is he therefore to be thought to disallow the thing declared by that name.Hieron. in Epist. ad Damas. Hierome could not be perswaded to receiue the three Hypo­stases, because he had that new name, Hypostasis, in suspition: for he was afraide lest there lay some ve­nome vnder that name: yet hee did acknowledge and preach three persons. And now both those tearmes are receiued, nor ought any one to be of­fended with it.

Goe yee forward, say you: goe you also forward, Campian, seeing you will needs doe so, but it had been better for you rather to giue ouer, than to goe on of this fashion. It is better to retire than to runne ill. You reproach vs now for this, that wee say, Christ was not perfect in Grace from his infancie, but that he grew in the gifts of his mind as other men doe, and was made wiser euery day by experience. I doe easi­lie endure you to obiect many paradoxes against vs, seeing you taxe the very historie of the Gospell with the same fault: for who may hope that he can escape [Page 206]your slander, who sticke not most audaciously to fly vpon the writings of the Gospell: for what doe we teach else herein, but that which the Euangelist hath expressed in his writings once or twice? for thus we reade in Luke. The Child increased, Luk. 2.40. and was strength­ned in the spirit, and he was filled with wisdome, and the grace of God was in him. And againe,Vers. 52. Iesus grew DVR. That is, saith Ieremy, and the aunci­ent Fathers, Christ grew in wisdome, be­cause together with his age that his wis­dome did euery day more shine forth and shew it selfe to men. Ieremy thus, a woman shall compasse a man; and Augustine, Iustine, Clement, and Hilary say, to as­cribe to Christ ignorance, is an impious thing, and not to be beleeued. WHIT. pag. 550. Thus you [...]rgue, Ieremy chap. 31. wrot: A woman shall compasse a man: therefore Christ was a man in his mothers wombe, full of knowledge and wis­dome. Out of all doubt with these arguments you will win the field: but yet take this with you; if a woman compassed a man, in such sort as you affirme, then it will follow that Christ was a man, before he was borne; and Marie did beare him, not an infant, but a man; and old Symeon tooke in his armes a man, and not a child. These are expositions worthy your patronage. As for the Fa­thers that you cite, they speake only of Christs Diuine nature. DVR. Adam in his creation vvas indued with excellent wisdome and knowledge: what madnes is it then to attribute to Christ the infirmitie of ignorance? WHIT. I answere, you dispute very admirablie. Adam was created with excellent knowledge, there­fore Christ was ignorant of nothing: first, Adam knovv not all things, but you say Christ was neuer ignorant of any thing. Againe from this ground you may conclude, that Christ is not dead. For if Adam in the beginning was so created, that he could not die, what madnes is it, (to vse your owne words) to attribute the infirmitie of mortalitie to Christ? Tell me I pray you, which is more be­fitting to Christ, mortalitie or infirmitie? But when the Scripture is manifest, that Christ did not take our nature whole and sound, as it was then in Adam, but infirme and weake, yet without sinne; it is no maruell if he would be borne such as we are, not such as Adam was created. in wisdome, and in stature, and in fauour both with God and men. What els can be vnderstood out of these words, but that Iesus did increase both in stature and wis­dome, & the more he grew in age, so much the grea­ter progresses had he in the gifts of the holy Ghost: for so our Euangelist had written a little before of Iohn: The Child grew and was strengthned in the spirit. Luk. 1.82. Doe you thinke that Iohn was presently as soone as he was borne endewed with perfect wisdome and grace of the spirit, so as he had no additiō euer made him? But Luke saith that Christ was full of wisdome. I [Page 207]doe not deny it: [...]. albeit Luke doe not say filled, as though he were full of wisdome, but filling, wherby some growth and addition is signified. But to grant that he was full, will you therefore haue it that no­thing was added afterward? what then doe you de­termine of Iohn, of whom the Angell foretold that he should be full of the holy Ghost from his mothers wōbe? Wherefore if Christ had this, that at what time he first was made man, absolute & perfect wisdome, and other gifts of the spirit were heaped vpon him, certainly he had it not alone; nor am I moued with the authority of the schoolmen, who lest they might seeme to thinke lesse honorablie of Christ, doe attri­bute to him presently all perfections. And Damas­cens argument taken from the personall vnion doth not conclude it,Damasc. lib. 3. de Or­thodox. side. vnlesse we will thinke that the Deity did infuse all the quality of it selfe into the humanity of Christ. That which the Euangelist writeth of this progresse of wisdome, pertaineth only to the human nature of Christ? And seeing that Christ would as­sume the whole nature of man,Heb. 4.15. sauing in sinne, and lay off that person of God, and emptie himselfe, and take the forme of a seruant,Phil. 2. will it be vnbeseeming the per­son of Christ, that wee say hee was made both wiser and fuller of grace by little and little? He was indeed most full of grace, [...]nd whatsoeuer grace any bodie hath, al that he drew out of this euer remaining foū ­taine of most abundant grace:Ioh. 1.16. but yet this hindreth not, but that Christ, as the Euangelist writeth, might grow in grace: which thing also Ambrose confesseth. For so he saith:Ambros. in Luc. lib. 2. cap. 2. DVR. But he saith, lib. 5. de fide cap. 8. I say that the Sonne was ig­norant of no­thing, but he tooke vpon him our affection, that hee might say, hee was ignorant by our ignorance. WHIT pag. 553. If Christ as a child was ignorant of nothing, because of the personall vnion with the Deity, yet it is a very childish argument, to reason from the person to the humane nature; that because the man Christ is igno­rant of nothing, therefore the humani [...]y of Christ is not ignorant of any thing. If Ambrose sometime vpon occasion diffe [...] from himselfe, let him looke to it. According to the flesh certainly hee [Page 208]was filled with wisdome and grace. Nor doe some of your men, Campian, differ from this iudgement, lest you should perhaps imagine it to be so horrible, as that it cannot fall vpon a Catholike: for I ansenii [...] Bishop of Gandaua,Comment. in concord. cap. 12. Erasm. an­not. in Luc. cap. 2. who was present at the Cōuen­ticle of Trent, professeth that he doth willingly in­cline to this iudgement: and Erasmus (albeit I name him not among writers on your side) doth giue his note that it is the truer opinion.

But, say you, they affirme also, that Christ was igno­rant of some things. And why may they not affirme it? This (say you) is as much, as if they affirmed that he was defiled with originall sinne. Now at length you begin to argue very wittely, that our Vniuersitie men may vnderstand your wonderfull subtiltie in disputing. Would you deale on this manner with vs, Campian, if that dispute, which you so often wish, might bee permitted you? For what could be spoken more ab­surdly? Christ was ignorant of something: therfore Christ was defiled with originall sinne. As if he that is ignorant of something, which may be knowne, or he which is not endued with the perfect knowledge of all things, it must needs be that he is defiled with sinne. Thus then I will returne you a like argument:DVR. Though they were igno­rant of many things, yet they had not that ignorance, which commeth fr [...] originall corruption, vvhich if you say Christ had, you must affirme that he was defiled vvith originall sinne. WHIT. pag. 555. All ig­norance commeth not from originall sinne, as appeareth by the ignorance of Adam and the Angels; therefore Christ might be ignorant without sinne. And though we affirme all ignorance is now the punishment of sinne: yet will it not follow that no ignorance was in Christ, nay rather that there was; for hee was to take vpon him the punishment of all our sinnes. Therefore hee vnder­went not only this punishment, but also death, being the punishment of sinne, Rom. 6.2 [...]. yet for all this was he not defiled with originall sinne. DVR. The Fathers say he knevv not the day of iudgement, because hee hath not reuealed it, and would that others should be ignorant of it. WHIT. pag. 556. This inter­pretation is easilie refelled. For from this will follow that the Father also was ignorant of it, seeing the Father did no more tell it and manifest it to others, then the Sonne did. The Angels are now ignorant of many things (for [Page 209]they know not that day and houre) and Adam, Mar. 14.36 be­fore he sinned, was ignorant of many things: (for he did not vnderstand that Satan lay in waite for him) therefore both the Angels are now defiled with sin, and Adam in his greatest innocencie was a sinner. You shall neuer pricke vs with these goades so, as that wee may feare any deadly wound. If you know not that there is an ignorance void of all fault, learne it of Thomas, who wil teach you, that negatiue igno­rance, which he termes nescience,12. q. 76. art. 2. is not sinne, but the priuatiue. If you can conclude that consequent out of our iudgement, that Christ was ignorant of some­what, which hee then ought to haue knowne, when he was ignorant of it, then you put vs downe from this our standing. For it is not a fault not to know those things, which yet may bee knowne, vnlesse it concerne vs to haue them knowne. For who will blame a Porter, for that he is ignorant of the Mathe­matikes? But concerning Christ, I answere now that vnto you, which toucheth this cause neerer. Al­though he were most pure from all spot of sinne, so as nothing could be more vncorrupt; yet hee tooke vpon himselfe the punishment due to sinne, that he might deliuer vs from it. Therefore also hee would die, albeit death issued from sinne. He then that suf­fered death for vs, which sinne brought in; can any thing, which is ours, be vnbeseeming him, so as it be not infected with sin? And you can neuer proue, that ignorance in Christ was any whit more faultie, than death. Christ as he was a true man, albeit a pure man, so hee did neuer thinke, imagine or vnderstand all things at once, and he did sleepe sometimes. Do you thinke that Christ while hee was sleeping, did com­prehend all things in his memorie? which though you should affirme, yet I see no reason to beleeue you. That which Christ spake of that day and houre, (no man knoweth it, Marc. 13.32. nor the Sonne himselfe) Cyrill wri­teth [Page 210]that Christ spake it of himself, and that he knew not the day of iudgement,Cyril. The­saur. lib. 9. cap. 4. as he was man, because it is proper to the humane nature to bee ignorant of things to come.

But now, say you, wee shall take knowledge of worse things, and here you recite many things con­cerning Christs swea [...]e, horror, and sudden outcrie. I acknowledge that which you alleage, but I see no paradoxe therein. I am not ignorant what is wont to be giuen out by you in corners, that Christ is repro­ched, when wee say he was tormented with so great griefes of minde. But it is so farre off, Campian, that I doe either denie or dissemble those things which you now obiect, that I doe teach and auow them o­penly and freely. And though the whole nation of Iesuits should set vpon me, yet I will neuer be asha­med to celebrate Christs mercie, which I see to bee violated by them with vnspeakable iniuries. For what thinke you was it that Christ felt, which brought so great sadnes and vexation to him, that it wrung from him a bloody sweate? was it only death, [...] which takes away life and sense? Doe you thinke that Christ could be broken so with the feare of that death that he should conceiue so much griefe in his minde, to make him sweate water and blood, for the desire he had to escape tasting of that cup which hee came to drinke of? Did Christ so much abhorre this death, which the Martyrs haue gone vnto, ioyfull and cheerefull? That were indeede to cast a greater reproch vpon Christ, while ye would auoide the les­ser. Wherefore that which raised so great horrors in Christ, was the most bitter wrath of God against mankinde, which Christ must needes haue suffered for a time. For the whole weight of our sinnes was imposed vpon Christ, which brought with it a most heauie remembrance of Gods wrath. Seeing there­fore Christ our Mediatour being laden with our sins, [Page 211]did suffer the greatnes of Gods displeasure, and did alone endure the punishment of our sinnes, certain­ly he did quake, as man, and did expresse those in­credible sorrowes of his minde many waies. Hence came that speech vpon the Crosse, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? which he vttered not fai­nedly, but from his heart; not despairingly, as you wickedly write, but vpon the consideration of Gods wrath, which then he was to be subiect vnto.DVR. Christ truly was the Sonne of God, who knew no­thing in him­selfe worthie of wrath, and so could not feare the paines of hell. WHIT. pag. 558. You dis­pute wittily: as if he were not the Sonne of Man also, and sustained the person of sinfull men. Neither did he so feare hell, as you imagine: but when the punishment of vs all was vpon him alone, he must needs as a man be greatly affected and moued with it. For God was exceedingly incensed against vs for our sinnes: Christ interposed him­selfe; and he alone vn [...]erwent the greatnes of that wrath powred vpon him, he therfore that saith, Christ felt nothing, diminisheth the greatnes of sin, the iustice of God, and the merit of Christ. I hat he was not swallowed vp of those torments, it must be imputed to the power of his diuine nature. DVR. But how could hee thinke himselfe forsaken of God. vvho offered himselfe vvholy to God? WHIT. pag. 559. If be did nor feele this defection, why did hee say vainely and rashly that he was forsaken? he o [...]ed himselfe by his eternall spirit, that is, his Diuinity, Hebr. 9.14. Therefore this freewill offering did not hinder, but that he might feele in his mind those sorrowes which men should haue suf­fered. This is that Hell, of which Christ while he was aliue, and not as you obiect against Caluin, after he was dead, did taste. And certainly this vexation, which Christ endured at that time, did equall after a sort the very paines of hell. But these things are reproued by you, because they bee not vnderstood. For the Papists with their dull hearts cannot conceiue, what Christ performed for vs by his death, and what paines hee endured for the satisfying of his Father. Therefore they thinke wrong is done to Christ, when we say he suffered those things which hee both would and ought to haue suffered for vs. For it was necessarie not onely that Christ should die inDVR. Christ being God and man satisfied the diuine iustice, not by the greatnes and multitude of his punishment, but by the weight of his actions, euerie one of vvhich is sufficient to be a full price of mans redemption. Neither vvas it necessary that Christ should vndergoe the same punishment; vvhich man should haue suffered, as if any man vvould free another from prison, vvho is cast into it for debt; it is not necessary that be go into prison for him. Besides, who will say that the body of man aid sinne? it is man that sinneth, not the bodie. WHIT. pag. 562. See I pray you what followeth vpon your defence, that it was needlesse that Christ should die at all: for if any action of him being God and man, would haue satisfied Gods iustice, and wrought mans redemption, in vaine did hee shead his blood and suffer death But if this be contrary to the decree & iustice of God, and not euery punishment but extreame sufferings both of body and soule was to be vndergone, as Christ suffered in his body the most b [...]ter [...]eath, so did he in his soule exquisite and extreame sorrowes. And out of your simili­tude it will follow [...]s well, that he need not to haue descended from heauen to haue been made man, or to haue suffered any sorrowes: and yet who knoweth not, that not only the debtors themselues, but their su [...]ies must be cast into prison, till the creditor be sa [...]fied? And seeing that in such a suerty as this, not the bare payment of money, but a reall suffering of grieuous paines was ne­cessary, why should we doubt but Christ hath most truly accomplished the part of a suertie? Lastly if the bodie doe not sinne, why should it suffer the punish­ment of sinne? for is it equall, that the body, which in your iudgment doth not sinne, should be grieuously and eternally punished for sinne? And if it bee as you say, that the man doth sinne, then must the body haue a finger in it; for the soule of it selfe is not a man. And if Christ tooke mans sinne vpon him, it was certainly the sin of the whole man, because he hath redeemed the whole. bodie, but also in his soule wrastle with death, because not onely [Page 212]mans bodie, but also his soule had offended God, and deserued euerlasting death. And they that speak against this doctrine, being very full of diuine com­fort, if Caluin doe prosecute somewhat eagerly, no good man ought iustly to bee displeased with him for this cause. But that you cannot abide: and there­fore you cry out, Oh wicked daies! oh monstrous times! It may be you haue seene a monster at Rome, or ra­ther many monsters, which trouble you now with furious thoughts, and vrge you to make an outcrie. But we Vniuersitie men are not woont much to bee moued with the clamours of mad men. For he ouer­comes in the Schooles, not who can crie out most shrilly, but who cā dispute most sitly vnto the truth. But I pray you, Campian, spare your voyce a while, and gather your wits together, and then I trust you will be somewhat milder anon, when you haue re­sted you a little, for I doe not heare that this is the [Page 213]continuall dint of your minde, and I doe not doubt but you may bee pacified with words. You say that Christ hath contumelious iniurie offered him by vs. Wherefore? because he is by this meanes too much abased, and much is detracted from his Maiestie. Concerning that Nazianzen answers you: Is Christ therefore spoiled of his honour, Nazianz. because hee is become humble for thy sake? Now how great bitternes of griefe Christ felt, learne of Rabanus, Rabanus, in Catena Tho­ma. if happely you regard him. Thus doth he expound those words of Christ, Why hast thou forsaken mee: Our Sauiour (saith he) spake this, carrying about him our affections, who being in danger thinke our selues to be forsaken. For his humane nature was forsaken because of sinne: but be­cause the Sonne of God was made our Aduocate, he be­wailes their miserie whose fault he tooke vpon him. And Hierome though he did differ from this opinion be­cause of the Arrians,Hieronym. yet the very power of truth did wring frō him some confession. Concerning Christs prayer, wherein he entreated, that that cup might be taken away, thus he writeth: Neuerthelesse returning to himselfe, that which he had refused somewhat feare­fully in his nature, as man, he ratifieth in his nature as he was God and the Sonne: Yet not as I will, but as thou wilt, saith he, let not this be done which I speake in my humane affection, but that for which I came downe to the earth by thy will. Ambrosius. And Ambrose vseth these words to Gratian: As he tooke my will, so he tooke my sorrow. Finally,Melch. Ca­nus. lib. 12. cap. 13. I will annexe the iudgement of Melchior Canus, to whom you owe much on good cause, that you may know the opinion of a flat Catholike tou­ching this matter. Surely (saith he) it was conuenient that the Sonne of God, being to exhibite himselfe a sa­crifice for sinne, should take vpon him not onely the sor­rowes of the bodie, and of the sensitiue facultie of the soule, but also the DVR. But it followeth not that so he did dispaire or feele the paines of hell. WHIT. pag. 564. There was no dāger, lest Christ might per­chance des­paire, nor is it necessary, that whosoeuer sustaineth the paines of hell for a while, the same should bee o­uerwhelmed with perpetu­all despaire: many of the godly are sometime af­flicted with a very deepe sense of Gods anger, which they yet ouer­come through Gods spirit, much more then could Christ ouercome all the paines of hell. torments of the spirit, and the griefe [Page 214]of the will, to the end that that most acceptable sacrifice to God for all our sinnes, might be by all meanes broken and bruised. And a little after: Hee being forsaken of God, and destitute vtterly of all comfort, did not re­ioyce.

You say that Bucer in comparison of this madnes was modest, although hee were very impudent, who takes Hell in the Creed for the graue. I let passe your reproch, which you lacke not in any place, nor am I disposed to extend any longer answere about this Hell. The matter is in some difference among lear­ned men, who albeit they agree not so well among themselues about the thing, yet they agree herein excellent well, in that they affirme that the Papists doe very wickedly vnderstand it of Christs descent into Hell. For as for Hell, whether it signifie the bu­riall of Christ, as Bucer thought, or that sorrowe of minde, wherewith Christ was affected a little before his death, as Caluin would haue it; yet we retaine the Article, and we teach y^t Christ did descend into Hell. If that cannot bee otherwise vnderstood than thus, that Christ did descend into, I know not what, Lim­bus Patrum, wherein you suppose the Fathers to haue been, and that hee did out of that place bring with him an infinite multitude of holy men, I will confesse that Bucer did erre, and that Caluin made a foule slip. But those your dreames concerning Hell, are worthie to be buried in Hell it selfe. Now as for that you say, that it was in deliberation in a certaine conuenticle at London, how that article might bee taken out of the Creed, this certainly is the first time that euer I heard of it, neither doe I giue any credit either to your selfe, or to your wretched Cheiny, who told you this tale. Although if the ancient Creeds of the Romane and East Church did lacke that Ar­ticle, as hee affirmeth, whosoeuer hee is, that in Cy­prians workes expounded the Creed with his Com­mentaries, [Page 215]perhaps their fault wasDVR. Js it a small fault to crosse out of the Apostles Creed Christ his des­cension into hell? It is solid in the Creed of Athanasius, where there is mention of bu­riall, and in the Nicene Creed, when his buriall is men­tioned, this des­cension is not expressed. And who seeth not that it was ne­cessary that his soule must des­cend into the common place of other soules? WHIT. pag. 568. If it be a haynous fact to put out this article, then the Church of Rome (which you say cannot erre) is guiltie of this, as Ruffinus writeth in exposit. Symb. And it is no strange thing, when in very few auncient Creeds it is to be found. I could produce fiftie Creeds, which haue it not; in certaine it is found, but then saith Ruffinus it must be vnderstood by the prece­dent article, for it is the same with that, which saith he was buried. And this was Bucers opinion, which the two Creeds of Athanasius and Nice do confirme: for if they be so diuersly set downe, that in some of them is mention of his buriall only, in others only of his descension; it is manifest, that there is one and the same sense in them, and that to be buried is as much as to descend into hel, and this as much as that. Finallie it is true his soule went into the common recep­tacle of soules, but how proue you that that place is in hell? for if his soule went into Paradise, it could not go into hell, vnlesse Paradise be there. lesse, which would imitate the Church of Rome, which you hold cannot erre.

Of Man.Now you make your question concerning man: and you bring vs in speaking on this fashion. The image of God is vtterly blotted out in man, no sparke of good being left: For so, say you, haue Illyricus and Cal­uin taught. I know well the iudgement of Illyricus, which I doe not thinke ought to bee laide to our charge. For you are not ignorant, Campian, that his opinion touching the image of God, and of the na­ture of originall sinne, hath been reprooued and confuted by our men: he went somewhat farther than he should; I beleeue he did it, that he might re­mooue himselfe farthest off from you, whom hee throughly hated. But I would he had amended some things: then certainely had he been a very excellent man. As for Caluin you doe him open wrong, whom you ioyne with Illyricus in the fellowship of this iudgement: for he writeth directly and flatly con­trarie to that,Inslit. lib. 1. cap. 15. sect. 4. that you bring him in speaking;DVR. But Caluin saith, that the Saints haue nothing within but contagion and corruption. For if there be in the Saints no true iustice, but all their vvorkes are sinnes, vvhat can be in them besides corruption, and contagion. WHIT. pag. 572. Doe you neither feare God, nor reuerence man? Shew v [...] any such words of Caluin, if you can: if you cannot, why doe you repeate that which Campian most falsely obiected at the first? There are in the Saints and the regenerate many excel­lent vertues and graces of the holy Ghost, as faith, loue, hope, patience, &c. who euer said that these vvere nothing but corruption and contagion? fie, away vvith you and your slander. As for your argument it is marue lous slender, for though the Saints haue no iustice of their ovvne, vvhich doth perfectly satisfie the Lavv of God, yet they are indued vvith many excellent vertues and orna­ments of the holy Ghost. If I should reason, because there is no sound learning in you at all, therefore there is nothing but meere ignorance in you, I should conclude the one as truly, as you the other. As for your last slander, that all the vvorkes of the Saints are sinnes; vve say no that they are sinnes, but that by reason of the inherent corruption they are tainted vvith some spot of sin, and haue not that perfection vvhich the law and iustice of God requireth. Wil you say, that he vvho is lightly touched vvith some disease, is nothing else, but the disease? you should certainly stand in need of Physitions and much Physicke, if you should thus speake. That the image of God was not quite blotted out in man. But this is your fashion, that when you cannot reprooue those things which we doe say, then you faine those [Page 216]things to be said by vs, which may easily be reproo­ued. We teach, that man was created and formed so in the beginning, that hee was answerable to the image of God in all things. Now that image was a most perfect entirenes of all parts, heaped vp with all good graces and vertues, which could bee inci­dent to the pure nature of man. Whatsoeuer he did imagine, desire, will, thinke, or vnderstand, was holie and right, and agreeable to Gods will, yea euen to the rule of that law, Thou shalt loue God with all thy heart, with all thy soule, with all thy strength, and thy neighbour as thy selfe. But after that Adam had slid backe from God, we say that this image was pitiful­ly corrupted and deformed, that neither the vnder­standing did retaine that ancient light, nor the will did loue God, nay the whole will was turned from him, neither did there remaine entire any facultie ei­ther of bodie or soule. Although therefore we denie not that some reliques of that most noble image do remaine still, yet we hold that all that which may re­concile and make vs acceptable vnto God, and bee sufficient for vs to saluation, is blotted out and ex­tinguished. [Page 217]All reason, and iudgement, and vnder­standing, which was some little peece of that image, is not vtterly lost, there is not no will at all left in vs; but yet the fall of Adam did inflict such a blow vpon all these faculties which yet remaine in vs, that neither can our will of it selfe will any thing, which God may like of, nor our minde thinke, vnderstand, or iudge right and true things with­out error. Therefore Iohn saith that the light shi­neth in the darkenes,Joh. 1.5. but yet the darkenes com­prehendeth it not. But now those greater things, faith, righteousnesse, holinesse, and perfect vertue, which may leade vs vnto euerlasting felicitie, these did not onely receiue a wound to become wea­ker, but they did quite perish, and became none, vn­till that they bee renewed in vs by the holy Ghost and the grace of regeneration. Wherefore thus doth the Lord speake touching man whom hee had fa­shioned after his owne image, whom also he knew throughly:Gen. 6.5. The wickednes of man was great in the earth, and all the imagination of the thoughes of his hart was onely euill continually. And that we might vnder­stand that these things were pronounced of man­kind as it is in it selfe, and not onely of those wicked men, who liued before the flood, the Lord doth a­gaine repeate these things after the flood, what time Noah onely with his familie were left aliue vpon the earth:Gen. 8.21. Hereafter (saith he) I will not curse the earth any more for mans sake, for the frame of mans heart is euill from his youth. Can you, Campian, iudge better and righter of the image of man, than the Lord him­selfe could? If all the thoughts of mans heart bee both alwaies and onely euill, and the very frame and beginning & fountaine as it were of al his thoughts most corrupt, what now is left of that image which was sometime so excellent, which may helpe any whit to attaine happines? Hitherto belongeth that [Page 218]which Christ saith, That which is borne of the flesh, Ioh. 3.6. is flesh: and that which is borne of the spirit, is spirit. If the whole man be flesh, certainly the whole is vncleane. And Paul saith, we were the children of wrath. Eph. 2.3 [...] But the Lord doth not hate his owne image, nay wheresoe­uer he beholds it, hee loueth it entirely. And Paul pronounceth that the whole man euery whit is the child of wrath: wherefore that image which may make vs acceptable to God, can neuer now be found in vs. For he saith, not onely that wee are so hurt and wounded, as that yet some hope of life remaineth, but that we wholy, such as wee are in our selues, are obnoxious and subiect to euerlasting death, as if na­ture had framed vs thereunto. What should I heape vp more testimonies of the Scriptures, which are so plentiful through the whole Scripture, that nothing is oftner repeated than the losse of this image? wher­fore we iudge so of man after sin, before restitution, euen as Augustine writeth, whom the very Schoole-men themselues durst not reprooue. Naturall gifts were corrupted in man by sinne, and the supernaturall extinguished. But of man regenerate wee doe not say those things, which you affirme, that nothing is found in him but meere corruption and contagion. For he is indued with the spirit of Christ, he posses­seth Christ dwelling in him, he is indued with faith, hope, and charitie. But he who hath nothing in him but corruption, it is certaine that he is no whit rege­nerate. For the new man which is created according to God,Eph. 4.14 must bee reformed after righteousnes and true holines. Indeed that which the regenerate man hath of his owne and proper to himselfe, is vitious. For so the Apostle saw another law in his members rebelling against the law of his minde:Rom. 7.23. but those things which he receiued from God, are contrarie to this corruption and contagion; which if any do de­nie to be good and holy, he may well be held blas­phemous [Page 219]against the holy Ghost. As for that you both faine that we speake these things, and also ex­presse for what cause wee speake them, you bewray your wonderfull wisedome, which for those things that are not at all, can set downe a reason wherefore they be. But we doe willingly preach faith, and doe easily permit it to bee contemned of you. For you that defend nature against grace, and doe trust ra­ther to your owne power than to Christs mercie, and doe make voide the promises by precepts, can­not haue an honourable opinion of faith.

You neuer keepe your standing,Of Sinne. Campian, and you begin the battaile like a runnaway. For you haue a wandring and vnstable wit, as it seemeth. You op­pose Illyricus to vs againe in the same cause, whose testimonie ought not to be of force against vs. For herein I professe my selfe no lesse an aduersarie to him than your selfe, I had almost said, than to your selfe. For what an vniust and vnreasonable thing is it, that you should taxe that opinion as defended by vs, which your selfe knoweth to be condemned by our Churches? Obiect our owne opinion to vs, Cam­pian, if you can obiect any: wee are not such, as that we should thinke whatsoeuer Illyricus could, as be­ing a man, erre in, did any whit concerno vs. But ei­ther Illyricus must needes be drawne into this taxa­tion, or else this place was quite to be left voide by you. For beside Illyricus, I thinke you haue no man that thinkes so. If you desire to know our opinion of this matter, I confesse indeed that that defence of Illyricus did seeme euer very absurd to me. For it both smels of the follie of the Manichies, and it ma­keth two soules in a regenerate man: and which is a greater matter, it destroyes the soule. That was al­waies the iudgemēt of the Catholike Church, which I professe to be ours, that the substance of the soule [Page 220]was not quite slaine by sinne, but onely charged and infected with vitious qualities: and that sinne is no inward substance of the soule, but anDVR. The Catholike Church neuer beleeued that sinne was an accident or qualitie, but only a priuati­on, for if it were an acci­dent, God should be the cause and author of it. WHIT. pag. 573. But this priuation is it not an accidentall thing? vvhy then make you a scruple in vvords, vvhen you vnderstand the sense? An accident is commonly called that vvhich is in some substance, but is no part of it, vvhich may either be absent or present with­out the corruption of the subiect and such a thing euery man knovveth sinne is. And though I confesse that the nature of sinne consisteth in a priuation; yet it is not a bare priuation, as you may learne ou [...] of your Thomas. For. 1.2. quaest. 82. art. 1. he saith, sinne is not a meere priuation, but a corrupt habit, like vn­to a disease, vvhereby not only health is taken avvay, but bad humours are brought vpon the bodie. And the Schoole men vvhen they make priuation of originall iustice to be the forme of originall sinne, and the matter to be concu­piscence or a corrupt inclination of the faculties of the soule, vvhat doe they teach, but that in sinne there is some positiue thing, as Thomas vseth to call it? But vvhy do I endeuour to refell you, for vvhom Physike is fitter then a refura­tion? As for your reason it hath no force; for God is not to be accounted the author of all accidencies, but indirectly and by accident. Basil saith, That the roote and cause of sinne is in our selues, euen our freewill. accident.DVR. Basil saith not, that sin is an accident or a quality, but an affection cōtrary to vertue. WHIT. pag. 575. Then must it be somevvhat, for nothing cannot be contrarie to vertue. Basill writeth truly, in that hee denieth that sinne is any liuing substance, or indued with a soule,Basil. i [...]ub­ [...]p. hons. 2. August. de nuptijs. lib. 1. cap. 25. but a qualitie contrarie to the vertue of the soule. Augu­stine: DVR. Augustine vvill accuse you for slandering him, because he spake not of sin, but of concupiscence, vvhich he accounted to be no sinne. WHIT. pag. 576. Doth Augustine account concupiscence no sinne? vvhy then calleth he it an affecti­on of an euill quality? vvhy doth he compare it to a disease? vvhy doth he de­maund the question, hovv concupiscence should remaine in the regenerate, vvhose sinnes are all remitted, if it vvere not a sinne? his ansvvere proueth it yet more fully. For he saith, concupiscence is remitted in Baptisme, not that it should be no sinne at all as you vvould haue it, but that it should not be imputed for a sinne. If it vvere no sinne, hovv could it be imputed for a sinne? Finally Au­gust. cont. [...]ulian. lib. 5 cap. 3. affirmeth that it is a sinne, and a punishment of sin, and a cause of sinne, and that in the regenerate. It is manifest in the place, that he speaketh of that concupiscence against vvhich the spirit lusteth, and vvhich in vvithout the consent of the vvill. It at any time he denie it to be a sinne, it i [...] not simplie, but in opposition to actuall sinne; for hovv should that be nothing, vvhich is remitted in Baptisme, vvhich Christ satisfied for by his blood? or is God angry vvith vs for nothing? It must therfore needs be sin. Originall sinne (saith he) remaineth not sub­stantially, as it were some bodie or spirit, but it is a cer­taine affection of an euill qualitie, like a disease. Finally [Page 221] Ambrose most plainly:Ambros. in Rom. 6. c. 7. DVR. Am­brose his vvords refell your error. WHIT. pag. 577. Nay they refell your er­ror. For hee saith, it is a straying from good. Novv this straying is an action, and not a meere priuation. And you your selues earnest­ly defend that sin is an acti­on. If it be an action, then an accident, then no meere priuation, thē not nothing. How dwelleth sin in the flesh, seeing it is no substance, but a straying from good? Ther­fore let vs, if you please, send away the suspition of this error imposed by you vpon vs, to the author himselfe.

As for that you adde, that it is a thing commonly held by this filthie sect, that all sinnes be equall, verily nothing could be spoken more impudently. Pardon me, Campian, if I answere you somewhat sharpely: for your vnmodest and intolerable impudencie wrung that terme from me. Are you so far spent that you are not able to charge vs with any true crime, but shamelessely to obiect those things a­gainst vs, from which we, of all others, are farthest off? For who did euer more vehemently disallow, or more strongly confute this paradoxe of the Stoiks, than our Diuines, whom you now pursue? All re­cords of these times may be witnesses hereof, our bookes, Churches and Schooles be witnesses, as also both the ciuill and Church Discipline may be a wit­nesse. Did you thinke that you could creepe into the minds of our Vniuersitie men by these meanes, by lying so openly, so shamefully, and so boldly? O Rome, what a Campian hast thou returned to vs! how much chaunged from him that he was when thou receiuedst him? Art thou wont so to instruct, a­dorne and polish thy pensioners, as that they re­taine nothing of their auncient shamefastnes? What may I complaine of, or to whom should I appeale? surely euen to the very same our Vniuersitie men, to whom you your selfe write: they may conuince you by their testimonies. For within these two yeares our Cambridge men haue heard this very matter twise [Page 222]propounded and defended in the diuinity Schooles, That sinnes are not equall. If neither our owne con­fession, nor the testimonie of all mortall men can make enough for the defending of our innocencie; be it, that we are Stoikes, and heretikes, and euery thing else.

But these areDVR. Herein Caluin made sinnes equall, for that hee thought all sins to be deadly, and vvorthy of euerlasting punishment. WHIT. pag. 578. There­fore doth Cal­uin make all sinnes equall, because hee proueth that all sinner are in their owne nature dead­ly? but the Scripture hath taught this most plainly. For if euery sinne be the transgres­sion of Gods law, and an a­uersion & de­fection from God, which is the chiefest good, it must needs in it selfe deserue eternal death, Rom. 6.21.23. Iam. 2.10. though euery sinne in Gods iustice is odiudged to eternall death, yet it doth not equally deserue it. Caluins words, saith Campian, how­soeuer with an exception, if they be pondered by God the Iudge. What are these the words of Caluin? that he saith sinnes are equall, but so, if they be weighed by God the Iudge? nothing lesse: for Gods iudge­ments could not be right, if so be he did iudge sinnes to be equall. But marke yee a singular witnesse. The Fathers of the Councell of Trent pronounce a curse on them, who affirme that a iust man doth sin either mortally or venially in euery good worke. To this Caluin answereth that which Salomon saith,Antidot. 6. Sess. in Can. 25. that man thinketh his owne waies right, but God pondereth the hearts. But in the iudgement of God nothing is sin­cere and honest, but that which floweth from the perfect loue of him. Caluin speaketh not one word of the equalitie of sins, nor was there any cause why he should. Only this he intendeth, if the Lord would weigh in his ballance the excellentest works of god­ly men, that he would easily find what to cōdemne: what is this to the purpose?

As for that, that Thomas Walsingham did obiect a­gainst Wicliffe, it is not much materiall, he wrote ma­ny things against Wicliffe being dead, and let passe no slander which witty malice could deuise. While Wicliffe was aliue, no aduersaries could hurt him, but being dead they condemned him, they plucked him out of his graue, burned his body, when they might without danger deuise any thing against that most holy man. Neither can I euer be induced to beleeue, [Page 223]that Wicliffe taught these things, if this imputation depend vpon no greater credit than of an aduersa­rie. As touching that, that you report of the Duke of Guise, I defend not the fact: he that committed it, suffered punishmēt greater I wis, than Tauerners are wont, that kill pullen when there is no need. I con­fesse that the Guise was a man of admirable forti­tude: I would he had been of more clemencie. He was flaine, euen as you say, by a wicked man, whom if perhaps either hope of impunity or feare of pu­nishment did induce, that being examined, hee did accuse verie noble and innocent men, it is neither marueilous nor new. Him that he did appeach as the Ringleader of his plot, the King himselfe did pro­nounce an innocent: but as for Beza all good men haue acquitted him in their iudgements long ago.

From Sinne you passe your speech to Grace:Of Grace. I would rather you your selfe did make passage: and you hope, that we who are so strict in the matter of sin, will play the Philosophers so gloriously about Gods Grace. Surely we shall thinke we play the Philosophers ve­ry well, if we referre all our Philosophie for the am­plifying of the Crosse of Christ.Gal. 6.14. You also do treate of Grace, but as still you are wont, in few words. But what do you reproue in our Philosophie? because we place Grace out of vs only in the fauouer of God. For you, Campian, would haue your men to be perswa­ded, that we take all Grace from man, and doe place it only in the mind of God, like Platoes Idea. But ei­ther you know not what you talke of in this place, and that you are ignorant of this Philosophie, or els you suffer not our opinion, being infolded in your slanders, to bee manifest. For wee make grace to bee twofold (that I may omit many distinctions) where­in wee doe not disallow the Philosophie of your Schoole men. For either Grace declareth the free goodwill and clemencie of God toward vs, or else it [Page 224]signifieth those gifts, which flow out of that mercy of God to vs. That they commonly call, Grace ma­king acceptable; and this, Grace freely giuen. Now for thatDVR. I know vvell your do­ctrine of impu­tatiue iustice, than vvhich I know not whether any man can deuise one thing more against the Scriptures. WHIT. pag. 582. Thus you speake, like a Iesuite: but vvhat is there that the Scripture doth more celebrate than imputatiue iustice? Rom. 4.3.4.5.6. is a most cleere text for it. But what? know you not that our sins were imputed to Christ? and why then may not Christs righteousnes be imputed to vs in l [...]ke manner? Thinke you that Christ had our sinnes really infused into him? I suppose, you will neuer say so: seeing then in the one part you are com­pelled against your will to confesse an imputation, why do you not also grant it in the other, specially seeing the Apostle himselfe propoundeth vs this Anti­thesis, 2. Cor. 5.21. Christ vvas made sinne for vs, that we might be made the righ­teousnes of God in him? Therefore we are so made righteousnes in Christ, as he was made sinne for vs, which must necessarily bee vnderstood of imputation. And ve [...]ly whereas our iniustice or iniquitie is a debt, and Christ hath payed it, then must it of necessity follow, that, that payment is ours no otherwise then only by imputation. Againe, I pray you, what can bee imagined more absurde, then that the merit [...] of Saints should be imputed vnto vs, and Christ his righte­ousnes cannot bee? for they who buy indulgences with money, doe not doubt but to reape much fruit from the merits of others. It then the merits of Saints, as you thinke, can make them more iust, in whom they are not inherent, what an impious and absurd thing were it to giue lesse power of imputation to the merits and righteousnes of Christ? DVR. Charity i [...] the end of the Law. Rom. 13. For he that loueth his brother hath fulfilled the Lavv. So that if charity be tru­ly in vs, vve haue true iustice: and vvell said Augustine, Charitie begun, is iu­stice begun; charitie encreased, is iustice encreased; great charity is great iu­stice; perfect charitie is perfect iustice. WHIT. pag. 583. All is true you say touching charitie. Loue your neighbour as the law requireth, and you haue ful­filled the second Fable: but this you cannot doe; therefore be not brag in the opinion of your charitie, which if it were as great as euer any man had, yet it should be farre short of that the Law requireth, neither can it make you iust. As for Augustine wee confesse as much as hee saith: but this is not the iustice which fre [...]th vs from the wrath of God, for that neuer increaseth or groweth, but is euer most absolute and perfect, that is Christ his obedience imputed vn­to vs by faith. Of charitie August. Epist. 29. writeth thus. As long as charity may be encreased, that verily vvhich is lesse, is faulty: by that vvhich is faulty, there is none iust vpon earth. goodwill and fauour whereby the Lord em­braceth vs in Christ, and forgiueth vs our sinnes, and receiueth vs into fauour; we place it in God: but the effects of this Grace are in vs: which effects are these, that we do by the holy Ghost perceiue that wee are [Page 225]loued of God, that we beleeue in God, and repose al hope of saluation in that mercy of God. We do not therefore take away all grace from man, and place it only in Gods fauour: but that first grace, wherby he hath reconciled vs to himselfe in Christ, and wherin our saluation is contained, that alone wee place in God; which being felt by vs, faith, hope, and charity and other vertues do follow it, which are ours, and resident in vs. But we deny that position of yours of infused grace, whereby you defend, that the grace whereby we are iustified, is a certaine habite situate in our minds within: and we acknowledge no other iustifyingDVR. Why do you not then freely confesse that you doe place all grace only in the fa­uour of God vvithout vs, vvhich fauour doth neither amend the wicked, nor purge, nor illuminate, nor enrich them, but only dissemble their old remaining & stinking chanell, God winking at it? WHIT. pag. 584. You cease not to trouble vs with your ignorance: for doth it follow that wee remoue all grace from vs, because wee place iustifying grace, which is the mercy of God in Christ, not in vs, but in God only? for beside this grace, there is another grace communicated to all the Saints, wherby their soules [...]re pur­ged and renewed. This consisteth in faith, and in the fruits of faith, which they cōmonly cal Grace infused: therfore that chanell of sin doth remaine not with­in them, that haue attained true righteousnes, as you slander vs to teach; but by the power of the holy Ghost it is daily purged out; yet so, that as lōg as we liue there remaine some reliques of sin & old Adam. For if that chanel were so pur­ged, that no blots of sinne did remaine in vs; neither would S. Paul complaine of the law of his members, and the body of death, Rom. 7.23.24. Neither should wee neede the renuing of the spirit, 2. Cor. 4.16. grace, but the great and free mercy of God, whereby hee did elect and predestinate vs in Christ before all eternitie vnto life euerlasting, and hath called vs in time and iustified vs.DVR. But vvhat place of Scripture doth distinguish iustification from sanctification? S. Paul doth not, 1. Cor. 6.11. Rom. 6.13. That also is a strange thing, that faith should iustifie vs and not sanctifie vs: but more strange that Christ should impute his righteousnes to vs, that vve may be iust, and yet not holy and sanctified. WHIT. pag 586. Who can reade the Scripture, specially the Epistle to the Romanes, and not find these two distinguished? for in the first part of it he treateth of iustification, in the latter of sanctification; vvhat is more manifest then that he vvriteth, Rom 8.30. vvhom he hath called, those hee hath iustified; vvhom hee hath iustisted, those hee hath glorified. Now this glorification signifieth the glorious renouation, which is begun heere, and perfected in another life, as your Thomas vpon this place hath obserued. Againe, 1. Cor. 1.30. Is not heere iustification and sanctifica­tion distinguished? iustification and sanctification are inseparable, yet must they be distinguished: which because you do not, you place iustification in sanctifi­cation Your place out of the Epistle to the Corinthes, doth plainly distinguish them. Your second place sheweth that a kind of iustificatiō is in sanctification: but it is not that perpect iustice, by which we are iustified before God, but on­ly an imperfect one. As for your wonde [...]s and strange things, they come from your ignorance: for we haue neuer sepa [...]ated these two, but affirme that he who is by faith partaker of Christ his righteou [...]nes, must needs haue the old man crucified, and the body of sinne destroyed in him, that he may no longer serue sinne. For grace in­fused, wherein regeneration and sanctification con­sisteth, and which the Scriptures call the new man, [Page 226]is not strong enough to iustifie vs,DVR. Grace infused and our inherent righteousnes, though it be not perfect, yet it is true iu­stice, and doth iustifie vs. WHIT. pag. 58 [...]. By this you ouerthrow your doctrine of iustificati­on: for that iu­stice which doth recon­cile vs to God ought to be most perfect, that such as neither the law nor God himselfe can require a more perfect. That which is not perfect, is in it kind corrupt. If then [...]n imperfect iustice can please God, then a corrupt thing will please him, and so should he not be perfectly iust: but being most iust, that only pleaseth him, which is according to the prescription of the law, most perfect. Luk. 10.27.28. Leuit. 18.5. because it neuer satisfieth the law of God in this life, and ought eue­ry day to be restored, and aspire to greater perfecti­on. For so Paul saith,2. Cor. 4.16. Although our outward man pe­rish, yet our inward man is renewed daily: which place Augustine hath very often vsed in this cause. You see therfore both what grace we place in God, and what we confesse to be infused into our hearts. For as for that you say wee barke out, that grace is not strong enough for the resisting of sinne, therein you goe a­bout thorough our sides to wound Paul himself, vp­pon whō this your reproch reboundeth.Rom. 7.18.19.21.23. For though he were indued with infused grace, as much as any o­ther, yet he denieth that he could attaine, to perfect that which is good:DVR. S. Paul saith only, that hee vvas assayed and tempted by those motions; but seeing it is not sinne, vvhere the consent of the vvill is not, bee saith, it vvas not hee that did it, but the flesh, for hee doubted not but grace vvas sufficient for him, vvhereby be might ouercome all these, seeing he had the vvord of Christ for it. 2. Cor. 12.9. And he shevoeth that by this grace vvee may ouer­come our corruptions, Rom. 7.25. WHIT. pag. 594. But the Apostle shew­eth that he was not only tempted by these, but ouercome. Rom. 7.15. he [...]aith, he did that vvhich he hated. Why did he hate it, vnlesse it were worthie hatred? Now nothing is worthy hatred, but sinne. And vers. 19. he addeth, hee did the euill, vvhich he vvould not. Then he sinned: for to be tempted with euill, is not to do that a man would not: but to be tempted and to ouercome them, is to do that a man both should and would do. And vers. 23. he saith, he was led captiue to the lavv of sinne. How can he be a captiue and not be ouercome? Beleeue the Apostle then, and he could not resist sinne alwaies by all his grace. But you say his will did not giue consent: bee it so, yet those motions are sinne against the tenth Commandement. For Rom. 7.7. he sheweth that he speaketh of con­cupiscence without consent. For lusts with consent, subduing the will, the Phi­losophers confessed to be sinne. For the place you alleage 2. Cor. 12.9. the suffi­ciencie of Gods grace is but so much, that hee should not bee swallowed vp of temptations. The godly fall often, but God lifteth them vp againe. For the o­ther place, Rom. 7.25. you are deceiued by the corrupt Latin translation. For in the Greeke it is, I thanke God by Iesus Christ: you reade it as if asking the question, vvho should deliuer him from the body of death; he had answered him­selfe; The grace of God by [...]esus Christ, when he giueth thankes to God, as if hee had said; Though this body of death be troublesome vnto me, because it com­pelleth me to serue sin, yet I rest in that hope, which I haue placed in Christ. for that he did not the good which he would, but the euill that he would not: and that when he desired to do good, euill was present with him: finally that the law of his members doth [Page 227]so rebell against the law of his mind, that it maketh him captiue to the law of sin. Hence you may know how great strength sinne hath, which euen the Apo­stle himselfe, albeit hee were indued with singular grace, could not so fully resist, but that sometimes he was both ouercome of it, and bound vp in it, as Au­gustine speaketh. If you doubt, Campians, whether the Apostle spake this of himselfe, I had rather you should take aduise of Augustine, August. de verb. Apost. Serm. 5 & [...]libi. Gal. 5.17. than of the Masters of Trent, seeing they be very bad interpreters of the Apostle. What should I remember to you Dauid, and the rest of the Fathers, who haue taught by their ex­amples, that it is not easie to resist sinne? but herein you are like your selfe, in that you say, that Christ is no otherwise said by vs to b [...] full of grace and truth, but th [...], that the Father did very much fauour him. I pray you Campian, whence could you gather this? Do we not say that Christ was full of grace so; that from his [Page 228]fulnes we all receiue grace: who of vs did euer deny that there was very great and infinit grace in Christ. For they that say that Christ was so full of grace, that all men did declare that hee was worthy of the vn­speakeable fauour both of God and men, they doe not only hold, that Christ was no otherwise full of grace, but herein that God did very much fauour him; but also they doe set out Christs grace to haue bin more abundant. For they doe confesse,Ioh. 3.34. both that the grace of the spirit was plentiful in Christ without measure, and also they hold that there did an out­ward grace so shine forth in Christ, that all did loue him and did perceiue that he was beloued of God, this doth Brentius and Bucer, and all our Diuines ac­knowledge.

What thing therfore (say you) is Iustice? Of Iustice. you make answere to your selfe, a Relation. If you commence an action against vs about Aristotles Predicaments, certainly we feare not, but we shall haue a Philoso­pher gentle enough in this cause. For though Iustice beDVR. That vvhich is not at all cannot bee a reall Re­lation. WHIT. pag. 600. But Christs righteousnesse is not, not at all. For Christ performed all things vvhich the Lavv required, therefore vvas indued vvith the qualitie of perfect iustice: but that reason which perswadeth vs, to confesse, that this righ­teousnesse of the Law in Christ was a quality, the same compelleth vs to thinke that this righteousnesse is not a quality inherent in vs; for that vvee neuer in our owne person obeyed the Lavv. Novv vvhat doth let, that that righteous­nesse in Christ cannot bee made ours by relation and imputation? for com­mon sense might haue taught you this, if a man do pay money in your name, this payment is yours by imputation. If you aske, how that is yours, vvhich is not inherent in you; I say againe, which thing the Apostle doth so oft presse, it is yours by imputation. Now rub vp your Philosophie, if you can, to proue that nothing is made ours by imputation. a Relation, yet Philosophie will not be cashierd: but that it is a quality you can neuer proue, either out of the Predicaments, or out of the chiefest Phi­losophie. But your Theologicall vertues, faith, hope, and charity, had neuer any iniurie offred to them by vs: indeed they be so handled by you, that you seeme to take them not for Theologicall, but for Philoso­phicall [Page 229]vertues. But the cause that maketh vs not to hold, that our righteousnes is compounded of these vertues, as you would haue it, is this, because they are neuer so perfect in this life, as throughlie to satisfie the law of God: now the law must be satisfi­ed or else we cannot be iust. For the Lord doth allow no other righteousnes, but the very same which is described in the law, which whosoeuer cannot at­taine, are pronounced guilty of eternall death. Ther­fore if we will be righteous and saued, and free from that horrible curse, such a righteousnesse must bee sought out, than which the law cannot require a more absolute. And where shall we find this? Is it in our vertues, in our faith, in our charitie? But these are weake many waies, and want that integrity which the law requireth, & wherunto it propoundeth righ­teousnes. For faith is but begun, & we are alwaies to pray that it may bee increased in vs. Now if faith be weak,Rom 1.17. Luc. 17.5. other vertues which spring from faith, cannot be perfect. But righteousnesse must be of that kind, as that nothing at all may be added thereunto. From hence it followeth, that righteousnesse is not com­pounded of our vertues, as you vnfitly speake, but it must be fetcht elsewhere. Seeing therefore wee had no such vertue, as might obtaine righteousnesse for vs with the Lord, Christ was giuen vs by the Lord, who performed perfect obedience to the law, that by his obedience we might be made righteous. For this obedience of Christ imputed to vs, and appre­hended by faith,Rom. 5.19. is that righteousnes of ours, which you enquire after, not heaped vp with our vertues, as you would haue it, but place in Christ, who is made vnto vs of God, 1. Cor. 1.30. wisedome, righteousnesse, sanctification, and redemption. And this is ourDVR. The Scripture plainly witnesseth, that as vve are made sinners by Adam, so vve are made iust by Christ. Rom. 5. WHIT. pag. 602. You vn­derstand not the Apostle. For though we bee iust in Christ, as we were sinners in Adam, yet not after the same manner. In Adam we sinned, and had his sinne by propagati­on deriued to vs: but the iu­stice of Christ, thought it was communicated vnto vs by imputation, ye [...] [...]as it not so deriued vnto vs. The Apostle would only teach and say this, as Adam was the author of sin, so Christ was the author of righteousnesse. righteousnes, euen [Page 230]ChristDVR. An­swere me I pray you, why the A­postles and Christ do so oft exhort vs to the obedience of the law? and neuer bid vs apprehend the righteousnes of Christ by faith? as Luk. 10. Matth. 25. WHIT. pag. 603. Christ and his Apostles do exhort vs to the obedience of the law, not to the end wee may deserue euerlasting life by our workes, but because it is our duty to walke in that race of piety wherein vvee are placed, that vvee walking in those good workes, and insisting in that vvay vvhich the Lord hath propounded to vs, may come at length to that most happy mark For albeit we neuer come to a marke vnlesse we goe the right way, yet the way is not the cause of the marke. Novv vvhereas you say that we are no where commanded to apprehend Christ righ­teousnes by faith, you bewray your miserable ignorance. Peruse therefore bet­ter these famous places for proofe of that the Scriptures do commaund vs this. Rom. 4.5. Rom. 5.19. Rom. 1.17. Gal. 2.16. Gal. 3.14. Ion. 3 18. Ioh. 5.24. Act. 10.43. As for the cause for which Christ in Matth. 25. saith he vvill make mention of vvorkes in the day of iudgement, it is for that as Iames (chap. 2.18.) saith, works do make shevv & proofe of faith. But in that very place vers. 34. before Christ mentioneth those vvorkes of the Saints, he toucheth the true and proper cau­ses of saluation. 1. Gods adoption in Christ [...] possesse by the right of inheritance. For that which one possesseth by the right of inheritance, hee doth not deserue it by his merits. 2. The eternall election of God, vvhen hee saith that it is a kingdome prepared for thē from the foūdations of the world. Novv if your opinion be this, that God did prepare them this kingdome, be­cause he did foresee their great good vvorkes, your ovvne Thomas is an aduer­sarie against you. Thom de verit. quast. 6. art. 2. & Thom. 1. part quaest. 23. art 1. himselfe, whoseDVR. Christ is called by S. Paul our righteousnes: so in the same place hee saith, that he is our vvisdome, and our sanctification. WHIT pag. 609. That vvis­dome, and righteousnes, & sanctification, vvhich S. Paul affirmeth Christ to be made vnto vs, are not resi [...]ent in vs as qualities, nor are they othervvise ours, than as vve doe embrace and possesse vvhole Christ by faith. righteousnes and inno­cencie being ascribed vnto vs, doth bring assured remission of sinnes, and true righteousnes. This the Diuines cal the first iustice, after which followeth an­other, compounded of these vertues of yours. For with that remission of sinnes, which dependeth on Christs obedience, faith, and hope, & charity are ioy­ned, which make vs iust also after a sort, but inchoa­tiuely not perfectly.

I haue declared to you in few words our opinion touching righteousnes, sith you make inquiry, what it is. But your vertues cannot so cloath the soule round about, as that no naked thing may appeare. For all our righteousnesses, are likeDVR. Jf you speake of that iustice, vvhich vve get to our selues vvithout the helpe of Christ, you say truly: but if of that which Christ hath purchased for vs by his blood, and powred into our harts, you doe an intollerable iuturie vnto Christ. WHIT. pag 610. I speake of that righteousnes which euerie regenerate man hath by the help of Christ. For do you thinke the Prophet wanted the helpe of Christ? yet he pro­fesseth his righteousnes is impure and imperfect: if you thinke hee did speake of their workes which are not regenerate, you must deny that hee was rege­nerate, who confesseth the imperfection of his workes. Of this righteousnesse Beruard doth vnderstand it, Serm. 5. de verbis Isay And all the godly haue thus confessed of them clues. Psal. 130.3. Dan. 9.7. Ezra. 9.15. Iob. 9.3.28. 1. Ioh. 1.8. & 1. Ioh. 2.7. filthie clouts,Esay 64.6. [Page 231]and those not only defiled, but also torne and rent in many peeces.Rom. 13.14. Phil. 3 9. 2. Cor. 5.19. Christ himselfe must be put vpon vs, that we may be found in him, not hauing our owneDVR. Saint Paul cal­leth the righte­ousnes of the law, that which is gotten by the doctrine of the lavv without the helpe of Grace: And the iustice of faith, not any apprehended by faith, but because they come vnto it by faith. WHIT. pag. 613. In exa­mining the place we shall see of what iustice S. Paul speaketh: first he denieth that to bee any part of iustice, whatsoeuer he had gloriously done when he was a Pharisie; that though he was then according to the iustice of the Law without reproofe, & indued with many good qualities, yet he accounted all loffe for Christs sake. vers. 4.5.6.7. And lest any should thinke that he attributed any thing to his workes ofter faith; he addeth that he reiecteth these also, neither ascribed his iustification vnto them. Adding in the 8. verse. that hee accounted all things losse. Not the other, but these also I contemne: and vpon this inferreth. vers. 9. Not hauing my owne righteousnes, which is of the law▪ but that which is through the faith of Christ. When then he excludeth all kind of workes, hee must needs vnderstand the iustice of Christ. righteousnes which is of the law, but that which is by the faith of Christ; namely the righteousnes that is of God through faith. For God was in Christ and reconciled the world vnto himselfe, not imputing their sinnes to them. With this cloathing our soules must be cloathed, that they may be beautified and glorious­ly adorned: neither are wee ashamed of that word, vpon which you play, when we say that our righte­ousnes is a couering of the fault. For so doth the Pro­phet Dauid pronoūce him to be a blessed man,Psal. 22.1. Rom. 4.6. whose iniquities be forgiuē, & whose sins are couered. And this pardon we apprehēd only by faith: now this faith is not feined, nor dead, nor separate from other vertues, nor void of good workes, but it is of that nature, that it worketh by loue. It is therefore faith alone, which iustifieth, that is, which embraceth Christs obedience [Page 232]wherin our righteousnes consisteth; but yet this faith which iustifieth, is neuer alone: for it is euer ac­companied with hope, and charity, and doth not suf­fer it selfe to be disioyned from it. For as the heate a­lone of the fire doth set the wood on fire, and yet this heate is not alone, but continually ioyned with the light: so faith alone of it self doth iustifie, albeit it can neuer be quite alone.

Now seeing that all our righteousnes and happi­nes, do consist in the pardon of sinnes, we also teach that this ought to be most certainly perswaded to vs and knowne of vs, so as our soules may rest therin as in a most safe and quiet hauen. For being iustified by faith, wee haue peace toward God, through our Lord Ie­sus Christ. Now what could this peace be, it we were alwaies distracted with a doubtful hope & thoughts, and tossed as it were with waues hither and thither about our saluation? Albeit therefore our conscien­ces are set vpon oftentimes by many terrors, so as they cannot be so secure in this life, as if wee did al­readie enioy the endlesse ioy of heauen; yet we say that this faith ought to depend most certainly and strongly vpon the promises of God, so as wee may expell all doubting about the grace of God, our adoption, and saluation. For true faith cannot agree with vnbeliefe. It is the propertie of this to distrust Gods promises, but the property of that is to ouer­come and driue away all doubting; as much as may be. But if faith be full of doubting, wherein doth it go beyond vnbeliefe? let vs beleeue the Apostle, who both knew very well, and hath described exactly the nature of true faith. He propoundeth Abraham vnto vn, in whom wee may behold a most notable image of true faith. What did he? did he stagger? was hee in suspense with himselfe? did he doubt? nay in him al things were contrary:Rom. 4.1 [...]. he against hope did beleeue vnder hope: he was not weake in the faith: hee did [Page 233]not discourse against the promise of God through vnbeliefe: he was strengthned in the faith: hee was fully perswaded, that God which had promised, could performe it. And this faith was imputed to him for righteousnes. [...]. This was Abrahams faith: shal ours bee vnlike it? but he is our Father, wee his chil­dren, and children should bee like their father. The conclusion is made now against you Campian, that by faith wee areDVR. You can neuer shew out of Gods word, that for­giuenes of all sinnes is giuen to them, vvho apprehend the righteousnes of Christ by saith. WHIT. pag. 618. This that you deny to be shewed in the Scriptures, is most plainly taught in them, as Ioh. 3.16. Act. 10.43. Act. 13.39. DVR. But vve know not vvhether vve be endued vvith true faith. WHIT. pag. 620. Indeed it cannot be denied, that many are deceiued with a fained faith: but they who are indued vvith true faith, they do know that they haue true faith: so did Paul 2. Tim. 1.12. know for himself & in 2. Cor. 13.5. he biddeth other learne to know it. So a Christiā may know that he hath true faith, & that by the spirit that he hath giuen vs, as 1. Ioh. 3.24. made certaine of our saluation, and that your variable and suspicious faith is liker to infidelity than to faith.Basil. in [...]. DVR. That which you bring out of Basil and the Tridentime Catechisme doth ouerthrow your selfe: & what certaintie can a man haue of his iustification, vvhen as S. Paul saith. 1. Cor. 4.4. I knovv nothing by my selfe, yet am I not thereby iustified. And the like hath Iob. cap. 9.15.20. WHIT pag. 622. If they attribute to faith a most certaine persvvasion without doubting, as they do, do they not cōfirme our doctrine, that a man may be cer­taine of his saluation. For those temptations which come frō the flesh, though they may shake it, yet they cannot ouerthrow it. As for S. Paul doth hee denie himself to be iustified, doth he doubt of his saluatiō? Reade the end of the eight to the Romans, and you shall find him so certaine of his iustification and salua­tion, as that you Papists are glad to ansvvere, that he had it by an extraordinary reuelation of the spirit. And do you novv make him doubting of his saluation? But you vnderstand not Saint Paul in the place you alleadge: for he doth not not deny that he is iustified; but he saith that thereby he is not iustified, because he knovveth nothing by himselfe. Iob also though he dare not trust to his owne workes and innocency, yet he shevveth himselfe to be certaine of his ovvne sal­uation. Iob 19.26. Basil saith excellently: What is the propertie of faith? a full or certaine perswasion void of all doubting. But what meane I to conuince you by testimonies of the auncient, whom the very Cate­chisme of Trent doth confute?Catechis. Trid. in 1. art Symb. The word beliefe (saith it) as the holy Scriptures teach, hath the force of most certaine consent. Wherefore he beleeueth, to whom any thing is certaine and assured without doubting. Now we [Page 234]beleeue euerlasting life, therefore it ought to be most certaine & assured to vs without any doubting. I re­quire now nothing more, the Catechisme of the Councell of Trent, ratified by the authoritie of the Pope and Councell, teacheth me that a man ought to be certaine of his saluation.

But are you not yet quiet, but stil question farther, for (say you) how can a man be sure DVR. VVho could euer be certaine of his ovvne perseue­rance to the end, vvithout the peculiar re­uelatiō of God? WHIT. pag. 626. In this speech you cut in sunder the sinevves of Gods euerla­sting decree. For seeing Gods predestination is certaine and vnchangeable, it doth cause our calling, iustifying, and glorifying to be as certaine as it selfe. For is it in your povver to dissolue and breake in sunder that golden chaine of the Apostle? Rom. 8.30. and to vvhom can his owne perseuerance be doubtfull, seeing God testifieth his perpetual good wil towards vs, as these scriptures fully teach. Ier. 32 40. Ioh. 13. 1. Luc 22.32. Iob. 17.20.21. Matth. 21.22. Rom. 8.9. Ioh. 14.16. Ioh. 10.28. Phil. 2.6. Rom. 11.29. 1. Ioh. 3.9. Matth. 24.24. of his future per­seuerance? That may be certaine, Campian, by faith, which if it be true cannot vtterly decay.Heb. 11.1. The Apostle termeth faith theDVR. No man euer doubted but that all those things which vve beleeue are most certaine. But you ought to shevv that euery ode ought to beleeue that he shall perseuere in that faith to his end, Saint Paul she vveth that certaine had made shipvvracke of faith. 1. Tim. 1.19. WHIT. pag. 627. The question is not vvhether things beleeued be certaine or no: for that the Diuels do certainly knovv; vvhich is as much as you Papists doe be­leeue, by your ovvne confession, and so you confesse your selues to bee void of true faith But the faith, the Apostle speaketh of, doth not only beleeue those things are true in themselues, but that they are partakers of them. Therefore he saith, it is the ground of things hoped for, because it enioyeth those good things vvhich are prepared for another life by a certaine & an approued hopes and the euidence of things not seene, because it novv beholdeth things that are hid from our eies. The perseuerance then of the faithfull is so certaine, that they may thinke they haue the possession of those things vvhich they shall receiue in another vvorld. Novv the faith S. Paul speaketh of, is not a iustifying faith, but only true and sound doctrine, of vvhich Hym [...]naeus and Alexander had made shipvvtacke. ground of things that are ho­ped for, & the euidence of things that are not seene. Now how are those things extant which bee hoped for, or demonstrated which are not seene, if faith bee not perpetuall? But they which are endued with this faith, they doe now after a sort enioy those good things, which are yet hoped for, & they do contem­plate those things, which cannot be seene with mens [Page 235]eies. So that faith admits vs being aliue here, and as the Apostle saith,2. Cor. 5.7. walking by faith and not by sight, into the very possession of heauen, so as because vve areDVR. 1. Cor. 10. He that standeth let him take heed lest he fall. Phil. 2. vvorke out your salua­tion vvhich feare:the like. Heb. 4. WHIT. pag. 633. 1. You haue falsifi­ed, 1. Cor. 10. for Paules vvords are, he that thinketh he standeth let him take heed lest hee fall. Wherein you go against euen your ovvne authen­ticall Latin translation. Blush you not at this? 2. The very Saints themselues are diligently to be admonished, to flie carnal securitie, to be ware of Sathans assaults, and to be in cōtinual care. And yet this hind [...]eth not, but that they are in the meane vvhile most certaine of their saluation. For although Paul (Act. 27) sayling, did not doubt a whit whether he should come safe to land, yet he let passe nothing, vvhich it behooued a man carefull of his safetie, to care for and to do. certaine that wee shall one day bee there, wee seeme now after a sort to liue and conuerse in hea­uen. But all these things would be fading and light, if saith could not perseuere. ThereforeDVR Will you say that the Apostle speaketh in the person of all t [...]e elect. WHIT. pag. 629. The Apostle proueth it, speaking [...]n their person; vvhat shall separate vs (not me only) from the loue of Christ. And againe, I am persvvaded that no­thing shall separate vs (not me only) from the loue of God which is in Christ Iesus. Therefore he speaketh of all those vvho are predestinated. Paul had a most certaine perswasion, that neither life nor death, nor things present, nor things to come, nor any other creature can seperate vs from the loue of God which is in Christ Iesus. [...] Rom. 8.38. But such as doe not perseuere, they may be separated: but these cannot bee separated, therefore they perseuere. And for this cause the pledge of our adoption, euen the holy Ghost him­selfe is giuen to vs, who assureth vs most certainely that we are the sonnes of God, so as now we do not doubt to call God Father.Cal. 4.6. But how dare such a one call him Father, who thinketh that he may be some­time not his sonne? for the Saints may professe with the Apostle,1. Ioh. 3.2. we know that we shall bee like him. Know­ledge is certaine, & consisteth on assured principles: to doubt is the property of opinion, not of know­ledge. Heare Cyprian: Cyprian. de mortal. Let such a man feare to die, who not being borne againe of water and the spirit, is thrall to the fire. Let him feare to die, that thinketh not hee hath his part in Christs Crosse and Passion. Chrysost. cap. 5. ad Rom. Chrysostome vp­on these words of the Apostle, Into this grace wherein we stand, writeth thus: The grace of God hath no end, it [Page 236]knoweth no full point, but it maketh progresse vnto grea­ter. And anone after, saith he, we must be fully assured not only of things giuen, but also of things to be giuen as well as of things giuen alreadie. And Augustine: August. in Psal. 88. be­cause therefore (saith he) the promise is firme not ac­cording to our merits, but according to his mercy, no man ought with fearefulnes to preach (the kingdome of Christ in his Saints) whereof he ought not to doubt. But Augu­stine is wholy ours. For as you did lately conclude, that Augustine did allow free will, because hee wrote three bookes of free will, so may I reason af­ter the same manner, that Augustine did thinke of perseuerance, as we do, because he wrote one booke of the good of perseuerance. To this I will ioyne Bernard, whose golden words these be,Bernard. in Can. Ser. 61. My consci­ence is troubled, but it is not ouer troubled, because I will remember the wounds of the Lord. But I will alleadge no more testimonies. Faith is either perpetuall, or else it is none at all: either it perseuers to the last breath, ot else that which is esteemed for faith, is but some fancie.

As for that, that you alleage touching Luther, who you say affirmeth, that a Christian though he will can­not lose his saluation, vnlesse hee will not beleeue, this Luther neuer affirmed, either in that booke or any where els. For if you shall turne ouer all Luthers wri­tings, which you haue not saluted, nor I beleeue, so much as seene, yet you can finde this sentence no where. The Fathers of Trent haue condemned this proposition and worthily: for it is impious, and to bee reckoned among the chiefest paradoxes. But whose soeuer it was, certainly it was not Luthers. But, say you, Luther wrote so in his booke of the captiui­ty of Babylon. That is false: yet he wrote some such thing. I will tell you what it is; and that in a word. Luther reproueth the Papists, for that they thought that the grace of Baptisme is quite lost by sinne, and [Page 237]withall they brought in Penance a new Sacrament, which they terme a second boord, wherby the grace of Baptisme might be recouered. Therefore he deni­eth that the power and grace of Baptisme can so bee lost by sinnes, but that it may bee repaired by faith; which thing he proueth by many and mighty rea­sons. In that therefore Luther taught, that the grace of Baptisme cannot be lost, vnlesse one will not be­leeue; and this the Fathers of Trent and our coun­triman Campian do so interprete, as if hee had said, that which these men obiect, that a Christian though he will cannot leese his saluation, vnlesse he will not beleeue. Why should I confute so vnsauoury an ima­gination with more words?

You make hast to the Sacraments. Of the Sa­craments. And I will pur­sue you as much hast as you make. Now here you cry ont most pittifully, O blessed Christ, they haue left neuer a Sacrament, not two, not one. Dare you appeale to Christ, whose Sacraments yee haue banished with great reproch out of the Church, that ye might bring in certaine impure Sacraments not worthy to be na­med? we retaine those Sacraments which Christ hath commended to vs: if there had been need of more, he would haue left more. We haue two Sacraments, Baptisme, and the Lords Supper: these Christ did insti­tute,DVR. Our seuen Sacra­ments stand vpon good ground and reason, & hath antiquitie for them. WHIT. pag. 643. You should then produce some antiquitie for the proofe of them; but hauing none, why do you so brag of it. I wonder not at your silēce, because I know that, that this number was neuer heard of before Hugo de San­cto Victore, and Peter Lombard brought them into the Church: and yet for them Lombard neuer gathered any testimony of auncient Fathers. Neither e­uer any Councell, before the Florentine Councell, did approue or establish this number. But your fiue bastard Sacraments, 1. Order. 2. Confirmation. 3. Extreame Vnction. 4. Penance. 5. Marriage. I proue thus to be no true Sacra­mēts of Christs Church. 1. In euery Sacramēt is necessarily required and elemēt or visible matter. But that neither your Order, not Cōfirmation, nor Penance, nor Marriage haue, by any warrant of Scripture. 2. Those which are the pro­per Sacramēts of the Church Christ did institute. But Christ instituted not any one of those fiue for Sacraments. 3. Sacraments belong to all Christians, But your Order, and Marriage pertaine to a few in comparison. 4. Seeing you faine that grace lye [...]h hid in the Sacraments, and is by them transmitted vnto men, proue vs which parts of these Sacraments do containe the grace in­closed. What answere soeuer you make you will be taken napping. Therefore these fiue bastard Sacraments, are no true Sacraments of Christs Church. these the auncient Church acknowledge, and with these the later Church ought to haue been contented. For that it is most euident, that for seuen Sacraments, for so many you hold, that not a foot­step of antiquity can be found. O blessed Christ, they [Page 238]haue seuen Sacramēts, & yet they haue no Sacramēt, because they haue not thine. For those Sacraments which are not thine, are no Sacraments at all. Their bread, say you, is poison, and what is our wine? but the common people among you taste not of that at all: belike, lest they should thinke that you did drinke to them of a poison. Wee doe vse that bread and that wine in the Lords Supper, which Christ himselfe commanded to vse. That which hee deliuered, we haue receiued: that which he did, we do: in the bread and wine we celebrate the remembrance of our Re­deemer. If those were wholesome, ours cannot bee deadly. Baptisme (say you) although it be as yet among them true, notwithstanding in their iudgement it is no­thing. You your self cōfesse that our Baptisme is true [...] I take it for granted. But why is it true? because wee baptize so, as Christ hath commanded vs. We keepe the law of Christ, we throw your, I know notDVR. What is that you call trash? vvhich of the auncient Fathers haue been. vvho haue not made mention of our ceremonies. WHIT. pag. 658. Christ cōmaunded nothing to the Church touching these trifles; & though we reade often of Baptisme in the word, & of many, yet there is no word touching any of these Shall we then thinke that the Church in later times hath knowne better, vvhat ceremonies vvere fitter for the Sacrament then Christ and his Apostles? vvhere did euer any of them vse salt, spittle, candles, &c. in this Sacrament. what, trash away; the like haue we done in the other Sacra­ment, not haue wee departed a nailes bredth from Christs precept. If ours be true Baptisme, then is out [Page 239] DVR. VVhen bread and vvine is your Eucharist (neither doe you beleeue Christ gaue any other thing in the Sup­per) vvee leaue you your Eucharist also. WHIT. pag. 660. If wee haue true Bap­tisme; why not the Eucharist? wee follow Christs com­mandement in both. Fur­ther you false­ly accuse vs, who thinke bread & wine to be but one part of the Sa­crament, as Ireneus and antiquity hath done; & Christ his body and blood the other. But you haue no Eucharist at all, who professe you haue neither bread nor wine. Eucharist true also. But in their iudgement (say you) it is nothing. Why so? It is not the water of saluation, it is not the conduit of grace, it doth not deriue the merits of Christ into vt; but only it is a signification of saluati­on. All these things are feined & false. For we preach it to be the sauing water, and aDVR But Caluin denieth all this, making it only a signe and seale, by vvhich vve are assured of the grace best [...]ed vpon vs. WHIT. pag. 663. Doth it follow hence that grace and remission of sinne is not giuen vnto vs in Baptisme? As if by the seale of the Kings Charter some thing is not both giuen vnto vs, and confirmed? And in Baptisme this confirmation is but a more bountifull donation. chanell of grace, and we doubt not but it deriueth Christs merits in­to vs. For it doth not only signifie saluation, but also it performeth & bringeth it indeed to them that vse Baptisme aright and holily. For in Baptisme we re­ceiue forgiuene▪ of our sinnes, we are accepted into the familie of Christ, we are endowed with the holy Ghost, we are raised vp to a most certaine hope of e­uerlasting life. Are these matters of nothing to you, Campian? shall this Baptisme be nothing, wherin we obteine so many and so great good things? but what manner of thing is your Baptisme: or what hath it more, which ours ought to haue? hath it grace? or the merits of Christ? or saluation? Ours also hath these things; what then is wanting in it, why it should not be true both in ours and others iudgement? I know your meaning. It conueigheth not grace by the worke wrought. This indeed is a magicall and pesti­lent deuice, that you should thinkeDVR. VVe thinke not so, but that it is in it, as in an instrument. And so hath Thomas taught. WHIT. pag. 664. Then you reiect and condemne all your old Sophisters, who haue taught that grace is included in the Sacrament, as health is in a medicine or salue. For as that doth cure the disease whether he beleeue or no that is sicke, only if he take it: so the Sacrament doth giue grace without any faith or good motion of the receiuer, so he hath no mortall sinne to hinder it. grace to be in­closed in the water it selfe, as it were in a pipe, which sheadeth it self forth into all men, though quite void [Page 240]of faith. For what auaileth the Sacrament without faith, but to his perdition who receiueth the Sacra­ment: that monster I doe abhorre and detest with mine whole hart. You adde, therfore they haue made no more reckoning of the Baptisme of Christ, then of Iohns, that is, a meere ceremonie. I am not ignorant what the Fathers thought of the Baptisme of Iohn. But I heed what the Scriptures teacheth, not what they imagined. In them both there was theDVR. But Matth. 3.11. Iohn baptised with water on­ly, Christ with the Spirit. WHIT. pag. 669. Here is no compari­son betweene the Baptisme, but the per­sons: for not Iohn only, but not Peter nor any Minister of the Gospel, can giue the holy Ghost to those whom they doe bap­tise. Men giue but the outward signe, it is Christ who giueth the Spirit. DVR. VVhy vvere they Act. 19 4.5. baptised againe vvhom Iohn had baptised, if it be the same Bap­tisme. WHIT. pag. 671. They were not rebaptised, as Ambr [...]se saith, de Spi­rit. Sanct. lib. 1. cap. 3. And the 5. vers. being S. Paule [...] words, they are to be vn­derstood not of those Ephesians, but of the people whom John baptised. As if S. Paul had said. John taught those who came to his Baptisme to beleeue in Christ who was to come: and they when they heard it, were baptised in the name of the [...]ord Iesus. From this then can be gathered no differenc [...] of thes [...] tvvo Baptismes. same ceremonie, the same doctrine, and the same grace. If there were any thing vnlike in these things, I refuse not to confesse, that the Baptisme of Iohn and Christ were diuers. Now Iohn ioyned repentance,Mat. 3.2.1 [...]. Luk. 3.3. which is the fruit of true regeneration, with his Baptisme, and off [...]ed this Baptisme for the remission of sinnes. If the Baptisme of Iohn wanted not repentance and re­mission of sinnes, I see not why it should bee held so much different from the Baptisme of Christ. And what is the cause,DVR. Because that Baptisme did prepare men to regeneration, of vvhich preparation Christ had no need. WHIT. pag. 673. This is but your coyned distinction, for the Fathers speake and answere otherwise. Chrys [...]st. in 3. Matth. not that he should receiue remission of sinne by [...]aptisme, but that be might leaue sa [...]ctified waters for those who should after be baptised. And August. in cat. [...]ur. in 3. Matth. Our Sauiour would therefore be baptised, not that bee might bee sanctified, but that he might sanctifie the waters for vs. why the Fathers demand, wher­fore Christ, who needed no regeneration, did come to the Baptisme of Iohn, but because they iudged that his Baptisme had the power of regeneration?

Concerning that which you annexe: If you haue it, it is well: if you want it, there is no hurt: beleeue, and [Page 241]you shall be saued before you bee baptised; wee doe not speake so loosely, as you imagine. For wee will not haue it to be in any ones choice, to be baptised if hee will, and to leaue it if hee will not. Yet wee doe not thinke that Baptisme is soDVR. VVhat? If without Bap­tisme infants may obtaine e­ternall life, is it not your iudge­ments, that it is no burt to them though they want Baptisme? But Christ thought farre [...] ­therwise. Ioh. 3.5. WHIT. pag. 675. It is a wicked and batbarou [...] o­pinion to thinke that they who die before they can come to Baptisme, are damned. For who will say, that the infants of the Iewes, who died before the eight day did p [...] ­rish? And when in former ages they deferred Baptisme till the houre of death, did they think it so absolute necessary? Will you say that an infant is not of the nūber of the elect, because God wil that he die before Baptisme? if you will, you shall be accounted bold, rash, and impious. As for the place of Iohn. Christ doth not thinke that none can come into heauen, which wanteth the outward Bap­tisme. The theefe was with Christ in Paradise, and yet was vnbaptised with the outward Baptisme. But the truth is, by water Christ meaneth there the Spi­rit, as appeareth by conference of places. Matth. 3.11. As there fire, so here water signifieth the power of the Spirit: & Ioh. 4.10. simplie necessarie to sal­uation, that he that is not entred by Baptisme, must needs perish euerlastingly. For the saluation of a Christian man cōsisteth in the mercie of God, which is not so tyed & bound to any Sacraments,DVR. God hath shew­ed his vvill, Ioh. 3.5. And [...]hen S. Paul makes all by nature the Children of wrath: Ephes. 2.3. If there be no remedie against this euill in the Scripture, but Baptisme, what can be, but that they vvho die vvithout Baptisme, must needs die in the same condition? WHIT. 677. God in no place hath shewed this to bee his will; that they who die without Baptisme, shall perish. Of the words of Christ haue [...]in spoken, which if they be vnderstood of Baptisme, they belong only to those who are of growne yeares. That by no other meanes we can be freed from the miserable state of nature, but by Baptisme, is very false. For the Spirit of God doth in and without the Sacrament, doth communicate his graces. as that he cannot saue those, whom he will not haue perish, without them. Where the opportunity of Baptisme is not, Gods promise alone is abundantly sufficient of it selfe. But whosoeuer either neglecteth Baptisme through heedlesnes, or boldly contemneth it, him we condemne of very hainous sin. For he doth both diminish the Maiestie of Christ, and also refuseth his owne saluation. But he that committeth neither, shal not answere for the fault of another. Therefore verie right was that iudgement of Bernard, DVR. He speaketh not of infants, but of those vvho indued with true faith, were preuented by an vntimely death that they could not be baptised. WHIT. pag. 680. How tru­ly you speake we may iudge out of the same Epistle. For he thus writeth. VVho is ignorant that in former times they had other remedies against originall sinne; besides Baptisme? for to Abraham and his seed vt as the Sacrament of Circumcision giuen to this end. But in other nations, so many as vvere found faithfull, vvee be­leeue that they, vvho vvere of yeares, vvere sanctified by faith and sacrifices: but the parents faith did profit their infants, yea and vvas sufficient for them. If this was so before Christ, shall we thinke the condition of infants is now worse? not the want, but the contempt of Baptisme is damnable. Bernard. in Epist. ad Hugon.

In the rest that follow, as being small matters, you doe but trisle. For neither doe you your selfe de­clare any thing of your owne opinions, nor can you reproue any thing in ours. But I long to know, what you thinke of the faith of Infants. I suppose, you wil grant that they haue grace? For (say you) Baptisme conferreth grace. But will you not yeeld that they haue faith? I wish therefore you would teach me, to the end you may draw me wholy into your opinion, how there can be any grace more ancient than faith. But (say you) how can they beleeue, who doe not yet vn­derstand whether they liue or no? and do they ther­fore not liue, because they vnderstand not that they liue? It is absurd. Wherefore if they liue, although they doe not vnderstand they do so:DVR. But speake plainly; if Infants haue no faith, your nevv Euange­licall doctrine, teaching that the force of the Sacrament doth depend vpon the faith of the receiuers, must vanish. WHIT. pag. 681. I do no: thinke that Infants do beleeue, there being neither reason nor Scripture for it. And I answere that is not our doctrine you faine to bee. Wee say, that to men of yeares without saith it is a Sacrament, but not a sauing Sacrament: to children of beleeuing patents, though they cannot for their yeares beleeue, yet it is a sauing Sacrament, as Circumcision was to the Infants of the Iewes. For wee doubt not but the Spirit of God is powerfull vnto them after a hidden and vvonderfull manner. As in the examples of Iacob, Ieremie, Iohn Baptist, and others. happily also they doe beleeue, albeit they perceiue not that they beleeue. That is hard (say you:) bee it so. Nor doe I speake these things, as if I were wholy of that mind, but to the end I may fish out your mind, which our Vniuersity m [...]n doubtles make great account of. But let vs heare Luthers medicine: It is better (saith he) to omit it, because except the Infant beleeue, he is washed [Page 243] [...]e [...]er a whit. But this medicine came out of your shop, not out of Luthers. And indeed you haue offred vs many such like medicines, very vnsauourie, and ill fauouredly seasoned: so that all your confections seeme to be corrupt. But Luther did neuer perswade that Baptisme should be omitted; & he was alwaies earnest on that part, that Baptisme should be giuen to Infants: and therefore you are so much the more vniust in this place, in that you would marre Luthers opinion with your medley. For these things are so alledged by you, as if Luther said, it were better to o­mit Baptisme. Therfore let vs heare Luther himself, and let Campians medicine alone. And yet (saith he) we deny not that Infants are to be baptised, Luther. ad­uers. Co­c [...]laeum. nor do we a­now that they receiue Baptisme without faith: but wee say, that at Baptisme they do beleeue by the power of the Word. He addeth: Or otherwise there would bee meere and intolerable lies, when the Baptiser demandeth of the Infant whether he do beleeue: as intending not to baptise, vnlesse it be answered in the child [...] stead, I beleeue. Wher­fore doth the Minister aske whether he do beleeue, if i [...] be a certaine thing that they do not beleeue, as Cocleus maintaineth? Then he concludeth thus: But we hold that Infants are not to be Baptised, [...]f it be true that they in Baptisme do not beleeue. Luther then maintaineth and determineth, that little children do beleeue, and he reproueth the Papists, because they teach things contrary each to other, while they deny that an Infant hath faith and yet, to the end he may be baptised, they re­quire faith of him. Who seeth not to what these things may be referred, so that hee must needs bee a most malicious man, who maketh Luther in these words a perswader of so wicked an opinion?

And these things doe they speake (say you) being doub [...]full in their own mind, what to maintaine positiuely. Howsoeuer some doe doubt of the faith of infants, yet wee all determine cleerely and positiuely that [Page 244]they are to be baptised. Therfore there was no need that you should send for that Pacimentan [...] dayes­man, who was alwayes more enclining to your side than to ours. But why doe you obiect the Anabap­tists to vs, who hate vs much more eagerly than you, and not without cause?DVR. I knovv you doe fight hotly against the Anabap­tists, but vvith vvhat vvea­pons? Caluin vvas glad to flie to the Tra­dition of the Church: for be brought no place of Scrip­ture against them, neither could be bring any. WHIT. pag. 685. You be­tray the Scrip­tures that you may establish Traditions. What can be spoken either more contu­meliously a­gainst the Scriptures, or more for the aduantage of Anabaptists, then that this their heresie cannot be cōfuted by Scripture? But are you ignorant that Caluin vsed Scrip­ture to refell this? And yet he produceth these places. Gen. 17.4. Matth. 19.13. & 28.19. which sufficiently ouerthrow the Anabaptists. And in the place you alleadge, hee rather renounceth Traditions, then flieth to them for any defence. Jast. lib. 4 cap. 16. sect. 8. for we haue both cōuicted them for heretikes by our arguments, and also haue expulsed them as seditious and pernicious men out of our Commonwealths, who if they dwelt not with you, could find no place to remaine in through the Christian world. You passe ouer the rest of the Sa­craments, which I acknowledge to bee none at all: nor doe I vnderstand which is that beast of many heads, whereof you make mention, vnlesse perhaps you meane that threeheaded beast, of which Iohn writeth many things in the Reuelation.

Hitherto Campian, Of Man­ners. you haue examined certaine opinions and positions of our men: in all which you haue found as yet neuer a Paradoxe. For either the things that you obiect are such, as that nothing can be truer then they, or else they are craftily and trea­cherously wrested by you into a peruerse meaning. But now, as if you were some new Censurer, and Ma­ster of the auncient discipline and seuerity, you make search into our manners, not, I thinke, to make them better, but to make them seeme much worse than they be. Although he that reproueth the manners of other, it were meet that he should bee without fault. And is there so great a change made of Rome vpon the sodaine? is their life now such? are their manners begunne to bee so goodly, that you being returned thēce a Frier dare striue with vs about vertue, shame­fastnes, [Page 245]and hon [...]stie? howsoeuer there be here many things done which ought not to be, yet if you shall say that there is as great impunity and licenciousnes of sinnes in England, as you your selfe haue seene at Rome, the very towre of your religion and king­dome, all men will iudge you to bee too too impu­dent. Wherefore then doe you propose to vs those peeces of faults in Luther, seeing among you not only some fragments of vices, but huge bodies of the greatest crimes are plainely seene? surely as long as those publike stewes and dens of whoores stand still in Rome, you could scarce honestly make mention of manners. But what are these peeces of faults in Luther? Is it for that you reproue some crime in his life? but that you neither can do, nor go about to doe. You obiect certaine sayings caught out of his bookes, and as you are wont torne from the rest of the body of the sentence; which seeme presently as soone as they bee propounded by you, to make shew of some filthines. About the most of which, seeing that you haue had an answere made you by him whom you name, Reuerend Charke, I maruell that you haue returned them to vs heere a­gaine. There must needs be great lacke of true im­putations, seeing that you haue no varietie at all of false ones. And seeing that my fellow souldier and companion in Christ William Charke did labour di­ligētly in these things, those things which are large­ly enough confuted by him, shall bee run ouer now by mee briefely and shortly. It shall bee therefore enough for mee to cut in sunder these your peeces, which haue been before so broken in shiuers, as that they might seeme able to hurt none.

Wherefore now spue out these your morsels of reproches. And heare ye them: If the wife will not, or cannot, let the maid come. A filthie and vncleanely speech as it seemeth. Luther wrote a little booke of [Page 246]marriage, in the second part whereof hee remem­bers three causes, whereby hee thinketh marriage may be dissolued. The first is Impotencie: another is, Adultrie: the third is, Desertion. Now hee ex­poundes that to be desertion, when as the wilful and obstinate wise can by no meanes bee perswaded to performe the office of due benouelence to the hus­band, for there are some such froward wiues found, that although the husband doe fall ten times into whordome, yet they regard it neuer a whit. Where­fore Luther thinketh it fit for the husband, to fray his wife with words, and to threaten hir on this man­ner: If you will not, another will: If the mistrisse will not, let the maide come. With whom if threats preuaile not, let him conuent her before others, and bring the matter to the Church. But now if she be neither moued with priuate threatnings, nor by the pub­like reproofes of the Church, then, saith Luther, di­uorce her and take Ester into Vashties place. Only to propoūd these things in this māner, is a very euident confutation of Campians reproch. For who doth not marke what counsaile Luther gaue to the hus­band? not that he should presently take his mayd, but that he should propose threats of diuorce to his obstinate wife, and breake her stomacke by that meane? Now as for this opinion of Luther about this kind of diuorce, though I doe not defend, yet you cannot accuse it.DVR. You are ignorant that vvith vs only adulte­ry is the cause of diuorce. WHIT. pag. 688. Nay you are ignorant of your owne Canons, for to omit others, see what the Tridentine Fathers decreed. If any shall say that the Church doth erre vvhē shee decreeth that for many causes diuo [...]ce from b [...]dde and cobabitation, may be had either for a certaine or vnlimited time, let him be accursed. Do not you now dif­fer from your owne Councell, as al [...]o from the Apostle? For among you there be infi­nite causes of diuorce, so as in so great liberty of di­uorce, it is maruaile that any marriage stood in force. If Luther had at any time written any such thing, as wee reade was written by Clement, whom you brag [Page 247]to haue beene Pope of Rome, what tragedies would yee haue raised? Heare Campian, & I would haue you marke whereto this speech tendeth:DVR. If you had seene some old copies, or vvaighed the scope of the E­pistle, you might easilie haue seene that the place is corrup­ted. WHIT. pag. 689. I can be content you should defend Clement, for I easily thinke that Clement would neuer speake so dis­honestly. But when you fa­ther Epistles vpon auncient Bishops, such as they neuer writ, God would shew your perfidie by manifest demonstrations For copies we haue none whether old or new but from you; and many I haue seene, and they all haue it. Yet re­member that you here confesse the Popes decretall Epistles to bee corrupted (why [...] forged?) which other where you peremp [...]orily deny. The common vse of all things, Clement. E­pist. 5. that are in this world, ought to be to all men. But through mens naughtines one said that this was his, and another that; and so there is a diuision made be­tweene mortall men. Finally one of the wise men of the Grecians, knowing this to bee so, saith, that all things a­mong friēds ought to be common. Now among al things, without doubt are husbands and wiues. You may think you heare some Plato discoursing of the communi­tie of things: alleadge some like place of Luthers. What thē followeth after in those patches of yours? For because the carnall knowledge of the wife is as neces­sarie to euery one, as meate, and drinke, and sleepe are. DVR. Ter­tul. de Monog. Hieron. lib. 1. contra Iouinian. vnderstand it only of those vvho are married, that they might lawfully keepe and haue their wiues still. WHIT pag. 690. That which Tertullian writ for the heretike Montanus, that you greatly approue of. And hee that knoweth not Hierome to bee further carried in the contempt of marriages, then the Scriptures do allow of, he accounteth the au­thoritie of Hieromes writings more then of the Word of God. But the Apostle reiecteth this interpretation, for when he commandeth that euery man should haue his wife to auoid fo [...]nication; vvho seeth not that this law concerneth the vnma [...]ried, who are forbidden fornication as well as the married? And after in the 9. vers he speaketh to the vnmarried▪ If they cannot absteine, let them mar­ [...]: for it is better to marrie then to burne. Therefore hee doth not onli [...] commaund that they vvho haue vviues keepe them still; but that they vvh [...] haue not, should marrie, if they found it necessarie for them to auoid inconti­ [...]cie. The Apostle commandeth,1 Cor. 7.2.9 that euery one for the a­u [...]iding of fornication, haue his wife, and euery woman her owne husband: and that they that cannot conteine, should marrie. They therefore who haue it not giuen to them by God, as that they can alwaies be without wiues; to such it is necessary that they marry wiues if [Page 248]they will bee honest and chaste. For I confesse that marriage is not necessarie for them who may wal­low without punishment in all manner of vnclean­nesse and lust. But goe forward: Marriage is much better than Virginitie, and against this, Christ and Saint Paul perswaded Christian men. The same things doe not agree to all men: and that which is most pro­fitable to some one, may be contrarie to the incli­nations of others. Virginitie is one of those indiffe­rent things, which are as they are vsed: for it is not simply good (for then it were vnlawfull at all to thinke of marriage) but after a sort.DVR. VVhat is this else but euen the same that Iouinian ans [...]vered vn­to Hierome & the rest of the auncient Fa­thers? As Augustine shevveth De. Sancta Virgi­nitate cap. 21.22.23.24. WHIT. pag. 691. Whosoe­uer will be sin­gle for this only end that he may liue so much the more [...] [...]ase and in the more pleasure, and not be troubled with the necessary cares of marriage, do deserue to be bla­med with Iouinian. And this sort of men it is that Augustine doth iustly reproue. For virginitie is to be desired, not simplie for that end that we may [...]idde and free our selues from the necessarie businesse and cares accompanying marri­age, but to the end we may with sitter opportunitie and more conueniencie serue God, as also the Apostle [...]peaketh; That you may so [...]vv that vvhich is ho­nest, and that you may cleaue fast vnto the Lord vvithout separation. 1. Co. 7.35. [...] DVR. VVho seeth not that that is more excellent in it selfe, vvhich is more diffi­cult and hard? And Christ saith, that after this life there is no marrying at all. And S. Paul, He that giueth his virgin to marriage, doth well: but hee that giueth her not to marriage doth better. 1. Cor. 7.38. WHIT. pag 69 [...]. I do not dispute against holy virginity, which I acknowledge is both hard & excellent. But sin­gle life must be distinguished frō holy virginity. Very few attaine this of that e­uery one may make choise of. But your reasō is of no great force, for the hardest things are not the most excellent. It is most hard for a man to liue an hundred yeares: shal we therfore thinke that they who liue so long, are more excellent then others? As for that in the kingdome of heauē there are no marriages, it is not of force against vs: for we speak of the state of this life, after which, as there shall be no marriages, so no vowes of virginitie. In S. Paul, better, is as much as si [...]es and more commodious: for if it were su [...]plie better, it were neuer lawfull to do otherwise; which he alloweth. Therefore he thus spake not for the na­ture of the thing, but in respect of circumstances: as you may see, vers. 26.28.32.35. Thus there­fore stands the matter: they that can preserue their chastitie in Virginitie, they may be desirous of Vir­ginitie, and yet not absolutely, but by reason of the troubles which for the most part accompanie mar­riage: but they that cannot liue chast, such must be­take them to marriage, and that so as that if they doe otherwise, they infolde themselues in great sinne. So that Virginitie is neuer, saue onely in some re­spect better than marriage, but g marriage often­times is absolutely better than virginitie. Surely we doe thinke honourably of both these estates of life: but among you virginitie is aduaunced, but marri­age [Page 249]basely esteemed. Basil holdeth rightly, Let virgi­nity be honored, let not marriage be despised. I had rather you should approue virginitie by your deeds, than praise it with your words.Hieron. ad Furiam. [...]. Why doth the tongue sound out chastity, and the whole bodie shew forth vncleannes? For so do ye. Euen as Epiphanius writeth of the Ori­genists. You refuse marriages, but not lust: it is not holi­nesse, but hypocrisie that is in honour among you. For neither did Christ nor Paul enioyne virginitie to a­ny one that had not power to receiue it. For (saith Bernard) virginitie is not commaunded, Bernard. de Virgin ser. 21. 1. Cor. 7.9. but aduised. Nay, they that cannot conteine, are commaunded to marrie. Wherefore the Apostle was not onely of o­pinion that those ought not to keepe their virgini­tie, but also he disswaded them from it: nor would he haue disswaded them from it, if Christ had per­swaded them to it. Neither are these positions pro­per to Luther: for all good men doe both acknow­ledge and defend them.

But let vs heare the rest:DVR. Doe you not thinke therefore that the diuell him­selfe is neerest of all to grace? WHIT. pag. 6 [...]6. It is diuellish so to dispute; Luther meant nothing els, but to stay mēs con­sciences afflicted and troubled with the greatnes of sin, and to comfort them vvith the mercie of God which, the greater sinner thou art, the greater is it on thee, vvhen thou dost truly turne vnto the Lord, as the Apostle saith, vvhere sinne abounded, grace abounded much more. Rom. 5.20. The more wicked that thou art, (saith he) so much the neerer art thou vnto grace. The grace of Christ is sufficient not onely for small sinnes, but also for the greatest: nor are small offenders onely inuited by Christ to come to him, [Page 250]but they also that are laden with the burthen of their sinnes. Luther exhorts thee not to goe for­ward in sinne, but that thou shouldest not despaire of pardon. And certainely theDVR. VVhere learned you to call him a wic­ked man, that is truly peni­tent for his sins? WHIT. pag. 697. Christ saith, Luk. 15.7 There shal be ioy in heauen ouer one sin­ner that re­penteth. Aske novv, vvho taught Christ to call him a sinner that repenteth him of his sinnes; or vvhy do you not quar­rell with the Apostle, vvhen he saith, God iustifieth the ungodly. Rom 4.5? For he that is vngodly is not iustified. more wicked that thou hast been in thy life by-past, so much the more aboundant grace shall imbrace thee, if thou be true­ly penitent for thy sinnes.Rom. 5.20. For where sinne hath aboun­ded, grace hath ouerabounded. If you condemne Lu­ther, who will thinke that you let Paul passe free? For you haue the same action against both, sith they be of one and the same iudgement. What fol­loweth? All good actions be sinnes; of God be seuere in iudgement, they are damnable sinnes; if hee bee fauou­rable, they be but small ones, DVR. The Apostle S. Paul then said not truly; If thou take a vvife thou sinnest not. 1 Cor. 7. Then S. Peter said not truly, 2. Pet. 1.10. For if yee do these things, yee shall neuer fall. Neither said Sa [...]nt Iohn truly, 1. Ioh 3.8. For this purpose the Sonne of God appeared, that heo might loose the workes of the Diuell. Neither did S. Paul vvell to compare good vvorkes to siluer, gold, and precious stones. 1. Cor. 3.12. Neither did the Pro­phets and Apostle [...] well to exhort vs to good vvorks. And if all our actions (though good) be sinne, doe not you your selues sinne vvhilest you beleeue to be iustified by faith? For faith is a vvorke, seeing Christ saith, This is the worke of God, that you beleeue. WHIT. pag. 698. That euen our good actions are tainted vvith some sinne, no man can doubt, that either knoweth the Scriptures, or himself. As Isay saith 64.10. Now it euen al our righteous actiōs be like vnto a stincking & filthie clout, they are surely tainted with some sin. The Prophet Dauid pray­eth Psal. 143.2. Wherefore no worke, (though good) can deliuer vs from the iust iudgement of God. And this is that which the Apostle Paul speaketh Gal. 5.17. and Rom. 7.21. also Job 9.2. Vpon which place Gregorie Moral. lib. 9. cap. 1. thus writeth. The holy man because he seeth, that euen all the merit of our very vertue is sinne, if by an invvard iudgement it be rightly iudged of, doth vvell adde &c. Heere Gregorie calleth the merits of our vertue, that is, our very best workes, sinnes. And againe the same Gregorie cap. 14. As vve haue often said, all humane righteousnes is conuinced to be v [...]righteousnes, if it be rightly iudged of. Now he that calleth our rigeteousnes vnrighteousnes, what saith he else, then that which Luther said, That there is some sinne in euery good vvorke? This Para­doxe therefore Luther learned our of the Scriptures and auncient Fathers. But to come to your slender reasons. If thou take a vvife, thou sinnest not. I answere heere is a fallacie. For we say not to marrie a wise is sinne, but that they vvho marrie wiues intermixe some sinne in that good action. And to the place of S. Peter. I say that there you vse also a fallacy: for to fall, in that place signifieth to fall away wholy and altogether from grace and saluation. For the place of S. Iohn, vve meane not that good workes are sinnes, but that they haue some sinne mixed with them. For it followeth not that siluer is drosse, because it hath some drosse mingled with it. And Christ came not to the end there should be no sinne left in his Saints whilest they liue here, but that he might take away the guilt of sinne. And what if S. Paul hath compared our good workes to siluer, gold, or precious stones? Know you not that euen in the best mettals, and in such stones there may some drosse be found? But the Apostle compareth sound do­ctrine to these things; than which there is nothing more precious if it be kept pure and incorrupted. The Prophets and Apostles do well to exhort vs to doe good workes: but if they bid vs do our duty, doth it therefore follow, that vvee may not commit some sinne in doing thereof? Last of all touching your de­maund concerning faith, you bewray your ignorance; for we are not iustified by faith, as it is a worke or action of ours, for it is imperfect: but because it is as the hand wherby we lay hold on Christ, and Christ calleth faith a worke either by imitation, or because it is the worke of the holy Ghost that kindleth it in our hearts. Luther said this, and hee saide it truely. For in euery action of a man, [Page 251] DVR. There­fore no acti­on can euer be either ex­cellent or good. VVell said Diony­sius, That that vvhich is good, must n [...]edes come of a cause perfectly good. WHIT. pag. 701. Is there any so dull, as to say that there is no health not soundnes in the body at all, because there is onlie some thing in the body not so sound as it should be? As for Dionysius, he spea­keth of that entire and perfect good which we neuer attaine to in this life. For as long as the flesh lusteth against the spirit, there can be no such entire good in vs, proceeding from entire and perfect causes. though neuer so excellēt, there is some fault, which may wholy marre the action, and make it odious to God, if that which is done bee weighed in the bal­lance of diuine iustice. But after that the Lord hath receiued vs wholy to fauour in Christ, those things which are but begun in vs, & besprinkled with some blots,DVR. VVhat a monstrous speech is this? Is it possible that euen sinnes should please God? WHIT. pag. 702. Can you put no difference betvveene the corruption of the action, and the action it selfe? A good father loueth the obedience and dutie of his sonne, vvhich he knovveth neuerthelesse is not such as it ought to be, and how much more doth God accept the slender and vveake endeuours of his children? yet they please him as if they were entire and pure, because he looketh vpon our persons, and he doth not make search into the worth and merit [Page 252]of the worke. These things spake Luther and confir­med them by the sentences of sacred Scriptures and holy Fathers: which you could much more easilie passe by than confute. Goe forward. No man of him­selfe thinketh euill. This is maliciously obiected, as are all the rest. God doth throw into no man an euill thought, he compelleth the will of none to sinne: yet nothing is done by chaunce or fortune: and in the very sinnes of men the prouidence of God ru­leth. Those thoughts of men which are euill, spring out of a certaine inbred naughtines proper to euery one: and yet the Lord can applie them to his owne will. For so Ioseph answereth his brethren: Ye thought euill against me, but the Lord turned it to good. Gen. 50.20.

Now you adde:DVR. Then vvhy ansvve­red Christ the yong man in the Gospell vvith this, keepe the Cō ­mandements? And hovv doe theeues and adulterers sinne? or hovv is it a sinne novv to omit the duties of the morall Lavv, more then to omit offering vp of sacrifices? WHIT. pag. 703. That vvhich Christ ansvvered to the yong man Matth. 19.17. may vvell bee said vnto you. For you seeke righteousnes by the Lavv: vvherefore keepe the Lavv if you vvill enter into life. But here you shall find no vvay to enter. Luther nor any of vs, euer denied that the Lavv pertaineth vnto Christians. For the righteousnes of the Lavv is eternall, and euery man ought vvith all endeuour to frame his life according to the same. But it is one thing to bee bound by the Lavv, and ano­ther thing to conforme and fr [...]me our liues by the rule of the Lavv. Wherfore theeues do sinne, and are iustly punished; and much more they that establish the ceremonies of Moses Lavv, vvhich are vvholy abrogated. The decalogue belongeth not to Christians. God doth not care for our workes. Touching the decalogue and workes, this answere I make you briefely. In the law the olde couenant is contained; Doe this and liue: Gal. 3.10. Deut. 27.26 DVR Moses denounceth not the cursse against the breaches of euery small precept, but to those only, vvhich he there reckoneth vp: vvhich vvere certainly very haynous sinnes. WHIT. pag. 708. If that curse be only proper to those, vvho are guilty of the sinnes there numbred and set dovvne, vvhat shall vve then thinke of blasphe­mers, adulterers, and of other horrible malefactors? are they free from this cursse? if this be impious and absurde, then must it be vnderstood of all, euen as many as do transgresse the Lavv. And so S. Paul interpreteth the place, vvho vndoubtedly vnderstood the meaning of Moses better then all Iesuites. For he instructing the Galathians, as concerning the iustice of the Lavv, proueth by this testimonie, Gal. 3.10. that none can be iustified by the vvorks of the Lavv, but he that continueth in all things. Either then deny that any lavv vvas vvrit­ten touching small offences, or else confesse that that cursse belongeth to the least offences. If the Apostle had vnderstood it as you doe, the Galathians might haue ansvvered him, that they vvere free from those great sinnes, and so from the cursse, and therefore might vvell hope to be iustified by the Lavv. Fi­nally if Gal. 3.13. Christ hath freed vs from the cursse of the Law, shall vve thinke that this is only, from the cursse due to a fevv grieuous sinners? I hope by this time, you see the error of your interpretation, which you haue sucked from your corrupt maisters. Cursed is euery one that continu­eth not in all things which are written in the booke of the law to do them. The law promiseth life to them, which [Page 253]obey the Law in all things: they that offend in any thing, to them it threatneth death and damnation.DVR. Yet Christ Math. 11.30. saith, My youke is easie and my bur­den light. And S. Iohn. 1. E­pist. 2.4. Ho that saith, I know him and keepeth not his Comman­dements, is alayr. WHIT. pag. 705. S. Ioh. 1. Epist. 5.3.4. expoundeth the speech of Christ, His Commandements are not grieuous: For all that is borne of God, ouer­commeth the world: and this is the victorie that ouercommeth the world, euen our faith. This yoke then to those who haue faith seameth not grieuous, because they are inflamed with the loue of Gods Law, neither feare they the curse of it because they are ingrafted by faith into Christans for the place of S. Iohn, I answere; they are said to keepe the Commandement [...], who do their best en­endeuour to keepe them. If any do thinke that he so keepeth them, that hee is without all sinne, that is, that he perfectly keepeth them, S. Iohn calleth him a lyar, 1. Ioh. 1.8. An hard condition, and which no man can euer sa­tisfie. Christ doth propose to vs another condition much easier:Mar. 16.16. Beleeue and thou shalt bee saued. By this new Couenant the oldDVR. If it be abrogated, how are we not freed from the obe­dience of it? If God require only that you beleeue; then by beleeuing you fulfill the Lavv, and so haue not only an imputed, but an inherent righteousnes. WHIT. pag. 614. I say not, that the Law is simplie abolished, but in some respect. Therefore it vvill not follovv that vve are freed from the obedience of it. Againe, vvee say not, that faith fulfilleth the Law, as if it did performe perfect obediēce to it, but because it layeth hold on Christ, vvho is the end and perfection of the Lavv, and on his righteousnes. Therefore is it not an inherent, but an imputatiue iustice. is abrogated; so as whosoe­uer beleeueth the Gospell, is freed from the conditi­on of the Law.Gal. 5.18. Rom. 6.14. For they that DVR. Christ saith not as you write, but Hee that beleeueth and is baptised shall be saued, Now they who are baptised, haue receiued from God a good will to keepe the whole Law, which they determine afterwards by the grace of Christ to obserue. WHIT. pag. 715. The words of Christ confirme as [...]ch as I brought them for. For Baptisme is not a worke of the Law, but a wale of faith. And Christ sheweth that our saluation consisteth only in faith. And though the baptised frame theirliues according to the rule of the Law, and are endued with new wills and new strength, yet they do it not with that mind to iustifie themselues by their obedience before the Lord. Then should they lose the righteousnes of faith, which doth not consist in our merits and good vvorkes, but is such as the Apostle describeth Rom. 4.5. beleeue are not vnder the Law, but vnder grace. What needs many words? [Page 254] DVR. This is your new Diui­nitie, that vvee should be freed from the cursse of the Lavv, vvhich vvee cannot fully o­bey, vvhen as Christ at the last shall pronounce the cursse against those vvho haue not obered And Christ (as S. Paul saith) hath freed vs from the cursse, because by his death be [...]ath deserued grace for vs, vvhereby we may keepe the Lavv. WHIT. pag. 713. This is your ignorance in Diuinity. For who is ignorant of that, which the Apostle affirmeth plainely, Gal. 3.13. that Christ hath freed vs from the cursse of the Law? Though then we cannot fully keepe the Law, yet being ingrafted into Christ, and he communicating his righteousnes vnto vs, wee escape the cursse of the Lavv. At the last day it is no maruell if Christ pronounce the cursse of the Law against the reprobates, vvho neuer vvere freed from the cursle. And if Christ by his death brought vs grace to keepe the Law, why might not the Galathians haue kept the Lavv, and obtained righteousnes by it? But the Apostle shevveth them, that Christ tooke the cursle, because he tooke both the sinne and the pu­nishment vpon him, & not that therby he procured thē grace to fulfill the Law. Christians are deliuered from the curse of the law, but not from the obedience of it. As for our works, surely God regardeth them: and if they be good, he rewardeth them: if contrarie, he iudgeth them worthy of punishment:DVR. Jn those vvho are iustified, God much respecteth their vvorkes, as in A­braham Iam 2.21. and 1. Ioh. 3.7. And in Phinehas, Psal. 106.31. his vvorke imputed for righteousnes. WHIT. pag. 716. To the places of Saint Iames and Saint Iohn you haue been ansvvered before. The fact of Phin [...]ha [...] proceeded from faith, and so the praise of it to bee giuen to faith, not to the worke. If you accounted of Th [...]mas, as you make shew of, your iudgment vvould bee sounder in these things. For thus he vvriteth on Galat. 3. VVorkes are not the cause that any one is iust before God. but they are aff [...]ctes and manifestations of righteousnes. Neither Luther, not any of vs say any more. but in iustifying of vs, God hath no respect to our works:DVR. The Prophet saith not that a man is iust, because be beleeneth, but that be vvho is iust, doth liue by his faith, that is, doth vphold himselfe by his faith, and sainteth not. It is as ab­surd to be iust by another mans iustice, as to liue by another mans life. WHIT. pag. 716. I could admit of your exposition, but that I am persvvaded the Apostle vnderstood the Prophers mind beuer then you. For the Apostle hath vsed it to proue, that we are iustified by faith, and not by the workes of the Law: no not by those which are wrought after faith; for thus he reasoneth, Gal. 3.11. That [...] man is iustified by the Law in the sight of God, it is euident, for the iust shall liue by faith. And the Law is not of faith. What hath he concluded but that you de­my? that is, that the Prophet hath said, that a man is iustified, because hee belee­ueth. So Chrysast in Gal. 3. sheweth that saith iustifieth by the testi [...]nie of the Prophet Abakuk. Which if it were not, what concerneth it the Galathians, who vvere endued vvith faith, and ioyned their vvorkes vvith their faith. If it be ab­surd to be iust by another mans righteousnes, I pray you tel me, hovv the Scrip­ture calleth Christ both the cursse and sinne? As for vs we had rather be absurd vvith the holy Ghost, then vvise vvith you. for the iust shall liue, not by his works, but by his faith. Now goe [Page 255]on.DVR. Then where is your faith which as­sureth you of the remission of your sinnes, and quiteth all your troubled thoughts? But holy men dili­gently prepared themselues, and so came to this Sacrament. ha­uing quiet minds, free frō guilt of sinne. And in the Pri­mitiue times they who had fallen, were not admitted to the Eucharist, but after cō ­fession & full satisfaction made for their sins. And then a Deacon was wont to crie. Holy things are for holy men. WHIT. pag. 718. You haue not tasted what true faith is, if you thinke all sorrowes & doubts are remoued, so soone as faith is begotten. The Prophet often remembreth his sorrowes, Psal. 42.5.6. & 32.4. And this all the faithfull haue experience of, and yet are vpheld by their faith. They are the best prepared who haue the greatest sorrowes for their sins, and in the word and Sacrament seeke a salue for them. For wherefore was the sup­per ordained, but to strengthen and confirme our faith. Therfore the best pre­pared haue many temptations and sorrowes in themselues. The custome of the Church proueth nothing against this. For will you account them wicked and prophane, whose consciences are frighted with the sense and bitter sorrowes for their sinnes? So shall you wickedly condemne the most holie seruants of God. Only they do rightly receiue the Lords Supper, who bring sorrowful, afflicted, & cōfounded consciences. And so it is indeed, for they are no right receiuers, who trusting to their owne merits come audaciously, but they who heing opprested with the greatues of their sinnes,Psal. 51.19. doe desire to bee eased. For they which are whole desire not the Physitian. A contrite and bro­ken hart is an acceptable sacrifice to God. wherefore they which haue greatest feeling of their sinnes and sorrow for them, to them that heauenly food is wont to bee most wholesome. Good Lord, who would euer thinke it might come to passe, that anie Christian should dislike these things! But is there a­ny thing else?DVR. VVho knoweth not that the Nouatians vvere condemned of the vvhole Church for denying this authoritie to the Priests? And that it vvas an old custome of the Church, as Tertullian hath it, that penitentials vvere sent to none but to the Priests: to whom, as Ambrole, Hierome, & Chrysostome writ, the keyes and power of binding and loosing are committed. WHIT. pag. 720. That you speake of the Nouatians and the custome of the Church toucheth not Luther, for they admitted neither repentance not confession in the Church: did Lu­ther euer any such thing? or did he euer reproue the custome of the Church, that they who had offended publikely, did publikely testiue their repentance. It was a priuate auricular confession of all sinnes which hee reproued, which is without testimonie either of Scripture of sincere Antiquitie: which made Ne­ctarius Bishop of Constantinople put it out of the Church for the offence of a Deacon. For the Fathers by which you would establish your keyes, we haue a­gainst them Augustine in Ioan. tract. 124. and Theophil in Matth. 18. You may confesse you sinnes, but to any [Page 256]bodie, DVR. ƲVhat is then more manifest then that hee may giue a Sacra­ment which ne­uer intēded [...]? VVe beleeue that Priests as Iudges can ab­solue the guilty from their sins. WHIT pag. 722. When as faith depen­deth vpon no mans will, and faith bringeth remission of sins, another mans will cānot hinder, but that they who beleeue, may haue the pardon of their sins For that to the Centurion, Mat. 8.13. is to eu [...]ry man▪ As thou beleeuest, so b [...]t [...]to thee, & not as another wil. If absolution were then in the Ministers will, it should not be as men beleeue, but as their Minister thin­keth: than vvhich nothing can be more abs [...]d. What skilleth it, vvhether the Minister be in [...]est or earnest? if I beleeue seriously his iest shall not hurt mee. And what is more mi [...]erable, then to ba [...]g the dignitie of the Sacrament vpon the thought and intention of the Minister? which if it were true of Sacramēts, yet what is that to absolution, which neuer was a Sacramēt? wheras you say you beleeue that the Pries [...] do absolue men, as Iudges do, I do not find fault with it. And such [...]u [...]ges are they, as Priests vnder the Law were of diseases. The chiefe Pr [...]st iudged of the Leprosie, which he neither inflicted nor cured. So the Minister doth pronounce and iudge all beleeuers to be absolued, and the contrarie vpon the wicked and vnbeleeuers. who if he do absolue you but in iest, so as you be­leeue, you are absolued. And why not? for it is not need full, either to number sins by our fingers, or to vse a Priest or a Frier, such a one as your selfe.Iam. 1.16. 1. Ioh. 1.9. We may confesse our faults one to another, so as Friers may be idle hereafter. And whosoeuer beleeueth that his sinnes are forgiuen him, him saith it selfe absolues, whether he be absolued in iest or in earnest.

Well, make haste. To reade prayers by the houre, be­longeth not to Priests, but to lay mē. What your Priests do, or what they thinke they ought to do, it con­cernes me not. Let them reade, let them pray, let them say Masse, let them drinke, let them play, and in a word, let them be alwayes like themselues. It behoueth a Minister of the Gospell not to recite cer­taine [Page 257]Collects by an houre-glasse, and to make his walke in them certaine spaces of houres, but to giue daily diligence vnto reading,1. Tim. 4.13 exhortation, and do­ctrine; which things your Priests haue euer thought to be farre different from their office. But these same prayers by the houre albeit they do not ill agree to your sacrificing priests, who vnlesse they should spēd the time on this fashion, would neuer goe out of Stewes and Tauernes, yet are they vnworthie of a Christian man, because of their infiniteDVR. Js it superstition to sing Psalmes vnto God, to pray for remissi­on of sinnes, and other temporall and spirituall graces, and to performe other exercises of re­ligion? vvho knovveth not, that Christians had their night Psalmes? that the Hymnes of Am­brose vvere at set times. In the Acts vve read, that Peter and Iohn vvent into the Temple at the ninth houre of prayer. WHIT. pag. 726. These things I repro­ued not as superstitious and impious, but that all the time, which should be be­stovved in instructing the people, should be spent in saying their daily appoin­ted houres, specially in that tongue vvhich not the people, and often times not the Priest himselfe doth vnderstand. No man is ignorant that Christians had their night houres, but it vvas because they might not assemble themselues in the day time: vvill you keepe this custome, and not be accounted superstitious? The Hymnes of Ambrose are full of piety, and sarre from superstitious chaun­ting As for the Apostles, they vvent not vp to sacrifice nor to keepe Canoni­call houres, but to instruct the people who came thither to the euening sacri­fice in great multitudes. supersti­tion. Let vs heare the rest. Christians are free from the lawes of men. That neuer came into Luthers mind, to pluck in peeces the authority of the Magistrates, which he did alwaies defend most diligently against the Anabaptists.DVR. It they be bound to obey, hovv are their con­sciences free from the religion of them? Jf vvas a humane lavv, Act. 15.20. tou­ching, strangled and blood. And Rom. 13.2.5. and 1. Pet. 2.13.13. WHIT. pag. 730. To the first I answere, that some things may be done, vvhereunto vve are not bound in conscience: vve must [...]bey humane and politike lavves, because they are necessary for peace and publike tranquillitie. Yet vve must distinguish humane lavves from Diuine. For the Lawes of God must simplie bee obeyed without any difference of time, place and circumstance: but the lawes of men as he circumstances require. For example, he that is a Romane and liueth at Rome must obey the Romane lavves? If hee goe into Persia, he is not bound to keepe there the Romane lavvea vpon any necessitie. Then they bind not the conscience, for then should they in all places bind alike. 2. That Law of the Apostles did not simplie binde the conscience, but in respect of the weake bro­ther lest he should be offended: vvhom the lavv of God bindeth not to offend. Againe this was the law, not of mē, but of the spirit of God. 3. For the places of S. Paul and S. Peter, I answere, the Apostles doth not insnare the conscience vvith euery particular precept of the Magistrate, but they speake of his autho­ritie, which is sacred and holy, and cannot with any good conscience bee con­temned. It is the commandement of God, that we obey Magistrates, and this doth bind the conscience: in generall therefore he is to be obeyed for consci­ence sake; but his particular lawes do not bind the conscience. Againe, when we obserue their particular lawes, wee doe not so stand vpon the precepts, as if doing of them would quiet the conscience and satisfie it: but wee looke to the end, that is, the will of God, vvhich commandeth obedience to honest and iust lavves. Christians are free, not that they may obey no lawes, and liue only to themselues, but that they may vnderstand that their consciences and minds are freed from making the lawes of men to [Page 258]be religion. The Pope of Rome hath bound the con­sciences of Christian men with his Decrees and Ca­nons, and thereby hath laid such a snare vpon their minds, as that they might thinke they are no lesse bound by the Popes Canons, then by Christs pre­cepts. Therfore Luther freeth Christian liberty from those euill opinions wherein it had bene infolded, and bringeth it into that state in which Christ would haue it to be, that we should acknowledge him only to be the Lord of our conscience, and that we should obey the lawes of men with a free conscience. We are now at length come to the bottome of this puddle, which although you haue stirred with all your diligence, yet you haue not found so much as one paradoxe, or a peece of a paradoxe of ours. But now if I would but a little make search into the most filthy puddles of your writers, as to recken vp what they haue affirmed, of God, of the Prouidence of God, of Predestination, of the Person and Offices of Christ, of Originall sin, of the Law, of Righteousnes, of the Sacraments, of Purgatory, of the Pope of Rome, and of the rest of the greatest controuersies in Religion, how many Carts should I fill with para­doxes, horrible to be spoken, or thought? But it is [Page 259]better not at this time to stirre this common Sewre: and otherwhere (I hope) occasion will be giuen to speake hereof. Now in that you would ioine the Lutherans and Zwinglians together, therein surely you haue not offended vs, for we both reuerence Luther as a father, and we embrace them as very deere brethren in Christ. And verily we hope it will come to passe, that this controuersie, which is be­tweene vs being compounded, we shall all with ioint minds and studies set vpon the common ene­mie. As for that you say touching your selfe, I am easily perswaded to thinke it to be true, whether it be that you speake it hartily or sainedly. For what (I beseech you) haue you alledged, for which wee should not rather thinke you to be some Rhetoricall Actor vpon a Stage, then a learned and experienced Diuine? Campian, if you be wise, be quiet, for (be­leeue me) you cannot indure the force and violence of this combate. Let those choise and old souldiers put themselues into the camp, who are, if not more bold to prouoke, yet more wary to auoid blowes, and much more skilfull in all discipline of warre. To enter combate with these, both the Vniuersities haue many worthie men, and I trust there will neuer want excellent Diuines to wage perpetuall warre with the broken bands of Antichrist.

WILLIAM WHITAKERS. The answere to the ninth Reason, which is the Aduersaries Sophismes.

IT is a goodly thing that Sophi­sters complaine of fallacies, and that you, who your selues are al­together compact of fraud, lies, and impostures, do vpbraid vs with Sophistrie. All your Diui­nitie, which ought to be honest and sincere without deceipt and fraud, hath of late [Page 263]degenerated into a subtle fleight of disputing like Schoole-boyes and Sophisters: for after that you had abandoned true Diuinitie out of the Churches, and as it were exiled the light from mens eyes, then you began at last to put forth curious questions in the Schooles; and so, as pore blind men, to be ad­mired of those who saw nothing. Hence arose that innumerable army of Sophisters, who confounded themselues with their refined idle disputes, as with mutuall wounds, in so much as who so could best skill of counterfet and captious trifling conclusions, he should be reputed as some King or petie God o­uer those blind and squint-eyed smatterers in Diui­nitie. And this hope of domineering amongst so many blind ones hath egged on you Iesuites thus diligently to dwell vpon this craft, and to put downe all the ancient Sophisters for deceipt and fraude, your selues being yet but vpstarts: For if there were euer any kingdome of pore-blind men ouer the starck blind, questionlesse it is now wholly descended vn­to you, to whom the ancienter orders of Monks and Friers do willingly yeeld the garland, because they thinke▪ you see something. Play your prizes now you noble Sophisters, and execute with all diligence the Sophisticall dominion which you haue gotten, lest some hereafter happily sleely dispossesse you of this honor: for shortly some one or other new family and sect of Sophisters will gather strength, which (if you looke not well about you) will at last shoulder and shuffle you violently out of place, and enter vpon this soueraigntie ouer the schoole of So­phistrie, which now for some yeares you haue pos­sessed. For out of doubt, kingdomes themselues en­titled vpon pety sleights and deceiptfull conueian­ces of words, cannot long continue. Seeing there­fore this your whole shew of new learning consists in furbushing vp of vntruths, and refining the for­mer [Page 264]Sophistrie, verily I make no question, but as it is of yesterdayes building, so it will shortly fall to ruine.

But for as much as you mention certain Sophismes as ours, and perswade your fauorites that we vse ve­ry much sophistrie; before I answere to these your falshoods which you lay to our charge, I will giue the reader a tast of your owne most notorious false-groundedDVR. Our Auncestors, o­therwise most wise men, ha­uing not al­vvaies to deale with wilfull spirits, did not strictly stand vpon exact forme of tea­ching. WHIT. pag. 734. The cause is the more despe­rate whē such wise mē could find no better arguments to maintaine it, but such as euen your self confesse to be but weake: and both their hearers were then too cre­dulous to be­leeue, and you are now ridi­culous to de­fend such loose arguments. disputations, and deceiptfull Elenches; that so,Pvralogis­mis & E­lenchis. whether you or we be more truly to be tear­med Sophisters, the Schoole and Vniuersitie it selfe may determine betwixt vs, where you desire rather these things should be discussed, then amongst the vulgar. I for my part do appeale vnto this schoole of Philosophers, and Vniuersitie of Diuines; and I earnestly beseech all men who haue vnderstanding in the principles either of Diuinitie or Logick, and as many as euer tasted of any Schoole-learning, that they will heedfully obserue how current these your conclusions be, and examine them by the rules of right and true disputation.

And indeed to chuse, I will there begin, where you your selfe haue made an entrance. We main­teine, that it is lawfull for Ministers of the Gospell, and for Deacons, to be maried. You skorne the ar­guments whereby we make it good. Wherefore let vs consider what goodly stuffe is brought on your side for the contrarie.

Pope Innocent, the second of that name,Distinct. 82 Proposuisti. Rom. 8.8. thus con­cludeth (you must suppose) by diuine inspiration a­gainst these mariages: They which are inDVR. Pope Innocent spake of Priests, who had vowed single life of their ovvne accord, but aftervvard yeelded to lust. WHIT. pag. 735. Nay he spake that of all Deacons and Priests, for hee saith further (Distinct. 82. cap. proposuisti) It is not lawfull to admit them to holy offices, which vse carnall companie [...]ith their wiues, because it is written, [...]e yee holy, for [...] the Lord your God am holy: for then hee esteemed marriage duty to bee an vnholie thing in it selfe; not in respect of their vow, of which he speaketh not a word. the flesh [Page 265]cannot please God:Tit. 1.15. Vnto the pure, al things are pure, but vnto them that are defiled and vnbeleeuing, is nothing pure. Be yee holy, because I the Lord your God am holy. And because S. Paul permitteth mar­ried people (by consent) to sleepe apart for a season, to the end they may more conueniently giue them­selues to fasting & praier;Distinct. 31. Tenere. here hēce the Pope gathe­reth, that this is much moreDVR. This argument is good and can haue no shew of error. For, a­boue all men, a Priest must be chaste, saith O­rigen, Homil. 6 4. in Leuit. Al­so Ierome and Ambrose, and Epiphanius taught the same WHIT. pag. 736. Yea you er [...]e and mistake S. Paul in theree things: 1. What he wrote to all Christians, you expound of Lay-men only. 2. He speaketh only of extraordinarie fasts & prayer, but you applie it vnto all sorts thereof. That the Apostle speaketh of extraordinarie, appeares, 1. Because he hath ioyned fasting with them, 1. Cor. 7.5.2. Because Christ and his Apostle haue comman­ded all to pray continually, and so all ought to l [...]ue a single life. 3. From a short abstinence of Lay-men, you childishly would proue a perpetuall single life to be necessary for Ministers. You abuse also Origens words, (& play the heretike) as if chastitie were contrary to matrimony; whereas the Fathers of the Nicene Councell, consented to Paphnutius, who said openly, that society with a lavvfull wi [...]e, is chastitie: Socrates lib. 1. cap. 11. Jerome indeed disputed too sophistically against matrimony, seeking victory more then verity, as himself confessed. Am­br [...]se and Epiphanius disswaded Ministers only from second m [...]riages, allowing their fi [...]st. to be done of Priests, whose office is to pray alwaies, & to offer that daily sacrifice.Distinct. 28 Decernimus Last of al, seeing they must be a tēple of the Lord, and an oratory of the spirit,DVR. Tertullian vsed this same argument against second marriage. WHIT. pag. 739. Tertullian therein erred with Montanus, (as all the learned know) condemning second marriages, of vncleannes, not only in Ministers, but in all Christians: yet he himselfe being a Priest, was married, and liued with his wife, continuing his Ministery: so that he neither iudged marriage to be vn­cleanenes, nor vnlavvfull in Ministers, simplie; but only second marriages. they ought not to abase themselues with bed-pleasures & vnclean­nesses. Now out of all these he cōcludeth that which he propounded, that Deacons and Priests are flatlie forbidden to marry.Harding and Dor­man and others. If these things be absurdly dis­puted, let vs heare others. Seuerall Pastors haue rule ouer seuerall flockes:DVR. The Pope challengeth no Lordship ouer the Churches, but professeth him­selfe the seueruant of Gods seruants. WHIT. pag. 740. But his dee [...]s bewray his tyranny: for he prescribeth, commandeth, threatneth, punisheth, and doth whatsoeuer any Lord can do. DVR. You can dispro [...]e this consequent by no ar­gument. WHIT. pag. 741. It is an absurd argument, like these; Euery seuerall man hath one head; therefore all men must haue one head: Euery seuerall flocke hath his shepheard; therefore all flockes must haue one to rule them. Againe: no one man can possiblie teach and feed the whole Church with the Word and Sacrament as a faithfull Pastor should, and may doe in a particular Church Christ only can thus feed al particular Churches, which can neuer be made one visible body, and therefore can haue none but Christ the generall head and Pastor ouer them. DVR. Ierome, Cyprian, and Ireneus, haue writ­ten the same we doe. WHIT. pag 742. Not one of them. First, Ierome defen­deth the superiority of one Pastor in the Church, not as a matter of accessitie, but of conueniency, to preuent schismes: and saith, that the Church is founded vpon all the Apostles alike, and that euery one equally hath receiued the keies of the kingdome of heauen; euen in that place where you quote him: (against Iouinian, lib. 1.) Secondly, Cyprian cōcludeth only, that there should be but one Pastor in one Church and neuer thought vpon the Popes primacie; but saith plainly, that euery particular Bishop hath all whatsoeuer any one hath by right; in the same booke which you alleadge, of the Churches vnity. Lastly, Ireneus called the Romane, the chiefe Church, not for any superiority, but because she excelled all others in constancie, largenes, fame, and soundnes of faith. therefore the Pope ought to [Page 266]haue dominion ouer all Churches. Christ said to Pe­ter feed my sheepe;DVR. Jt is manifest by this place, that Christ gaue greater autho­ritie of feeding to Peter, than to the other Apostles, and so made him head of all his Church. WHIT. p. 744. It will not follow vpon this place, that Peter had greater authority to feed, or that he only must feede all: for he said to them all alike, Matth. 28.19. Goe yee, teach all nations: and Iob. 20 21. As the Father sent me, so I send you: There­fore he spake so often then to Peter, to confirme him after his grieuous fall, that he might not doubt of his Apostolicall calling, as saith Augustines trea­tise on Iohn 123. so that it no whit concerneth the Pope. therefore Peter is the chiefe & principall Pastor of the Church. The Lord made two great lights, the Sunne,DVR. The Pope vseth this as a similitude to amplifie, not as an argument to prooue by authoritie. WHIT. pag. 746. This is an idle shift; a similitude is an argument, and Johannes Andraeas would prooue hereby, that the Pope excelleth the Empe­ror in dignitie, seuentie times seuen degrees. & the Moone: therfore the Pope excelleth the Emperour in honour and great­nes. Heere are two swords; therfore theDVR. VVe gather nothing hence, but vvhat Bernard did: saying, This sword (of temporall povver) is thine also, happily at thy commaund, though not to be drawne with thy hand: speaking to the Pope. WHIT. pag. 747. Duraeus is ashamed of this sophisme, bu [...] yet he fathereth it vpon Bernard, which also Iohannes a Capistrano (of the Pope and Councels, p 77.) and others of them haue handled▪ and Pope Boni­niface girt himselfe with a sword in signe hereof: but this place speaketh no­thing at all for any such power. Pope must [Page 267]beare both swords. The seruant is not aboue his ma­ster: thereforeDVR. What Catholike euer taught, or wrote thus? howbeit the Fathers of the Sinuessan Councell said. The chiefe seate is iudged of no man. WHIT. pag. 749. Thus you will make the Pope no Catholike who saith (Dist. 40. si P [...]pa) The Pope may bee reproued of no mortall man, though he leade with him innumerable people vnto hell. And who knoweth not these two pillers of Popery; the Church of Rome cannot erre, what­soeuer it teacheth: and the Pope may not be accused whatsoeuer [...]e doth? The Bi­shops of the Sinuessan Synode spake to Marcellinus the Pope, who had denied Christ, and committed Idolatrie, and might bee accused by the Popes owne lawes, so that in citing that authoritie, you contradict both your selfe and your lawes. it is lawfull for no man to accuse or reproue the Pope. Christ prayed that Peters faith should not faile him:DVR. Christ made Peter his Vicar on earth, and by his prayer obtained that his Vicars faith might not faile; by force vvherof the Pope cannot erre: as Au­gustine and Cyprian also perceiued. WHIT pag. 750. It is not true that Christ made Peter his Vicar, nor doth it follow; Peters faith failed not, therefore no Popes faith hath failed, who are his successors: for Popes haue done, and may fall into heresies, as you will confesse; and may erre in faith, saith Pope Boni­face (D [...]st 40. Papa:) which he could not do it this argument of yours vvere true. Further Christ prayed for all his Apostles, and the whole Church: shal we say Christs prayer was lesse effectuall for the rest then for Peter? If it be not, then none of their successors could erre no more then Peters: which I suppose you will not affirme. And Augustine, and Cyprian neuer reasoned as you do; you abuse their names. therefore the Pope cannot erre. The vulgar people commeth seldome and neg­ligently to the Lords Supper:DVR. If you beleeued the Prophet Malachie, or the Masse, you vvould confesse this argument to be good. WHIT pag. 753. You can neuer proue your Masse by the Prophet Malachie, who speaketh of the prayers of the godly, as Tertullian, Eusebius, and Jerome expound him: and if the Masse were a sacrifice indeed, (as you call it) the peoples negligence, is no sufficient cause to make it priuate, and yet to profit the people, yea though they be absent: you may aswel abuse the Word it selfe so; and say it is inough, when it is in publike, it the Priest handle it and heare it, and beleeue it alone, yet the people being absent and not dreaming of any such thing, may be saued by it. therefore the Priest may celebrate priuate Masse. Christ admitted onlie his Apostles to Suppe: therefore Priests alone mustDVR. The people also receiue the vvhole Sacrament, vnder one kind. WHIT pag. 754. It is childish dotage to say so; as though one part of a thing, were the vvhole; or, as if Christ appointing both bread and wine, ordained more then a whole Sa­crament: that Pope was wiser, vvhich said of certaine heretikes that refrained from the Cup, as you do [...], (De concil. dist. 2. cap. Comperimus:) Let them ei­ther receiue the vvhole Sacrament, or refuse all. DVR. Christs vvords, Drinke yee all of this, proue n [...]t that all Christians must doe so. WHIT. pag. 755. They doe proue it, as those vvords, take eate, doe proue that all must eate: and you may as vvell keepe both the elements from the people, as one, contrarie to S. Paul, 1. Cor. 11.23. DVR. The Passeouer might be eaten vvith­out vvine. WHIT. pag. 756. It might, because God had not commaunded vvine, but Christ himselfe commaundeth it in his Supper, 1. Cor. 11.45. DVR. The common people are a [...]t bound to drinke of the Cap: for S. Paul saith, As oft as ye drinke it, to signifie they were not commanded so to doe. WHIT. So he saith of the bread also, As of, as yee eate, 1. Cor. 11.26. so that, by your argu­ment, neither is the bread commanded them. receiue the Sacrament; the people ought to bee contented only with one part. The title which Pi­late fastned vpon the Crosse, was written in Hebrew, [Page 268]Greeke, & Latine: therforeDVR. No Catholike doth so reason; we say, that title had in it a my­sterie: and Augustine proueth by it, that the vvord, coessent [...]all, [...], may be vsed in the Creede. WHIT. pag. 757. Papists often reason thus, as all men knovve which read their writings, though you bee ashamed of it. Tell vs what my­sterie you meane, if it bee worth the labour; as for Augustine, hee speakes no word that makes here for your cause, yet you blush not to quote him. prayers must bee read in the Churches in no language, but either Hebrew, or Greeke, or Latine.Harding. That which is holy must not be giuen to dogges:DVR. VVe say not, that all, but that some of the people may not haue the Scrip­tures committed to them. WHIT. pag. 758. Who doubteth but that vvise­dome is to be vsed in teaching the people; and that they vvhich shevv them­selues dogges, and hogges, must be barred from the Scriptures: but this is no­thing to the present question; vvhether this reason be good, vvhich Papists sometimes vse: and vvhich here you should haue spoken to, and not thus vvan­der. therfore the vulgar people must be forbidden to reade the Scriptures. This is my bodie: therefore theDVR. Christ said it vvay his bodie. WHIT. pag. 759. Christ by an vsuall phrase of Scripture, called the thing signifying by the name of the thing signified, because of the sacramentall ioint receiuing of both, to vvit, of the bread vvith the mouth, and of his bodie by faith. Againe, if that vvhich vvas in Christs hands vvere his reall body, vvhen he said so, then vvas transubstan­tiation before (vvhich you deny) and then he had tvvo bodies: but if it vvere bread, then is there a metonymie in his vvords, as vvee truly say. bread is turned into Christs bodie. Fall downe before his footestoole:DVR. Ambrose and Augustine reasoned so from this Scripture. WHIT p. 761. That is false: they teach onely, that vve must vvorship Christ in the mysteries and Sa­crament; not the my [...]teries and Sacrament themselues. there­fore the Sacrament must be worshipped. God is no respecter of persons:Pighius. DVR. That vvas Pighius his error: but the iudgement of Catholike Vniuersities is, that foresee­ing of merits is no cause of Predestination. WHIT. pag. 762. Thus you fall from your champion Pighius in vvords, but indeed many of your Schooles defend him: saying, the kingdome of heauen is prepared for them vvhich haue merited it by their good works. therefore hee chuseth no [Page 269]man to life eternall, but with respect of merits. S. Iames commaundeth that sicke persons should be anointed: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. therefore we must now euer and anon anoint the sicke. This is a great mysterie: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. there­fore Matrimonie is a Sacrament. Elias and Iohn Baptist liued in the wildernesse: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? therefore they in­uented the manner of life and discipline of Monkes. There are seuen deadly sinnes: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. therefore there are iust seuen Sacraments. God made man after his i­mage: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? therefore images must be set vp in Chur­ches. The chiefest of these is charitie: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. therefore we are iustified more by charitie than by faith. I will goe,Osea. 5.15. saith the Lord, to my place, vntill they ponder [Page 270]in their heart, and seeke my face: (which indeede he spakeDVR. 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. 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: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. therefore those things may be performed of vs. Christ descen­ded to the dead: therefore he deliueredDVR 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. the Fa­thers out of Limbus. The Church discerneth the Scriptures: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. therefore the authoritie of the Church is greater than the authoritie of the Scriptures. Saint Paul commaundeth the Thessalonians,2. Thess. 2.15 that they keepe the ordinances which they had learned: [Page 271]thereforeDVR. 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. all things are not written which are ne­cessarie to saluation.2. Cor. 3, 15. Hee himselfe shall bee safe, yet as it were through fire: 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 Psal. 118. 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. therefore men passe thorow the fire of Purgatorie to life eternall.

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 haue thus briefely collected: which what goodly ones they be, our Vni­uersitie [Page 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 foure chiefe heads of deceitfull dispu­ting,Sciamachia. 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,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. despitefully, and wic­kedly [Page 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, 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. Tatianus, 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 isDVR. 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. true; therefore the consequent is necessarily true also.Hebr. 13.4. 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? As for your sleight euasi­on, because of a former vowe, I haue already confu­ted it. Let vs now proceede vnto your other exam­ples.

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 [Page 274]which are vrged by our side against mens merits, doe most clearely confute you and strike you dead. Mans nature is corrupt;Gen. 6.5. [...]. Rom. 4.15. 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 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. merit 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 aDVR. 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. debte, that meriteth not: but whatsoeuer (good [Page 275]thing) we doe,Rom. 8.12. Luk. 17.10. Rom. 4.4. 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. [...]al. 2.21. If righteousnesse be by the Law; then Christ died in vaine: but if we be iustified by ourDVR. 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. 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.

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,Psal. 50.15. that we inuocate him alone: wherefore who so worshippeth and in­uocatethDVR. 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? 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 [Page 276]beDVR. 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. 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.1. Tim. 1.5. Rom. 8.34. Heb. 7.25. 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, areDVR. 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. iniurious vnto Christ. Tell me, Campian, haue you any face to defend these your sentences following?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. 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:

That is to say, Thou (blessed Virgin Marie) art the infallible 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. hope of such as are in miserie, the true mo­ther of Orphanes; Thou art the consolation of such as [Page 277]be oppressed, the medicine of such as bee diseased, Thou art all 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. in 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.

The second error in disputation wherewith you charge vs,Logomachia 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,Epiphan. contra Se­miarian. l. 3 [...]. 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 yourDVR. 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. 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. Masse and Purgatorie, are not in [Page 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 asBustum coenae Domi­nica. 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 nameDVR. 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. 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 [Page 279]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, Eph. 5. This is a great my­sterie. 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,Homonymia 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, Apoc. 5. because the Prophet highly commendeth a spirituall fast. Esay 48. I 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 allDVR. 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. Christians Priests,1. Pet. 2.5.9 but S. Peter also hath tearmed them a holy, and a royall Priest­hood: and this name is in no place of the new Testa­mentDVR. 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. 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 [Page 280]of thisDVR. 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. Priesthood: therefore Christ hath left vnto his (Churches) a Ministerie, and not a new Priest­hood. Neither doth there remaine to vsDVR. 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. any such sa­crifice; for the administration whereof some speciall Priests must needs be authorised. For that sacrifice of praise, and doing good, Hebr. 13.15.16. which 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 orderDVR. 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. 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: [Page 281]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, theDVR. 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. one is witlesse, the other super­stitious. For what man, which is not depriued of iudgement and all sense, will thinke that he fasteth, who (so that he abstaineDVR. 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. 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 [Page 282]Iudaisme? If S. Paul reproued the Galathians,Gal. 4.10. be­cause they did obserue dayes, and 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. moneths, 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,Colos. 2.21. which thought that some certaine meates were not to beDVR. 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. touched, not to be tasted, not to be handled, would he allow the papisticall choice of meates? If he determined long since,1. Tim. 4.2.3 that it was diuelish andDVR. 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. 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 [Page 283](if you can) that they either at any timeDVR. 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 y^e churches iudgmēt in this point touching Aerius 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, [...]. Tim. 4.8. 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.

You haste forward and ioyne vnto these a fourth manner of deceiptfull disputation,Circulatio. 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 [Page 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 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. amisse: 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 [Page 285]vs. Touching the Fathers, I haue answered you alreadie. In the questions of greatest waight, they are wholly on ourDVR. 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. side; 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,Aug. contra Maximian. lib. 3. cap. 14 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? Aug. Epist. 111. ad Fortuna­tian. For 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 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. Ca­nonicall 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, The. Aqui­nas 1. p. 1. q. 2. Art. learne 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 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. Doctors of the Church to dispute of a thing probably.

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.

WILLIAM WHITAKERS. The answere to the tenth Reason, which is all manner of Witnesses.

CAmpian, you are now low drawn and doe plainely bewray your want and desperate beggerie. Hitherto haue you found no place of sure footing, and there­fore now you haue resolued to wander and runne thorough whatsoeuer is in the world. So one while you flie alost into heauen, by and by you slippe downe to hell: after you visit the Iewes, Pagans, Turkes, Here­tikes, Lands, Seas Apostolike, Nations and Countries farre remote, searching diligently for any monu­ment of your superstition. I am sorrie and ashamed on your behalfe, whom I see painefully busied about meere trifles. For what a witles kinde of reasoning is this; first to recken vp the Saints in Heauen, and say, these are ours? Then to number vp the damned, Iewes, Gentiles, Turkes, Heretikes, and affirme those are the enemies of our Church? To rehearse those Countries that haue been conuerted to the faith of Christ, and conclude by and by, these are of our Re­ligion? would you take this man to bee well in his wits, compassing Heauen, Earth and Hell so chil­dishly,DVR. Jf heere he any thing ridicu­lous, then may you laugh at the Prophet, vvho a [...] speedily runnes ouer the whole world. And S. Paul tooke a testimony for a truth out of the beathen Poet, Act. 17.2 [...]. WHIT. pag. 856. Who knoweth not that God may be knowne by his creatures, & religion illustrated by nature vncor­rupt? but what nature, I pray you, hath taught Camptā thus to iudge of the hea­uenly spirits and the damned soules, and of the whole fr [...]me of things? can he learne by nature that those who haue professed the Popish religion, doe novv enioy heauenly happines, and that they who dislike it are tormented in hell? These weapons of Campian were those that impure Symmachus opposed Chri­stian religion withall, Ambros. Epist. 30. Prudent. contra Symmachum. ridiculouslie, and impertinently taking vn­to himselfe, what he liketh, and reiecting the rest? A worthie cauil, fit for none but Iesuites, which when [Page 300]a man hath by one negatiue discharged, can neuer be proued by their peruerse sect and whole societie. These dreames of yours (Campian) are vnworthie any answere, one word of denial confutes this whole Chapter. I will not bestow much time in answering this Sophisme, so vnhansomely framed, and patched together; it shall suffice lightly to passe, and only touch euery thing in a word. First therefore you al­ledge the prophecie of Esay, of a straight way wherein the simple should not erre. DVR. You shew your igno­rance in the Prophet; for he speaketh not of the way to the Church, but of the Church it selfe, vvhich is the high way to heauen. WHIT. pag. 857. Howsoe­uer you inter­pret the way, it maketh neither much for me, nor for you. The question is who shall find out that way and walke in it, for it is not discerned of all, because it is a plaine way, nor held of all, because it is a right way: but he that hath lear­ned Christ is he that walketh in this way without any error, though he be but sillie and vnskilfull. DVR. Jf this be so, then can it not be the true Church, which conteineth sinners and men polluted. And the Fathers by this place exclude only those who are not clensed by Baptisme. WHIT. pag. 858. The Prophet spea­keth of the Church of the elect and Saints, because he saith vers. 8. The polluted shall not passe by it: and vers. 20. the redeemed only, whose ioy shall be euerlasting: but the visible Church conteineth those which are impure, whom Christ hath not redeemed, and whose ioy shall perish. As for Baptisme it purgeth none but such as lay hold of the promise of free iustification by Christ, as Tit. 3.5. Heere the Prophet de­scribes the entrance into Christs Church, viz. that it should be ready, plaine and easie. But this way brings vs not to your Church: c for of this way the Prophet reports, that no prophane man, no Lion or cruell beast shall be found in it; whereas all your waies are com­passed with polluted men, raging beasts, Lions, Beares, Leopards, Dragons, Diuels; and in conclusi­on, they leade miserably bewitched men, vnto wo­full destruction. As for vs, we treade that way, which Christ and his Apostles haue traced out before vs, wee auoyde your erroneous and strange waies, be­cause [Page 301]it is the way of sinners, that you s [...]d in; which way whosoeuer tread [...],Psal. 1.1. Rom. 3.17. the way of pe [...]ce they haue not knowne. First, vnderstand the path well your selues, and then direct the way vnto vs.

Let vs (say you) as [...]d into heauen: I feare you Ie­suites haue no place there, Heauen is for Christians, not Iesuites. But suppose your selues for the time to be in heauen, what followeth? Let vs behold (say you) the Martyrs▪ 33. Bishops of Rome slaine together, the Vniuersall Pastors, companies of the faithfull, all holie Saints. Well, suruey (Campian) heauen it selfe, and all the heauenly host, looke well in all the parts, and coasts of it whiles you list, you shall not find there (vpon my word) one Iesuit not one Papist; for none shall stand in Mount Zion with the Lamb,Apoc. 14.1. that haue receiued the marke of the beast, or belong vnto An­tichrist. But in heauen are 33. Bishops of Rome, and many more, I doubt not; but of all these, name me one, if you can, of your religion, whom you may iustly claime as yours. Those were holy and faithfull Bishops which shed their bloud for the name of Christ. But your Popes for these many hundred yeares, what else haue they done, but persecuted Christ, and murthered his true seruants? If those 33. Bishops be in heauen (as doubtlesse they are) how many late Popes could I recken vp, which possibly cannot be where they are, in all things they are so vnlike them? You pick out a few, let vs see who these are: Ignatius, say you, was ours; why I pray you? He thought no man equall to the Bishop in causes ecclesia­sticall, not the King himselfe, and left in writing certaine Apostolike traditions; neither say we that any man is to be compared with the Bishop in such things as belong to his office:DVR. If these be so proper to Bishops, that they cannot belong to Kings, then, you being iudge, the Queene cannot be the head of the English Church. WHIT. pag. 160. We acknowledge no other head of the Church saue Christ. And Prince though they may not do any of th [...]se [...], yet they rule ouerthem, who doe and ought to command them, diligently to execute their offices; which if they neglect, they ought to reproue, compell, and punish them, as we reade the good Kings of the Church Iewish and Chri­stian haue euer done: and the reason hath no force, Princes haue no authori­tie to preach, therefore they haue no authority to punish those who teach false doctrine to their people. He only ought to ouersee [Page 302]holy things, viz. instruction of the people, administra­tion of the Sacraments, vse of the keyes of the king­dome of heauen. These are matters of great weight, and exceed the kingly authority; yet are Kings a­boue Bishops in wealth, honor, gouernment, maie­stie, and they may lawfully both admonish them of their dutie, and restraine them when they offend. If Bishops herein would equall themselues with Kings it were too intolerable. As for the Apostles traditi­ons which Ignatius hath left in writing, we receiue them so farre as they agree with the Apostolicall Scripture: if they dissent from those, we refuse them. The Epistles of Ignatius were most of them counter­fet, as euery man may see: heere you rehearse many, and still the vndersong is, these are ours: Telesphorus (say you) Ireneus, Victor, Polycarp, Cornelius, Cyprian, Sixtus, Laurentius, are ours. But I affirme that all these do belong vnto vs: let vs then consider how you will perswade vs they are yours.

Telesphorus enioyned a more strict obseruation of Lent fast, appointed by the Apostles. DVR. But J proue it by these witnesses, Au­gustine, Hie­rome, Basil, Ambrose, E­piphanius, Clemen [...]. WHIT. pag. 862. And I proue the contrary by the Fathers. August. Epist. [...]6. writeth plainely that neither Christ not his Apostles ordained any certaine time for fastings. And so not Lent. Tertul. aduer. Psychicos: In times past Christiās indifferently fasted, of their owne free will, as euery mans time and occasions requi­red, and not by any cōmand of new gouernmēt. Doth not this ouerthrow the ne­cessary obseruatiō of Lent? Chryso. in Mat. hom 47. freely confesseth that Christ did not command vs to imitate his fast. But what is Lent but an imitation of it? Further, Montanus was the first who brought vp set solemne daies of fastings, Euseb. lib. 5. cap. 17. Finally, Ireneus in Eusebius lib. 5. cap. 26. sheweth that in the Primitiue Church, there was great variety about the keeping of this fast, and that this difference began not in his time only, but was long before. Therefore it is false that Christ and his Apostles appointed the fast of Fortie daies. I deny that the [Page 303]Apostles ordeined any such Len [...]en fast, or that Te­lesphorus, commaunded a more precise obseruation thereof. The Apostles were farre from ordeining, and Telesph [...]rus from reuiuing so great superstition.

Clemens his Constitutions where this is reported, are not sufficient authoritie. But if this fast were pre­scribed by the Apostles, I wonder how afterwards it was discontinued, so as it should bee necessarie for Telesphorus to enioyn the keeping of it more precise­ly, especially seeing such strife was in the Church a­bout the celebration of Easter. The epistle of Teles­phorus wherein he commaunds the 7. weekes fast, hath the same authority with the rest of your de­cretall epistles of your Pope, which were not fra­med by the most holy Bishops themselues, but coy­ned since by the most impudent Parasites of the church of Rome.Jren. lib. 4. cap. 43. Ireneus (say you) declared the Apo­stolike faith from the succession and sea of Rome. So he might well then: for as Ireneus elsewhere saith, They retained with the succession of Bishops, the gratious suc­cession of truth: for succession is nothing worth with­out truth. Your Chaire and Sea hath Bishoply suc­cession; it hath not the succession of truth. Victor (say you) by his edict subdued Asia. He endeuored it in­deed (Campian) but failed of his purpose: for being a man very passionate, he would needs excommuni­cate all such Churches of Asia as refused to keepe Easter according to the Romane custome. When he began thus insolently to abuse his authority,DVR. Nei­ther Ireneus nor any other denied to Pope Victor this power to ex­communicate the Churches of Asia. WHIT. pag. 863. But Euse­bius wri [...]eth lib. 5. cap. 25. that both Ireneus and many other Catholike Bi­shops sharpely reproued him for assuming that power. Ire­neus tamed and restrained him. As for the contro­uersie about Easter, Victor was so farre from compo­sing and ending it, that it cōtinued vnto theDVR By the same reason you may say the Coūcels decree preuailed no­thing to endi [...] controuersie. WHIT. pag. 864. The reason is good, & proueth that whē he could preuaile neither by examples, reasons, nor threatnings, that those Churches did not accoūt Pope Victor for the head of the Church. And though after that Councell of Nice, some Churches obserued the Passeouer after another man­ner, yet the most Churches followed the iudgement and authoritie of the Councell. So the Councell preuailed more then the Pope could doe. Coun­cell [Page 304]cell of Nice. You may see how well Victor subduer all Asia.