Answer to Campian the Jesuit

EDMVND CAMPIAN.

My principal reasons are ten,

• 1. Holy Scriptures.
• 2. True meaning of the holy Scriptures.
• 3. Nature of the Church.
• 4. General Councils.
• 5. Fathers.
• 6. Sure ground of the Fathers.
• 7. History.
• 8. Paradoxes of the Adversaries.
• 9. Sophismes of the Adversaries.
• 10. All manner of witnesses.

The first reason, which is holy Scriptures.

W Hereas there are many things. which evidently open the Adversaries mistrust in the cause, yet nothing so much, as the majesty of God's books, by them most filthilie corrupted. For they, who after that they have rejected the voices and testimonies of all other witnesses, and are nevertheless, driven to so narrow shifts, that they cannot defend their cause to be good, except they lay violent hands upon the holy Scriptures also, assuredly show themselves to be in great distress, and all other helps failing and fainting, must now try the last and uttermost shift. What cause had the Manachies to cancel S. Matthews Gospel, and the Acts of the Apostles? Desperation: for they were tormented with these books, both because they had denied Christ to be borne of a Virgin, and also had falsely affirmed, that then the holy Ghost came first down from heaven amongst Christians, when their Paraclete, that most wicked Persian leapt out. What made the Ebionits to abandon all S. Paul's Epistles? De • peration: for so long as these kept their authority, Circumcision is abolished, which they had brought back again. What enforced Luther that most wicked Apostate, to call the Epistle of S. James, contentious, proud, barren, rushy, and judge it to be unworthy an Apostolic spirit? Desperation: For by this Epistle that miserable caitiff affirming our justification to be by faith only, is utterly confuted & confounded what incensed Luther's whelps, on a sudden to put out of the true Canon of Scripture, Tobias, Ecclesiasticus, & the two books of the Maccabees; & in despite of them many other books, unto which they picked the like quarrel? Desperation: for by these heavenly Oracles they be expressly convinced, as often as they dispute against the defense of Angels, as often as they dispute against Free-will, as often as they dispute against praying for the dead, as often as they dispute against praying to Saints. Is it so indeed? Is there such frowardness, is there such presumption amongst mē? when they had trodden under foot the authority of the Churches, Councils * Seas, Fathers, Martyrs, Emperors, People, Laws, Universities, Histories, all Monuments of Antiquity & holiness; & had openly proclaimed, that they would have all controversies decided by the written word of God only; would they then have dismembered the very same word, which only remained, by cutting out of the whole body, so many, so good, and so excellent partes thereof. For the Calvinists have cut out of the Old Testament seven whole books, besides certain other small pieces, which I let pass unspoken of The Lutherans likewise have cut off S. James Epist & for spite of it, five others, which some where else also were once called in questiō. To these also, do the late Geneuans add the book of Hester, & a great part of the third chapter, & all the two last chapters of Daniel, which the Anabaptists their school-fellows had a little before condemned, & laughed to scorn; But how much more modest lie dealt S. Augustine, who making a Catologue of the books of holy Scriptures, took for his rule neither the Hebrew Alphabet, as the Jews do, nor yet his own private spirit, as Heretics use to do; but that spirit wherewith Christ quickeneth the whole body of his Church, which Church being not Lady (as Heretics do cavil) but only keeper of this gage, hath by old ancient Councils, openly challenged this whole and entire treasure of the books of Scripture, which the late Council of Trent also hath embraced? The self-same S. Augustine, entreating particularly of one parcel of Scripture, could not persuade himself, that the book of Wisdom, should by any man's rashness, or secret false suggestion, be thrust out of the Canon of Scripture, which even in his time, by judgment of the Church, process of time, testimony af ancient writers, and instruction of faithful men, had kept his authority, as a sound and Canonical book; what would he say if he were now living upon the earth again, and should see the Lutherans and Calvinists to be Bible makers, who with their sine and smooth style, have raced both the old and New Testament, and put out of the Canon of holy Scriptures, not only the book of Wisdom, but many books more also? so that, that which shall not be uttered out of their shops, must by their brain-sick decree be rejected as a thing most rude and loath some. They that are driven to this horrible and detestable shift, though their Arms be blazed never so far abroad, by their own disciples, though they buy and sel • benefices, though in their Sermons, they cry out against Catholics, though they procure them the sword, rack. and gallows, yet are they overcome, naught set by, horrible in men's sight, and quite overthrown. For as much as the taking upon them the authority of Censorors and sitting as honorable Judges, do dash out at their pleasure such holy Scriptures, as they found would not serve their turn; is there anybody though never so simple, which can fear these sub • tle sleights of the Adversaries, who, as soon as they should enter within your assemiblie that are learned men, and fly unto such their usual snifts, as it were unto their familiar spirit, should, though not with reproach full words, yet at the least with trampling of your feet be thrust out of your schools? I would demand of them, (for example sake) b • what authority they mayme and rob the corpse of the Bible? They answer they do not cut out any true Canonical Scriptures but cull out only such as are not Canonical, that have been forsted into the Bible, and are indeed but counterfeits. Who shall be judge? the holy Ghost; for this very answer doth Calvin give, thereby to escape the judgment of the Church, by whose authority all spirits are tried; why then do some of you cut off certain books, and others of your crew, allow the same, seeing you all vaunt of the self-same spirit? The Caeluinists spirit alloweth of six Epistles, which the Lutheran spirit doth d • sallow, and yet both of you (as you say) have the holy spirit. The Anabaptists do call the history of Job a fable interlaced with tragical and Comicall meeters: how know they that? by the spirit that instructeth them. Castalio, that lecherous varlet made no more account of that mystical book of Solomon, commonly called Cantica canticorum (which the Catholics do as highly esteem as a Paradise of the soul, as that heavenly food Manna, which was laid up and kept in the tabernacle, and as delicate dainties in Christ) then he did of a baudie song, and ribaudous ta • be of a Courtly waiting maid with her lover; where had he this? of the spirit? In the Apocalypse of S. John, every little title whereof S. Jerome affirmeth to contain some high and notable mystery; yet nevertheless, these severe Judges, Luther, Brenz and Kemnitius find I know not what lacking shooting all at this mark, that the book might be defaced, and be of no authority: whom did they ask? the spirit. Luther upon a prepostorous zeal casteth a bone amongst the four Evangelists, and preferring S. Paul's Epistles far before the three former Gospels, in the end concludeth, that the one only Gospel of S. John is from henceforth to be taken, for the gay, for the true, and the principal Gospel; as one that as much as in him lay would gladly have made the Apostles also partakers of his brawling in religious matters: who was his Tutor? the spirit. Besides this, that peevish Friar was so malapert, as to endeavor to make S. Luke's Gospel to be suspected to be written in a wanton style, because therein good works are often commended unto us: whom hath he consulted with? the spirit. Theodorus Beza was so bold as to reprehend that mystical word taken out of the 22. Chapter of S. Luke, Hic est Calix nouum Testamentum in sanguine meo, qui (calix) pro vobis fundetur: This is the Cup of the New Testament in my blood, which (Cup) shall be sh • dde for you: as very corrupt and evilly placed there; because this sentence cannot admit any interpretation, but of the wine of the Cup changed into the very true blood of Christ: where learned he that? of the spirit. Finally, when every man committeth everything to his private spirit, they belie the name of the holy Ghost most blasphemously. Do not these fellows which deal thus, bewray themselves, and show what they are? are they not easily confuted? are they not in the assembly of such men, as you of both the Universities be, quickly perceived, and soon represt: Ought I to fear disputations with these in defense of the Catholic faith, who with much falsehood have handled the very word not of man, but of God himself? Here I pass over such things, as they have depraved in their false translations, though there be intolerable matters wherewith I may well charge them. I am very loath to take away any part of the matter, either from my old College fellow Master Gregory Martin, a man of excellent great knowledge in the three tongues, which will handle this matter far more learnedly and copiously then I can; or from some others, which (as I understand) have already undertaken this matter. The matter that I now write of, is far more heinous and horrible. There were lately discovered certain petty Doctors, that upon a drunken pange laid violent hands upon the divine Scriptures, and have condemned them, as corrupted, as maimed, as falsified, as craftily foisted in, in sundry places; some parts thereof they have corrected, some they have raced, and some they have quite pulled out. And lastly they have changed, as the fortress of this authentical writing of God's own hand, wherewith before it was fenced, unto certain Lutheran spirits, as though it were into vain bulwarks of their own imaginations, or into bare painted walls, least peradventure they should have been mum for want of matter, when they should stumble at such places of Scripture, as are plain against their heresies. Of which nevertheless, they could no sooner shift their hands, then sup up hot coals or eat hard stones. Then this first reason seemed to me urgent and just, which when it had evidently laid before mine eyes, that the Adversaries side was but counterfeited and feeble, truly it encouraged me much, being both a Christian, and also somewhat beaten in this kind of study, in defense of the everlasting Kings Charter, to encounter with the remnaunts of these discomfited enemies.

WILLIAM WHITAKERS. The answer to the first Reason.

T Hat Campian, which made you most cheerful in the cause you have undertaken, and boulder then a Jesuit (being newlie come out of your den or cabbine where you have lurked these diverse years) to proclaim war against us all, and challenge to the combat the most valiant of us; that, you say, was the evident apprehension of our distrust and diffidence in our cause. But what manhood is this for so valorous a man as you make show to be, to provoke and with sharp war to pursue so timorous adversaries, who are ready to betake themselves to their heels, not daring to stand to it, but distrusting their own strength? But tell us in what things our distrust hath been so sensible. There are many things, say you, which evidently bewray the adversaries mistrust in the cause. Verelie if boldness in oppugning and withstanding Religion were of as great force, as usually it is in making of war, and scaling the enemies walls, and racing his towns, we might well fear your furious and desperate attempts: for whatsoever could be compassed by rage, fury, and cruelty, that hath not in this combat and contention been wanting. But such weapons cannot dare religion and truth, neither can they displace it. Let it be granted, we have not been so cheerful and ready in the defense of a good cause as we ought, and as the cause it self well deserved, neither have we put to flight your forces so soon as we ought to have vanquished thē, yet we never gave ground, we never turned our backs upon you, neither ever sled out of the field. For tell us Campian if you can, and remember the bypast times. Did we ever cunningly avoid any disputation? did we ever refuse any combat? did we ever shift off any of your offers and challenges? But how often have we publicly entered the combat with you? how often have we refuted your oft iterated Sophistications? what writing of yours is yet unanswered by us? or what course of disputation have we not yielded to? Are not all those disputations held at Wittenburg, Ratesbone, Augusta, Spire, Wormes, Bearne, Possia, London, Cambridge, Oxford, most plentiful and pregnant witnesses, with what spirits, with what learning, with what truth we defended our Religion? what show or sign of fear, or diffidence found you amongst us? nay rather how true and singular confidence did there appear in us? you it is, and not we, when it comes to a trial indeed that begins to sweat, change countenance, tremble every joint of you, and bewray your deep distrust and the naughtiness of your cause. Wherefore, Campian, take it from me, if you think our distrustfulness will help you anything, you much deceive yourself, for if we have with courage stood against your predecessors so far surpassing you, we will not yield a hair to you? nor fear your manner of conflict, being so childish in the judgment of all men. But this diffidence, you so cast in our dish, tell us what it is, and how it appears so clearly, Forsooth we distrust our hold in the Scriptures, and the majesty of God's books we have most filthilie corrupted. This indeed is a very great crimination you object to us, and an undoubted proof of our distrust: for they who are not able to maintain the Religion they profess, unless they lay violent hands upon the Scriptures, and impeach the sacred authority of those heavenly books, the cause on their side must be very naught and desperate indeed. Therefore I grant unto you, that it was very fearful desperation, which made the Manachies renounce the Old Testament wholly, and cancel part of the new: the same also made Ebion reject all Paul's Epistles, and other heretics to do so too: for there was nothing fitter for them to uphold those their monstrous opinions, then by denying those books of holy Scripture.

But I pray you Campian, let us see how these things make for your purpose: or what it is wherein we are so like those forenamed Heretics. Me thinks it little beseemeth your learning and eloquence, to slander us, and to pin upon our sleeves such odious crimes of ancient heretics so undeservedly. If we have shaken hands with the Manachees, if with the Ebionits, tell us wherein? But if we are culpable of no such thing, the Lord shall judge your outrageous and bold slanders, and maintain our uprightness and innocence. For whoever thought and spoke more honorably, reverently and with more due regard of the Scriptures then we? who have received and embraced all Scripture given by inspiration, as the very voice of God himself; holding it for the only mystery of our faith and religion, and so resting in it, as that we desire no other help as necessary to salvation? which if we had not with more diligence and devotion defended, then you ever did, long ere this the glory of it had perished, and it had been counted as a dead letter: For what have we done for these many years with more endeavor and diligence, then maintain the majesty and excellency of the Scriptures, which you have so unworthily violated? And yet you blush not to match us with the Manachees and Ebionits, who have violently laid most impure and villanous hands upon those sacred books. But, say you, Luther that most wicked Apostate, called the Epistle of S. James a contentious, swelling, barren and strawen Epistle, and judged it unworthy the spirit of an Apostle: still the fat would be in the fire, Campian, if you had not one fit of railing at Luther, for this is to show yourself a right Jesuit, as indeed you are, shamelessely and audaciously to break out into railing, and specially to tear Luther with most bitter reproaches. This is your faculty and profession, this you have undertaken to do, whatsoever you • leave undone: surely he is an happy man, whom the Lord thus honoreth with the enmity and hatred of such wicked men: for he cannot choose but be an excellent man, whom wicked men do so deadly pursue. But you object against Luther his Apostasy: look to yourself Campian, if you may not be more justly accused of this crime: for doubtless you are either an Apostate, or you were a cunning hypocrite. But if it be Apostasy to forsake Apostates, then was Luther such an Apostate. For he abandoned thieves, heretics, Apostates, and separated himself from that Curch, in which that daily Apostasy from religion, which the Apostle did foretell, was now come to the height: they then who would not be Apostates must fly from the Apostasy of your Church.

But say you, Luther spake not so reverently of the Epistle of S. James as was fitting: It is well all you can challenge him with, is touching this Epistle only: he never did by any one word impeach the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, neither the Epistles of Saint Paul, or Saint Peter; only a little he taxed the Epistle of Saint James. Is Luther alone in this crime? hath all Antiquity received this Epistle of S. James, & Luther only rejected it? undoubtedly, no: neither was Luther ignorant what censure the ancient Church gave of this Epistle: Eusebius aduētured to write expressly of this Epistle thus. Be it known to all men that this Epistle which is fathered on Saint James, is counterfeit: what can be written more plainly? it may be you will except against Eusebius. But tell us why? therefore not to stand with you, will you hear what Jerome saith, who as you well know was an Elder of the Church of Rome? The Epistle of James is held to have been published under his name by some other. The one saith it is counterfeit, the other writeth, that it was thought to be published not by the Apostle, but by some other. Why then are you angry with Luther, whom you see not unadvisedly and rashly to doubt of the authority of that Epistle, but therein followeth the judgment and censure of the ancient Church? for from hence it is very clear, that the first age of the Church doubted somewhat of the credit and authority of this Epistle. But you will say, it was afterwards received, and Jerome witnesseth as much. I inquire not how justly that might be received in a succeeding age, which once was rejected, that the credit and authority it had not in the beginning, it might gain in time by men's calmness in judging: neither will I contend about the authority of this Epistle. Let it be as great as ever any book had; we verily receive it, and put it in the Canon of the Scriptures; for whatsoever Luther or any other may conclude touching this Epistle, or lessen the credit of it any way; yet all our Churches willingly embrace it, and judge it written by the Apostle, or some Apostolic man; and in it do undoubtedly acknowledge the doctrine and spirit of an Apostle. I, saith Calvin, willingly and without controversy receive this Epistle, because I see no just cause to reject it. Therefore object no longer unto us other men's sharp censures and hard speeches, whereof we are no ways guilty: for what is it to us, what other men think of this Epistle, who dispraise no part of it, neither detract anything from the authority thereof? But where I pray you writ Luther any such thing, which you make mention of? let us see the place, that we may perceive how faithfully you deal. You tell us of a Preface he writ upon the Epistle of S. James, such as I think few men know: for it is nowhere to be found amongst Luther's works: yet by accident I light upon that preface, and read it from the beginning to the ending, in which not any of those things is to be seen which you mention: so that we may easily conjecture what we are like to find of you in the sequel, when in the beginning you are not ashamed to lie so palpablie. For Luther begins his preface thus. The Epistle of S. James though rejected of Antiquity, I much commond & hold very fitting & profitable. And in this book of the Babylonish captivity, he thus writeth of this Epistle. I pass over that which many probablie affirm, that this was not the Epistle of S. James the Apostle, nor agreeing with the spirit of an Apostle. These things very gravely and modestly hath Luther written concerning this Epistle of S. James; & never culled it as you affirm, a contentious, barren, swelling, or a strawen Epistle: though I deny not but Luther was of that opinion, that he greatly called in question the Author and Argument of this Epistle. And it had been your part, who condemn his opinion, to have confuted his reasons. Erasmus evidently writeth, that this Epistle hath no taste of Apostolic authority; so that Luther judged more tolerably of this Epistle, then Erasmus. But howsoever the case stand, Luther in his judgment is not without the consent of the first and purest Churches. And yet to let Luther pass, we have no other opinion of this Epistle, then yourselves have, and honor it as much, as you think it deserves. And let me promise and anow this for us all; whatsoever in this combat, which you have undertaken, you prove out of this Epistle, we will most willingly embrace, and not shift it off, as you suspect we will. All the sentences of this Epistle, we allow of, and reject not any one. For as for that instance, which you give of sole faith, it is but a silly and lame trick of your sophistry; our doctrine of justification by faith only is most true & holy; which S. Paul also clearly teacheth, though he do not expressly use these words, Faith alone. And the ancient do so expound and interpret S. Paul. Ambrose saith; They are justified only by faith, it is the gift of God. Basil saith; They are justified by faith alone in Christ. Nazianzen saith; Righteousness consisteth in faith only. Why should I recite any other sayings of other of the Fathers of the Church? This doctrine is both Evangelical and Apostolical; contrary to this, if James or an Angel from heaven should preach, let him be held as impious, wicked, and accursed. But you will say S. James denies justification by faith only, yea affirms that we are justified by works. We answer, that the Apostle speaketh of a feigned dead, idle, and counterfeit faith, which many boasted of, and falsely persuaded themselves they were just by it. This faith, which we may more truly call a carcase of faith, Saint James denieth to be sufficient for salvation to any, and he that is justified he teacheth must be justified by works, that is, must be proved, and declared to be just: for it must needs be, that faith be living, fruitful and accompanied with good works, that all may clearly perceive and discern, you are endued with true faith. And so doth S. James very fitly accord with S. Paul, while he disputes from the effects; when as S. Paul argueth from the cause. The principal & immediate cause of our justification, S. Paul makes faith; S. James writeth that a man is justified by works, that is, every man by his works as by most pregnant testimonies is known and acknowledged just, while his invisible faith is witnessed and declared by his visible works. Therefore you see there is no reason why for this cause Luther should either find fault with, or fear the Epistle of S. James. And thus Augustine hath reconciled these two Apostles James and Paul, that you may see that we are not broachers of any Noueltie. Wherefore, saith Augustine; the judgments of the two Apostles, S. Paul, & S. James, are not contrary each to other, when the one saith a man is justified by faith without works; and the other saith, that it is a vain faith which is without works; because S. Paul speak • th of works which go before faith: Saint James of works which follow faith; at S. Paul himself showeth in many places. Therefore the Apostle S. James would not, neither ought to detract anything from the doctrine of justification, which Luther learned from S. Paul. Yea all Papists and Jesuits shall sooner be torn asunder, then this judgment of Luther, touching faith alone, shall either quail or be overthrown.

From Luther you turn the edge of your speech to the whelps of Luther: for so you, as an unclean dog, term men famous and flourishing with all good qualities. But why you should so call them, I well conceive not, unless it be, for that they never cease barking against your Bishops and Monks, and other Church robbers, like yourself. But let us hear what heinous thing those whelps have committed. They have on a sudden put out of the true Canon of the Scripture, Tobias, Ecclesiasticus, the two books of the Maccabees, and many other books. Say you of a sudden, Campian? Is it true indeed that you are such a stranger in the writings of the ancient Fathers, that you know not that long ago these books were raced out of the Canon? Look I pray you into Jerome, and out of him call to mind what antiquity hath done. That we may know, saith Jerome, Whatsoever books are more then these, they are to be accounted among the Apocrypha. Therefore Wisdom, which commonly is called the Wisdom of Solomon, and the book of Jesus the son of Sirach, and Judith, and Tobias, and Pastor, are not in the Canon. Will you that are but a Frier put these books in the Canon, which Jerome following the judgment of the ancient Church, and the truth it self, denieth to be in the Canon? mark well his own words: They are not in the Canon. You say that we have dashed them out; and why should we not so do? For, saith Jerome, they are not in the Canon. Desire you any further testimonies? Epiphanius saith as much as Jerome, who after he had recited diverse books, which you say we have put out of the Canon, he thus writeth; as Cornarius renders his words out of the Greek. These books verily are profitable and helpful, but they are not reckoned in the number of those which are received. Therefore they are not to be found in Aaron, neither in the ark of the Covenant. But see out of Jerome more manifest and pregnant things. As therefore the Church readeth the books of Judith, Tobias, and Maccabees, but accounteth them not Canonical Scripture: so also these two books (he meaneth Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus) it reads for edification of the common sort, not for confirmation of any doctrine of the Church. If, Campian, you be ignorant of these ancient testimonies you are but a young soldier in that kind of fight, where you would be thought a well experienced Captain; but if you know them, you are too unjust and injurious unto us, to object to us, I know not what desporation, because we admit not those books in the Canon of the Scripture, which Antiquity tells us directly, were never admitted, neither are to be admitted: And verily Cardinal Cajetan, fears not to avouch that he that writ the book of the Maccabees, in a certain prophesy of Daniel's, was a liar: but the holy Ghost was never wont to be deceived in the interpreting of the Scripture. Now whereas you imagine that we are convinced by those Oracles, as often as we dispute against the defense of Angels, as often as we dispute against freewill, as often as we dispute against praying to Saints: You must fi • st, before you can convince us, prove that an argument will conclude necessarily out of those books, to confirm the doctrine of the Church, which Jerome demeth, and you shall never be able to prove, though you call all the Jesuits to a consultation. And seeing you object desperation to us, see ho • you bewray your own miserable • esperation; who cannot establish the Articles of your faith by the Canonical Scriptures, but you she to the Apoc • ypha, whose authority hath been▪ and forever shall be doubted of in the Church. The Lord hath committed his Will and Woe • d to writing, and commended it to his Church: Those writings with all diligence and piety we receive and reverence; we are content with them, and we maintain thei • sufficiency; let go then these questionable, obscure, and Apocrypha books, and out of these contend with us about religion. But your religion long ago hath passed beyond the bounds of the sacred Scripture, and hath broken forth into many superstitions. And hence it is that you do the thing, than which nothing can be more malapert and intolerable; that is, make of like authority with holy Scripture, not only the Apocrypha books, but every unwritten. Tradition, wheresoerver you come by them, at the second or third hand. But what do I telling you of these things, who shamefully have adventured long since to violate and inf • inge all the laws, both of God and man? Take this from me: if you can demonstrate that we have condemned or rejected any one book, or any part and portion of any book, which appeareth to have been written and confirmed by divine authority, I will never contend any longer, but yield you the day, and give up our weapons to you. But if we have ever most faithfully kept the whole corpse of the Scriptures, and have severed the true books from false, and have defended the heavenly truth of God, and preserved it uncorrupt, why do you poor silly F • ier cry out of our desperation, when yourself is so far plunged in desperation it self, that there is no certainty of your saluatiō, but by the depravation and corruption of the holy Scriptures?

Now in that you affirm we are convinced by those oracles: As often as we dispute of the defense of Angels, of freewill, of praying for the dead, and of praying to Saints: they are thing which we have discussed a thousand times, and have exactly determined them out of the true oracles of God. The defense of Angels is taught us in the Scripture, where we are taught that God hath set his Angels over certain people, places, and men; and of this in general we nothing doubt, but that Angels have that commission from the Lord, that they must provide for men's safety and salvation. So that we deny them not some kind of ministration, yea we attribute as much to them as the Lord hath taught us we should. And as for your Hierarchy and manifold degrees of Angels, we are willingly ignorant of them, and no whit envy your knowledge, who have had the revelation of such great mysteries from your Denys, who hath (that I may use the words of S. Paul ) advanced himself in those things whic he never saw. But it is another patronage of Angels which you defend, and hold that we ought to worship them and call upon them, which the Scripture in plain words forbiddeth, for S. Paul condemns Worshipping of Angels. And the Angel once and again called S. John from this kind of worship. See thou doest it not, I am thy fellow servant, and one of thy brethren: worship God. As for Raphael in Toby, we pass not greatly, neither do acknowledge those seven Angels of whom he speaketh. All that which was spoken of Raphael, or which he speaketh of himself, i • far differing from the holy Scriptures, and it savoreth strongly of superstition. The place of Ecclesiasticus doth not much trouble me, neither should I the sooner believe free will, though he an hundred times should repeat that sentence; before man is life and death: seeing that the Scripture teacheth that man lost his freedom by sin: the same thing teach the Fathers also, and every man's own experience: howsoever these words may be understood of mankind, as he was sometime in Adam. For thus he writeth a little before. He made man from the beginning, and left him in the hand of his own counsel; if he speak of the first condition and state of man, and of his perfect and uncorrupt nature, wherein he was created of the Lord, he speaketh very true: but if he made it now free for us, as we are natural men, to choose or refuse life or death at our own pleasure; I am not so bound by the authority of this book and testimony, but that I may appeal from his Apochryphall sentence to the tried Oracles of God. Now for your book of the Maccabees, I make far less account of it, which Jerome, Epiphanius, Athanasius, Cyprian, have hissed out, and the Leodicene Council hath rejected. Moreover that which is therein spoken of the sacrifice offered up for the sins of the dead, is merely matter of supposal, and forced into the text: for neither in Josephus is any such thing to be found in the Greek, neither in Josephus the son of Gerion, who yet writ the self-same history in Hebrew, is there any mention of any such sacrifice, neither had the Jews either by precept, or practice any such custom, to offer sacrifice and prayers for the dead. Lastly in the Greek copy there is that inversion and disordered placing of the words, that you can hardly make any true sense, or any whole sentence hang together. View the place in the Greek text, and if you can fitly translate it so, that all things may hang well together, I will yield, you are a better Grecian then I took you for. Shall I be tied then by the authority and force of this book, place, or sentence, to offer with you prayers and oblations for the dead? you are too too childish, Campian, to think such things can incline the Students of our Universities to like your side: other manner of matter must you bring, and of more force, if you will gain our favorable audience and good conceit: for these things long ago we have distasted and spit out; but whoever said, yourself excepted, that this place of the Maccabees doth prove and confirm invocation of Saints? It is one thing to offer sacrifice for the dead, and another thing to say that the Saints departed make intercession for us. As for Judas dream touching Onia, of which we read 2. Macchab. 15. I pass it over as a dream: but the matter is not great whether you understand the intercession of the dead, or oblations for the dead: both is yours, and both most false. And here again you cry out with great vehemency; Is it true indeed? is there such frowardness, is there such presumption among men? here is neither the one, nor the other, Campian • we have done nothing frowardly; nothing presumptuously: I wonder at your frowardness and presumption, that those books which God disclaims, as none of his, which reverend antiquity hath put out of the Canon; yet you in your horrible & detestable frowardness & presumption, will bring into the Canon, whether God will or no, the holy Fathers denying them, & the books themselves disclaiming it. The Calvinists, say you, have cut off from the body of the Old Testament, seven whole books: Why you shameless Frier, did not Jerome a thousand years before Calvin was borne, race them out? Why then slip you over Jerome, and quarrel with Calvin only, when they are both in one predicament? Hear yet again what Jerome saith. Whatsoever is besides these books, is to be accounted Apocrypha: but these seven books which you reckon up, and calumniously avouch that we have raced them out, are besides those Jerome makes mention of; they are then to be accounted Apocrypha. For most of these we have sufficiently answered. For Baruch, Jerome saith, We neither read it, nor find it in the Hebrew; all the other he casteth out of the Canon, and writeth freely. Those books which are not to be found in the Hebrew, neither are any of the 24. are tobe rejected of those, who are of ripe years and knowledge. But you Jesuits are always Children, as the Egyptian Priest answered Solon touching the Grecians. I wonder why you say never a word touching the third and fourth book of Esdra: it may be you are ashamed of them, being books, as Jerome writeth, full of dotages: yet your Church hath had them in great account, and the Fathers often times have alleged testimonies out of them; why do you, Campian, suddenly dash these books out of the Canon? If you judge they must be kept in the Canon, why do you not tax the Calvinists, who, as all men know, have cut them out of the Old Testament? Why when you number up all those sacred books, cut out of the Canon by the Calvinists, omit you these altogether? Or if these be Apocrypha, why should we deem the rest to be Canonical? I am not a little desirous to know, what is your judgment of these books: but you say further: The Lutherans have cut off Saint▪ James Epistle, and for spite of it, five others, which somewhere else also were once called in question. That these were once and elsewhere in question, you cannot deny. The light and evidence of the story hath wrung this from you. But tell us who made question of them? Did heretics only? Then account Eusebius & Jerome amongst heretics, who have reported to us their own judgment of these Epistles, with the judgment of the Church. Can you prove that they were accounted heretics, in the first and pure ages of the Church, who took out of the Canon these Epistles? For the Epistle of Saint James, I have answered sufficiently: we neither reject that, nor any of the other Epistles, which you falsely accuse the Lutherans to have cut out; this is no fauit of ours, whom you know to be far from Lutheranism: quarrel then with them: as for us, we never cunningly shifted off the testimonies and allegations of those Epistles. Can you in equity require anymore of us? At length then forbear to upbraid us with I know not what desperation, frowardness and presumption: we willingly admit, receive, and allow of your own books, which yourself make use of in disputation; to their judgment will we stand, if you can convince us by these you win the field.

That which you add of the book of Ester, and of almost three whole chapters of Daniel, is nothing but cavilling. The book of Ester we account Canonical, as much as by God's authority is written in 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 Daniel's, of which read, if you please, Jerome's preface upon Daniel. And there you shall find, that not the Anabaptists only, but the ancient Jews have rejected and derided them. But, Campian, why do you trifle thus? were you wont to build much upon the authority of those books? did you in these lay the foundations of your faith? why then do you seek to make us odious by these books, which if they were never so Canonical, would further your cause never a whit the more?

Now you much commend Augustine's modesty. Who, say you, hath made a Catalogue of the books of holy Scripture, far better then either the Jews, or Sectaries. I could wish you Jesuits had a little more modesty, that ye might be more like Augustine; for all men speak and cry out of your male pertnes and insolency. But Augustine counted those books Canouicall, which we do not; true, I deny it not, but what of that? is not Augustine opposite to Jerome? for Jerome expressly denies those books to be numbered in the Canon. And Augustine setting down the whole Canon of the Scripture, doth annex these to it. It seemeth there is a great difference in their judgments: for those which Jerome denies, Augustine affirmeth to be Canonical: both famous men and such as have deserved well of the Church of God; how then may we satisfy Augustine, whom Campian objecteth unto us? No otherwise then as the truth is. The terms of Apocrypha and Canonical Jerome useth in one sense, and Augustine in another: Jerome accounted all these books Apocrypha, which were not written in Hebrew: Augustine though in deed and in truth he differed not, yet he gave this name especially to those books, which 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 Apocrypha books, yet they have no Canonical authority, there being so many lies in them. Therefore he names in the Canon the book of Judith and Toby and Ecclesiasticus, & other of that sort, because there was more truth and sincerity in them, then in those common and diuulged fables. Therefore Augustine useth the term of Canonical Scripture more largely then Jerome, and of Apocrypha more strictly: unless happily we will suppose that of set purpose Augustine would differ from Jerome in a thing of that moment. Besides the Romish Cardinal, of whom we spake before, writeth that certain Councils with Augustine accounted these books Canonical because they were rules for manners, not for faith and doctrine. And what reason Augustine had to plead for the book of Wisdom, least it should be turned out of the Canon, let him look to it himself; this very book Jerome, (whom you Jesuits usually prefer before Augustine ) hath by name excluded, and from the self-same place where Augustine confirmeth the authority of this book, every man may gather, that it was not commonly received in the Canon; for when Augustine cited a testimony out of that book. He was taken away, least wickedness should alter his understanding, many of the brethren who were present cried out; It was not alleged out of a Canonical book. Now it is like, they never would have rejected the argument and testimony of this speech, if the authority of that book had been Canonical in the Church. And yet I deny not but that Antiquity might think more reverently of this book, then of other of the books of Apochryphaes. For I observe in Eusebius, that Melita, the Bishop of Sardis, in a certain Epistle written to Onesimus, wherein he setteth down exactly the number of the sacred books of the Old Testament, and accounteth this book as one of the Canon: yet he mentioneth not one of the others which we call Apocrypha, neither Toby, nor Judith, nor the Maccabees, nor Ecclesiasticus, nor yet any of the rest, for which you strive so much; yet he affirmeth that he took great pains to know exactly those ancient books, and professeth that he fully attained his end. After, saith he, I had learned exactly what books belong to the Old Testament, I sent them here under written unto you. And this it may be induced Augustine to attribute the more to this book, and yet it cannot be proved hence, as you would have it, that this book was Authentical and Canonical by the account of the Church, for Augustine himself witnesseth that it was not allowed as Canonical by the judgment of the Church; neither indeed if the Church would have given it all the allowance she could, could she have made it Authentical, except it had before it own Authenticalnes in it self from above.

But you who glory so greatly in Antiquity, in the voice of the Church, in Councils, what will you answer to the Laodicene Council, which forbids the reading of those books, which are without the Canon, and commandeth the reading of those only which are of the Canon of the old and New Testament: But which are they? are all those which the Tridentine Council hath put in the Catalogue? nothing less, but those only which our Church doth hold Canonical. If Campian, you will stand to the judgment of this Council, neither the book of Wisdom, nor any one of the other shall have place among the Canonical Scriptures. Now then whatsoever Augustine should say, if he were alive, doth not much trouble us: for whatsoever he should say in this kind, he could speak nothing against us, but it would touch the Fathers of the Laodicene Council, whose decree in this point, touching the Canonical Scriptures, either he had seen, or at least might take notice of it.

Now for the things which follow you show much color but little reason. You call this a horrible and detestable shift. Then do you, Campian, if you can, drive us out of this hold. Me thinketh it is so safe and well fortified, that it will easily bear off and repel all your assaults. Though, say you, their arms be blased never so far abroad by their own disciples, though they buy and sell benefices, though in their sermons they cry out against Catholics, though they procure them the sword, rack and gallows, yet are they overcome, naught set by, horrible in men's sight, and quite overthrown. But yet young Frier, • ow thus much, by God's blessing we hitherto stand upright on our seete, neither ever were we soyled at your hands, but have long ago by the help of God scattered, overthrown, and put to flight many of your armies. And the whole huge form of your pontifical and glorious synagogue hath long since tottered, and in short time will fall to the ground, as Dagon before the Ark; unless you Jesuits manfully uphold and sustain it: for it is impossible for us to be vanquished of you, in the defense of this cause. Therefore with good courage and cheerfulness we pursue this flight, nothing doubting but that the Lord in the end will repress you, and all the enemies of his name and glory, and make you his footstool. And for that you write, touching buying & selling of benefices, if any be yet amongst us, it is but the relics of your wicked practices heretofore among us. For you know the custom of the Romish Court, you know their filthiness, their avarice, their Simony, yea you know how the whole world crieth out, and that continually of your most gainful Marchandizes. Have you now leisure since you left Rome, to pry into our carriage, are all things so well at home, that you can without shame find faults abroad? Suppose you were now become honest and holy; yet you shall never be able to clear your Church of those filthy blemishes, wherewith it hath been defiled in former times. And if there be any yet amongst us that use so foul a trade, they are well worthy to hear such reproaches from you, as such practices do deserve. But I marvel the less that you object to us buying and selling of Benefices, when you complain of our cruelty. Now, good God, are we so cruel and you so mild? what shall I say to it or what answer may I make? sure it is, there is nothing more inhumane, then cruelty, or more opposite to a Christians virtue: for the disciples of Christ ought to be gentle, clement, and meek, master-like: what then? are we more cruel then you? I will never deny this trial, that their cause should be judged the worst, whose cruelty appears to be the greatest: I call to witness all the people of the Christian world, who have yet any sense of humanity and equity remaining in them. Let Italy speak, also Germany, Spain, France, and our England. It were tedious to recite the horrible murders, the fearful burnings, and exquisite punishments you exercised amongst us. Your cruelty is known, and is yet fresh in memory, neither shall ever be buried in oblivion: what like to these did we ever practice, or wherein is our cruelty so great? was it because we suffered not our throats to be cut by you, nor received your weapons into our bodies, nor laid our necks upon the block, nor willingly gave up our lives, that we might give you leave to live as you list. This is it indeed you wished for, for this you labor, and go about: we poor wretches are accounted cruel, because we live, and live to withstand your proceedings. But I doubt not but all indifferent men do sufficiently discern, how injuriously you lay this crimination upon us, for these things which you name as the sword, the rack, the gallows, and fire, are the instruments of your cruelty, and had it not been for these, your Church had been overthrown long ago: for by these weapons it was first founded, after increased, and is now maintained? if once these fail you, questionless it cannot long continue.

But you now begin to press your adversaries somewhat more forcibly; and you demand of them, for example sake, by what authority they maim; and rob the corpse of the Bible, I answer we offer no violence to this body, ne • there do we cut off any which do appertain to the substance, and perfection of it; we dash out no part of it, we pull away no member. For (to use your own words) we do not cut out any true Canonical Scriptures, but cull out such as are not Canonical, but foisted in and counterfeit. But you would know who shall be judge; you make Calvin to answer for us: the holy Ghost: and you suggesting that he giveth this answer, to escape the judgment of the Church; if you inquire how we know these writings, which we call Scriptures, to be heavenly, and given by the inspiration of God, that is, by what testimony we are persuaded that those writings are holy Scripture, which are so called: I would ask you with as much reason another question, how know you the son is the son, or how ye come not to doubt, that God is God: for we verily have as much certeinty that th • se books are the sacred Scripture, commended of the Lord to the Church, written by the Prophets and Apostles, proceeding from divine authority, as that the Moon is the Moon, yea as we are sure of anything else, which by undoubted knowledge we are full assured of; this answer Calvin also hath given you, writing that many things might be produced, which would easily prove, that if there be a God in heaven, the Law, the Prophets, and the Gospel came from him: yea and with many words at large he urgeth it with most strong arguments, such as may satisfy any reasonable man touching the authority, and credit of the Scriptures. There are in the books themselves proofs enough, both certain; and perspicuous, which will prove 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 weak, and easily distracted into diverse and doubtful cogitations, the inward and hidden testimony of the spirit must be had, that men may firmly rest in the Scriptures. For though outward testimonies will so convince us, that for shame we cannot deny the Scriptures to be the word of God; yet then only do we attain a certain and saving full assurance, when the same spirit, which writ and published them, doth persuade 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 faithful, and is as a seal unto them, he that hath not this spirit, shall ever in himself be uncertain and doubtful, though he hear the Church a thousand times. What is the fault then you find, Campian? Calvin, say you, doth make the spirit Judge thereby to escape the judgment of the Church, by whose authority all spirits are tried. The judgment of the Church ought not to differ from the judgment of the spirit: the same spirit governeth the whole Church and every particular believer. But your Church knoweth not this spirit; no marvel then if it dislike the judgment of the spirit: yet I would have you take this for an answer once for all: that the authority of the Scriptures doth not depend upon the judgment of the Church: for let the Church judge what it will, yet can it never by all the authority it hath make the Canonical books to be no Canonical; and that those which are not Canonical, should be had in reputation as Canonical. The Scripture hath it own proper authority in it self, not borrowed frō another. And as little can the Church add authority to the Scripture, as it can to God, the author of it. But say you, how cometh it to pass, that the Calvinists 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 Lutherans do not reject, nor dash them out of the New Testament; yea they acknowledge them, they make use of them in vnfoulding of controversies, they expound them in their schools and churches, and they read them both privately and publicly: upon many of them Luther hath written Commentaries, Illyricus upon all. That of the authority of those Epistles in times past the Catholic Church made some doubt, they discover to their Auditors, and show withal the causes of that doubt, and that done, leave it undetermined. I pray you, Campian, what contradiction find you here, betwixt the spirit of the Calvinists and the Lutherans? Yet still you cavil at this judgment of the spirit, which of all other is most certain and heavenly: and here you produce Anabaptists, Castalio, Brenz, Kemnitius, Luther, and Beza. And by these you hope that you may diminish the authority of the spirit. The Anabaptists, (say you) call the history of Job a fable, interlaced with tragical and Comicall matters. As though we were ignorant, how wickedly and blasphemously they conceive, not only of the history of Job, but also of the whole books 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 madness; which no spirit ever did more repress, then the Caluinist and Lutheran spirit? Why then do you mention their madness, thereby to scoff at the certain judgments of the holy Ghost? Castalio, say you, made no more account of Solomon's Song, then he did of a bandy song and ribauldous talk of a Courtly waiting maid with her lover. I will not take upon me to defend all that any man hath written at random, much less will I trouble myself to defend the credit of Castalio, whom I well know hath erred in many great points very shamefully. Yet in this place I find you have notably abused Castalio: for in that short preface which he hath set before this book, he hath none of those you speak of, neither a song, nor a Love, nor courtly waiting maids, nor wanton talk, nor any such thing, but hath truly, learnedly, and modestly in few words comprised the sum of the whole book: his first words are these: A conference betwixt the Savior and his Church. Now you may see how highly Caestalio accounted of this song, and how shameless your cavil is against him. I cannot now be much offended with you, for casting so many false things upon Calvin and Luther, when you are not ashamed so palpably to bely Castalio. And that you say next touching the Revelation, is much like to the rest of your cavils. In it, say you, Luther, and Brenz, and Kemnisius, find, I know not what, lacking. What is the meaning of this, They find somewhat lacking? do they reject it, do they disallow it? you cannot say so: therefore you speak faintly and diffidently: They find somewhat lacking. Howsoever, if you will read Eusebius, you shall understand that in it many things were found lacking, and that it was not received of all, yea plainly rejected of many. But what is this to us, when as you cannot deny we have received this book, and do no less reverence the mysteries that are in it, then yourselves? and perhaps it had fitted your turn well, if this book had either perished, or been of no credit at all: for it doth so lively paint out your Pope, & your purple whore in her colors, that it clearly discovereth to all men, who is Antichrist.

Have you yet anything more against Luther? Luther, say you, casteth a boue among the four Evangelists and preferring S. Paul's Epistles far before the three former Gospels, in the end concludeth, that the only Gospel of S. John from henceforth is to be taken for the gay, the true, and the principal Gospel; Luther indeed preferreth the Gospel of John before the other three, because he setteth down the Acts of Christ more briefly, and his Sermons more fully. Now a Gospel consisteth rather in heavenly 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 far is he from esteeming this the only gay and true Gospel. Now this very point you speak of here, I find also in the preface of the first Epistle of S. Peter. And I would entreat the Christian reader to take thorough notice of this thing, so shall he easily perceive both Luther's integrity, and Campians cavilling. First Luther teacheth what a Gospel is: and writeth that a Gospel signifieth nothing else, But the preaching and publishing of the grace, and mercy of God by the Lord Christ, merited and purchased to us by his death. He that either preacheth or writeth this grace and mercy of God in Christ, he, as Luther affirmeth, teacheth the Gospel. And therefore not the four Evangelists only have taught the Gospel; but also all the Apostles have done so too, and especially Saint Paul & Saint Peter in their Epistles. And moreover he affirmeth, that of all those they are the best Evangelists, who have therein specially labored, to teach justification by faith in Christ alone: for this is the sum of the Gospel. And hereupon he concludeth that the Epistles of Paul may more fitly be called the Gospel, then those things Matthew, Mark, and Luke have written: for that he doth more fully & plentifully decipher to us 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 wherefor he preferred the Gospel of S. John and the Epistles of S. Paul before the three other Gospels; whereby he neither casteth a bone among the Evangelists, nor goeth about to make the Apostles partakers of his brawlings; neither hath said anything either frowardly or preposterously: for why, I pray you, may we not say, that S. Paul hath more clearly and excellently described the power of the Cross of Christ in his Epistles, then any of the Evangelists in their history; when as by it the authority of the history of the Gospel is nothing disparaged? And now I doubt not but I have sufficiently defended Luther's innocence against your railing and outrageous saucines.

But yet again you assault Luther: whom you say doubted not to tax S. Luke's Gospel, as if it were written in a wanton style, because therein good works are often recommended unto us. Was there ever read or heard of the like impudency, audaciousness, and treacherous dealing in any man? The place you note in the margent I have very diligently and heedfully observed, that I might discern; wherein Luther hath shown such male pertnes: but I have not found one unholy, nor dishonorable term, unfit to be given to S. Luke, as being an heavenly Evangelist. For that which Luther propounds to himself is to take out of men's minds a scruple, which S. Luke's often mention of works might move in them; lest any happily might think that S. Luke by often speaking of works, should detract somewhat from faith, or place our justification in our works. And this is, as you affirm, saucilie to give S. Luke a wipe; if you can tell me of any greater matter, I will no ways defend or excuse Luther's malepertnes. But what malepertnes is this of yours, Campian, whom neither the fear of God, nor the reverence of men, can restrain frō writing or diuulging of those things, which your own conscience tells you are most false? and you cannot pass by Beza neither without the like Calumnious censure. Who, say you, was so bold as to reprehend that mystical 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 shed for you; a • corrupted and depraved. I see well where your error is in following that corrupt and adulterous vulgar translation, for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , you thus translate. 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 being a participle of the present tense, you translate by a verb of the future tense: Qui fundetur, shall be shed for you: for, Qui funditur, is shed for you. But you dare not go a hairs breadth from the vulgar translation, for fear of incurring that curse of the Council of Trent. But here Theodor Beza apparently is caught in a heinous crime: for he writeth that Luke hath committed a Solecisme: what then I pray you? a very foul fact and very intolerable. Is it so indeed? how shall we then defend Jerome, who writeth that Paul committed such solecismes in his words, that by no good ordering any good sense could be made of them? If S. Paul might commit Solecismes in his words, why may we not think S. Luke may do as much? and if Jerome without sin might accuse S. Paul, not to speak properly or scholar-like; why might not Beza note some want of propriety of speech in S. Luke? for you are wide, Campian, if you think this anything diminisheth the authority & dignity of the Scriptures, for Hier • me construeth it quite contrary. Let us look therefore upon the place of the Evangelist, that we may judge where this fault is.

The words run thus. This cup is the New Testament in my blood which is shed for you. If you change nothing in the words and exclude all incongruitie, 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 us. 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 usually deny the same, and vehemently cry out, none of them is to be taken figuratively. But you yourselves in these words make two figures; first you take the cup for the wine in it, then the wine for the blood of Christ, which in no hand you can do without a figure: therefore hereafter stand not upon words; for if you will now stand to the words, you must either grant that the cup was shed for us, or you must admit a solecism and improper speech. If we will read them as Basel doth; Which blood is shed for you: the meaning will be plain, when these words which is shed for you, are referred to the blood of Christ. These are Campians collections of such things, wherein our men have offended against the authority and dignity of the Scripture. These he crieth out do evidently open our diffidence and desperation, these are those things he propoundeth unto you, that are most learned of the Vniuersity. Whose judgment I am therefore also well contented to stand unto, because I well know your learning and wisdom, together with your studious endeavours in the best authors, to be such, that this silly foolish sophister with all his slanders and lies shall never be able to remove or corrupt you: for what matter hath he brought, or what invention, which may seem to savor either of deep learning, much reading, or witty conceit? Therefore you shall do well to set light by the threats of this Philistine, and to cleave with constancy to that holy religion which you have learned out of the holy Scriptures: as also proceed in that course of virtue and learning you have begun, that the Jesuits with all their inchauntments may lose all their labor in seeking to seduce you.

Hitherto Campian hath busied himself in discoursing unto us, what he could, concerning the holy books, being desirous also to deliver unto us, such things as we have depraved in our false translations: save that, as he saith, he reserves this labor for his old College fellow Gregory Martin, & some others, whom he well knoweth will perform it far more learnedly and copiously then himself. Therefore if you think good, we will expect this Martin of whom you speak, and whom I shall easily conceive to be a man of more learning then yourself, unless he be a very doult indeed. And I doubt not but we shall be able to maintain 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 offense. But when once your friend Martin shall come abroad, who now perhaps is hammering some special piece of work, we shall learn from him many new and excellent points. This your first reason seemed very just in your conceit to maintain your glorious challenge of disputation, with some of the learned of our Universities. But Campian, you had dealt a great deal wiser for yourself, if either you had never conceived thes • reasons, or streightway upon the birth smothered them. For before by your great challenge you begat a marvelous and wonderful conceit of yourself in every man's mind: and now when they shall read • those slender reasons of yours, they will easily perceive, there is no cause why you should take so much upon you, and they will tontemptuously deride you, as you well deserve, & hiss you out of their schools. Therefore the counsel which Archidamu • gave to his Son headily venturing to right with the Athenians, the same do our University men give to to you: Either add to thy might, or abate of thy mind: for no man, Campian, ever took more upon him, and performed less than you have done. But let us see what other things you bring us.

EDMVND CAMPIAN. The second Reason, which is the right sense of the Scriptures.

A Nother matter that provoked me to undertake this enterprize; and that enforced me little to fear these my adversaries slender armies, is the usual inclination of my enemy in expounding the Scriptures, full of deceit, and void of wisdom. These things you Philosophers would quickly find out; and therefore I was desirous of your audience. Let us demand (for example sake) of our adversaries, what caused them to devise this new opinion, whereby Christ is excluded out of the mystical supper? If they name the Gospel, we join with them, the very words they are for us. This is my body, this is my blood: which words seemed to Luther so forcible, that when he earnestly desired to be of Zwingli mind, because by that means he might have wrought the Pope most displeasure; yet notwithstanding he yielded, being overcome and vanquished by the most plain text of Scripture, and as unwillingly confessed that Christ is truly present in the most holy Sacrament, as the devils in time past being overcome with miracles, with outcries confessed that Christ is the son of God. Go to then, the written word doth favor us: the controversy is about the true meaning of the written word. Let us try out this by the words thereunto adjoining: Corpus meum quod pro vobis datur, sanguis meus, qui pro multis e • lundetur: that is, My body which is given for you, my blood which shall be shed for many. Yet the matter goeth hard on Calvin's side▪ and maketh very manifestly and plainly for us. What say they else? Confer say they, the Scriptures together. Agreed. The Gospels make for us, S. Paul accordeth also. The words, the sentences, the whole connection of Scriptures do often most reverently repeat the bread and the wine, a not able miracle, heavenly food, his flesh, his body, his blood. Here is nothing figurative, nothing obscured by doubtful speeches: yet notwithstanding the adversaries stand stiffly in their opinion, and never cease wrangling. What shall we then do? I hope antiquity may be heard, and that the reverend hoary head of Fathers of all former ages, to Christ's time more nigh, & farther off from the time of these controversies, may be their judgment, determine this debate, which we cannot end amongst our selves, being suspected one of another. They cannot away with that; they say then they are betrayed. They cry out for the sincere and pure word of God: they utterly reject all men's commentaries: trecherouslie and witlesselie done. We will urge them with the word of God; they darken it: we call the Saints in heaven for witnesses; they refuse them. In few words this is their drift, that unless thou wilt stand to their own judgment that are guilty, there is no judgment to be had. And so they behave themselves in every controversy between us. As concerning grace poured into us from heaven, inherent justice, the visible Church, the necessity of Baptism, Sacraments, and sacrifices, meritorious works of good folk; hope and fear, inequality of offenses, the authority of S. Peter, the keys, vows, Evangelical counsels, and other like controversies, we Catholics in sundry of our books, in our mutual conference, in churches, in schools have brought forth many and weighty places of Scripture, and have both tried and applied the same. They have scorned at this. We have alleged the interpretations of the ancient Greek and Latin Churches; they have refused them. What say they then? marry that M. Doctor Martin Luther, or else M. Philip Melanthon, or certainly M. Zwingli, or without doubt M. Calvin, and M. Beza have faithfully entreated upon these matters. Can I imagine any of you to be so stuffed in the nose, that being forewarned, cannot quickly smell out this subtle juggling? wherefor I confess plainly that I am desirous to have audience in the University schools, that after I have called these Ruffian-like knights out of their dark dens into the open and plain field, I may before your eyes discomfite them, not by my own strength, which am not to be compared with the worst of an hundred of our side, but by the puissance of the cause, and certainty of the truth which we maintain.

WILLIAM WHITAKERS. The answer to the second Reason.

W Hat could be said touching the Scriptures we have heard, we must proceed to hear what can be said for the interpretation and exposition of them; for our usual inclination in expounding the Scriptures, (saith Campian ) hath encouraged and incited him earnestly to desire this encounter. And we also ( Campian ) have long ago desired to buckle with you herein. And at length the Lord hath brought you out of your lurking holes into the broad light, that we might try it out with you; but what is our disposition you speak of? It is full of deceit, say you, and void of wisdom. Thus you being a man of small reach, and less discretion, do conceit our inclination. Assuredly the matter you have now in hand is a cause of great weight: for the force, the substance, and as it were the soul of the Scripture consisteth in the meaning: very well said Jerome: The Scriptures are not in the letter, but in the understanding: and in another place: The Gospel is not in the words of the Scripture, but in the sense. They then have the best end of the staff, and are the best patrons of Religion and truth, who find out and keep the true and natural meaning of the Scripture. For the letter or word is plain; all controversies depend upon the meaning of the Word. The state of the question is then thus, whether of us twain have attained the true and natural meaning of the Scripture: whether you Jesuits, falsely called Catholics; or we, who oppose your opinion and judgment. First therefore in general, and in few words we will see what is your opinion and judgment: then we will answer to your cavils. Now it is most clear that you make both the Scripture it self, and the interpretation of it to depend upon the authority of the Church. And the Church you call not the whole multitude of Christians and faithful men, but you restrain both the name and nature of the Church unto your Bishops. But your Bishops may differ touching the sense of the Scriptures, so shall we be uncertain and shall not resolve which of them to believe. But you can help this, general Councils must decide and determine all questions and controversies. Shall we then rest in them? no more then in the other: for the Pope must be judge over the Councils. So in the conclusion, the whole interpretation of holy Scriptures is transferred to the Pope, and must be fetched out of his breast: yea and as a proper right he so challengeth the power of interpreting of the Scripture, that whatsoever he thinketh, that must be accounted the sense and meaning of them. This is your constant and perpetual property and disposition in interpreting the Scriptures, full of dotage, error, and falsehood, void of advise, knowledge and wisdom. For what an absurd and horrible thing is it, that the sense and meaning of the holy Scripture should depend upon one man's judgment and voice? specially being such a one, as commonly the Bishops of Rome have been, unlearned, wicked, heretical. And hence have proceeded all those goodly interpretations, Take, Eate, that is, you Priests say private Masses: Drink ye all of this, that is, only the Priests must drink. Be ye holy, for I am holy, therefore it is unlawful for the Minister of the Word to marry a wife. Give ye not holy things to dogs, therefore the people must be forbidden to read the Scriptures. What should I number up innumerable moe of your interpretations, by which you do nothing but pervert and wrest the Scriptures? Is this indeed, Campian, the right interpreting of Scripture? or must all Christians receive this exposition as the oracle of God?

But what should I speak of the constant tenor you keep in the interpretation of Scripture? for you make the sense of Scriptures so changeable, so diverse, and inconstant, like to a nose of wax and a leaden rule, that at all assays it may ever serve your turn. So writeth Nicholas Cusanus, a Cardinal of Rome, to the Bohemians. This understand that the Scriptures are fitted to the time, and diversely to be understood; 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 marvel if the custom of the Church at one time interpret the Scriptures after this manner, & another time after that. Was there ever the like boldness heard of; that men would wrest the eternal and immutable word of God, which ever hath but one and the same sense, to serve the will of the Church, that is, of the Pope of Rome? besides this you have made so many senses of every place, to wit, an allegorical, a tropological, an anagogicall sense, that by your Ledgerdemaine, you have abolished the true and native 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 have prescribed, and which the thing it self argues to be most fit. For that is our course which Augustine advised: we interpret obscure places by those which are plainer, we observe the phrase and style of the Scripture, we weigh circumstances, we compare scripture with scripture, we go not one jot from the Analogy of faith. They who take this course, adjoining their hearty prayers, that the Lord would open this sealed book unto them; and teach them the true sense of the scripture, shall never need to run to Rome, and inquire of that sacred Oracle of the Pope, who himself neither understandeth the true sense of scripture, neither is able to expound them to others.

But to return now to Campian: what is the usual fault he finds in our dealing with the scripture? and what be the arguments by which he doth confute us? Let us demand, saith he, (for example sake) of our Adversaries what caused them to devise this new opinion, whereby Christ is excluded out of the mystical Supper. We, Campian, do not exclude Christ out of the Supper, neither do we otherwise think of the Sacrament then both Christ hath taught us, and the old Church hath prescribed. We certainly affirm, that the faithful in the supper receive whole Christ, God and Man: we believe and teach that they eat his body and drink his blood. Neither doubt we to affirm, but that he, that comes to the supper, and doth not in the supper partake of Christ, that he is in danger of condemnation. Do we now exclude Christ from the supper? But whosoever includeth Christ in the supper as you do, he feigneth and forgeth a new Christ to himself, he confoundeth heaven and eart • together, he offereth violence to nature, and mu •• needs admit innumerable absurdities. Wherefore we following the scripture, as our school-masters, not taking up any new opinion, place the natural and human body of Christ in heaven; for so the Apostle Peter speaketh, whom the heavens must contain, until the time that all things be restered; yet the virtue, the communion, the benefit of this body we exclude not from the supper: but stiffly maintain, that in the supper whole Christ is present to each man's faith. This is the sum of our opinion, which I no less 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, have you made choice of, as an example to impugn and gain-say: Let us see now how scholar-like you acquit yourself. If they name the Gospel, say you, we join with them. The very words make for us. This is my body, this is my blood: I acknowledge the words do, but I inquire now for the sense of them: whether they should be so expounded as your Church teacheth: that the bread is Transubstantiated into the body, and the wine into the blood of Christ: or by a Trope and in a mystical sense, that the bread is the Sacrament, the sign 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 discuss. As for that which you tell us of Luther, I suppose you will not expect any answer from me: and undoubtedly in this thing Luther was far more opposite to your opinion, then ours. For he ever condemned your Transubstantiation, as it is, for an accursed invention and fiction of Satan. Luther we acknowledge was a man, who though he saw the truth in many things, yet he might err in some things: his good things we embrace, but we are bound by no law to defend his errors.

But how shall we find out the meaning of this saying? Let us try out this, say you, by the words thereto adjoining. Nothing can be spoken more truly, nothing more fitly, nor more ingenuously. And verily I could wish you would always do, as you pretend in this place to do, sist out the meaning of the scripture by the circumstances of the words. But what are the words adjoining? My body which is given for you, my blood which is shed for you. Campian, you are too sparing and scant in the point: repeat, and say, that which goeth before. As they did eat, Christ took bread, he blessed it, he brake it, and gave it to his disciples, and said, Take, eat, this is my body, and he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gau • it to them saying, Drink ye all of this, for this is my blood &c. So now, Campian, I will deal with you from the words which are now adjoining. What was it Christ took? you will say bread: what brake he? bread: what gave he to his disciples? bread: wh •• did he bid them take and eat? bread: what said he was his body? was it any other thing, • hen the very same bread which he took into his hands, brake and gave to his disciples. Therefore 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 well-nigh contrary? Then tell us, how they can affirm, or be spoken one of another, unless you will admit a Tropicall speech. Yet, Campian, to use your own words, the matter gocth hard on your side, and maketh very plainly and manifestly for us. For Christ saith plainly that the bread is his body, which cannot be true without a figure, that bread made to eat, should be properly Christ's 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 Circumcision This is the covenant betwixt me and you. Yet Circumcision was not the covenant, but the sign of the covenant. Now tell us I pray you, what difference betwixt these two: This is my covenant & this is my body? The former you cannot deny, but must be understood by a Metonymy: and can any man make doubt, but that the latter likewise is to be so expounded. The like we read of the Lamb. 〈◊〉 is the Lord's Passover. And yet the Lamb was not the Passover, but a memorial of it: like to this is that of S. Paul. The rock was Christ. Now as the rock was Christ, so is this mystical bread the body of Christ. Thus as yet you see the matter is never the better on your side; have you anything else? The Gospel, say you, makes for us, S. Paul accordeth also. Nay S. Paul utterly overthroweth your opinion: for when he speaketh of this Sacrament in one continued speech, he useth the word bread, four several times, and that after Consecration; so that it appeareth▪ • early to have the proper nature of bread, though it be said to be the body of Christ. But yet you add: The words, the sentences, the whole conuection of Scripture, do often most reverently repeat the bread, the wine, a notable miracle, heavenly food, his flesh▪ his body, his blood. In good earnest you discourse of these things with great reverence and shamefastness. For you would prove that in this Sacrament, there remaineth neither bread nor wine, but certain qualities of these things, hanging in the air, and void • of the things themselves. And for any notable miracle, I acknowledge none, but answer you with Agustine. They may be honored as religious things, but they cannot be wondered at as minacles. No man ever denied, but that in the Sacrament heavenly food is both prepared, and offered to all the godly. But those heavenly and holy banquets, whereby our souls are nourished up to eternal life, you make profane and common, when you imagine, that Christ may be received and eaten like other meats, as well of the wicked, as of the most devout men in the world; which is an horrible opinion, senseless and unsound. For that you add of flesh, body, and blood, I confess: for being the Sacraments of these things, they have their names given unto them: for signs of things (saith Augustine ) are said to be the things of which they are signs. But, say you, here is nothing figurative, nothing obscure by doubtful speeches. True it is there is never a riddle in the words, no obscurity. For the obscurity that is, is not in the words, but in your interpretation of them, which ten Apolloes cannot so unfold and open, that things might agree and answer fitly one to another.

What resteth yet, is it not that at length we find out some certain and true sense of these words? I hope, say you, Antiquity may be heard. I verily in this controversy will reject no Antiquity, no Council, no ancient Father, neither will I refuse any monument of true Antiquity. For that same reverend hoary head of Fathers which you speak of, could never come to the knowledge of this new doctrine of Transubstantiation lately hatched. If those holy Fathers and reverend Elders did now live, they would never acknowledge this mōster, nor endure the sight of it, but judge it worthy to be abandoned into the utmost parts of the world. Whereas then you say, They cannot away with that, They say then they are betrayed. You trifle and say nothing to the purpose: for we can away well with this trial, and fear no treachery in it. But will call you very willingly to this reverend Antiquity, as to a bar of trial. Therefore if you please we will demand of those reverend Fathers, what they judge to be the meaning of those words, which you have produced for example sake. And seeing there is no necessity to collect all their sayings, some few of them shall speak, to give us a taste of the rest. Tertullian saith, Christ professed his desire to eat the Pass • over, as his own, and having taken bread, and distributed it to his disciples, he made it his body, by saying▪ this is my body, that is, the figure or sign of my body. You acknowledge both Tertullian's words and his meaning. Augustine saith, Christ admitted Judas to that banquet, in which he commended to his disciples the figure of his body and blood. In another place also. The Lord verily doubted not to speak thus. This is my body, when he gave the sign of his body. And that you may understand, that this was Augustine's perpetual tenor in interpreting of these words, and that he determined far diverse to you touching the eating of Christ's flesh: hear what he saith in his books of Christian Instruction, where he giveth diverse precepts for the understanding of the phrase of the Scriptures. If, saith he, any sentence there seem to command any impious act, or to forbid any duty tending to the profit or good of others, it is a figurative speech; unless, saith Christ, you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you have no life in you: It seemeth to enjoin an heinous act. It is therefore a figurative speech, commanding us to communicate in the Passion of the Lord. Do you think this reverend old man dotes, or hath he not given a judicious interpretation, well agreeing unto the judgment of the ancient? I think matters yet go worse on your side, then they did before: but perhaps you will say, these are too ancient to serve your turn, hear then some of latter times. Theodoret a Gretian and a learned man writeth thus in his Dialogue • Mystical signs do not lose their proper nature. This very speech quite overthroweth your Transubstantiation, for if their proper nature remain, 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 join to Theodoret Marcarius; whose homilies Morelius had out of the Kings Librarie, and hath published them in Greek: and I suppose that you being a Frier, will not reject the testimony of so ancient a Monk: he writeth thus. In the Church, saith he, is offered bread and wine, 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 Monk to speak after this manner? give you them so slender a name, as similitudes? Pardon me, Campian, this Monk was never used to speak after your manner, neither was your Transubstantiation as yet come abroad? what say you now? are you pleased with this reverend hoary head of the Fathers? If you rest not here, it shall be free for you to appeal to any one of the whole reverend 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 judges, you shall ever have the worst. From henceforth therefore do not cast any such calumni •• ions upon us, and boast yourself of the bare names of the Fathers; for the Fathers both in this controversy and in many others are firm on our side. As for the Fathers of whom you name many, but I believe have read but a few, I thus answer you. We are not the servants of the Fathers, but the sons. When they prescribe us anything out of the Law and divine authority, we obey them, as our parents. If they enjoin anything against the voice of the heavenly truth, we have learned not to hearken to them, but to God. You as Vassals and base servants receive whatsoever the Fathers say, without judgment or reason, being afraid, as I think, either of the whip, or the halter, if everything they speak be not Gospel with you.

In few words, say you, this is their drift, unless thou wilt stand to their own judgment, that are guilty, there is no judgment to be had. Verily this fits you a great deal better then us, for you will receive no judgment but the judgment of the Pope, and Church of Rome; which Church and Pope we have proved long ago to be guilty of most heinous crimes, and there hath been a perpetual variance betwixt him and us. Is there any equity then in your demands that we should stand to his judgment, who 〈◊〉 both a person guilty, and an adversary to us? And well should we deserve to lose the cause, if we would be so witless contenders. Much truer speaketh Augustine, Let one matter encounter with another, one cause with another, one reason with another, by the authority of the holy Scriptures, which are not proper to either side, but common witnesses for both. And to their judgments would we have you to stand, not ours. As for other things you speak of, I pass them over, for you will reserve them for us till another place; and whereas you say, you have cited many and worthy places of Scripture, we have weighed those places in their balances, and have found them to light to prove what you proposed. And it is your use indeed, rather to take them by number, then by weight. But you charged us with scorning at this and shifting them off, we did nothing less; all we did was to free them from your cavils. We have, say you, alleged the interpretations of the Greek and Latin Churches. I confess it, but we have wrung all those weapons from you, and have by them battered all your holds. But say you, what say they then? marry that M. Doctor Martin Luther, or M. Philip Melangthon, or certainly M. Zwingli, or without doubt M. Calvin, and M. Beza, have faithfully entreated upon those matters. Tell us, Frier, what should hinder, why everyone of these you have nominated, may not as faithfully entreat of th • se things, as those who have lived before them in ages past? what wanted they, which the other had? what skill of art, what knowledge of the tongues, what other helps? there is not any one of these, but hath far surpassed in learning, and all deserved commendation, the whole society of Jesuits.

But why do I compare these burning lights, bright stars of piety and religion, with the base scum of your Doctors? and this now is another of your reasons, why you were so desirous to have audience in the Vniuersity Schools. If you be, Campian, sodesirous, as you would make the world believe, I marvel why you are so long a coming: for our schools were ever open for you, but you could never find the way into them. If you hereafter come, you shall find many in our schools, that will encounter with you in all kind of learning. And here you end your discourse of the right sense of the Scriptures.

EDMVND CAMPIAN. The third Reason, which is the nature of the Church.

S O soon as the Adversary heard the Church named, he waxed wan: yet notwithstanding he hath devised one thing, which I would wish you to note well; that thereby you may perceive, the ruin and hard shifts of falsehood. The enemy perceived that both in the old and new Testament, there is everywhere honorable mention made of the Church, and that it is called a holy city, a fruitful vineyard, an high hill, a direct path, the only dove, the kingdom of heaven, the spouse and body of Christ, the pillar of truth, the multitude unto which the holy Ghost being promised, poureth all things needful to saluatiō. The congregation, against all which the gates of hell shall never so prevail, that they shall utterly extinguish the same. The congregation, which who so repugneth, though he confess Christ with his mouth, yet hath he no more to do with Christ, then hath a Publican and heathen man. He durst not say anything against this openly, neither would he seem to gain-say that Church, whereof the Scriptures so often make mention. He kept craftily still, the name of the Church, but the thing itself by describing it, he took quite away. For he hath portraied the Church with such properties as do altogether hide it and make it, as if it were Plato his Idea; unapt to be seen with the senses, but subject to the privy insight and speculation of a very few men, such only as by special inspiration, might in their imagination comprehend this arrie body, and could likewise with a sharp eye discern such as are members of this chosen society, what is become of truth? where is plain dealing? what Scriptures? what just judgments, what Fathers describe the Church in this sort? There are Epistles in the Apocalyppes of S. John written by Christ himself to the seven Churches which were in Asia. There are also diverse Epistles written by S. Peter, S. Paul, S. John. and by others unto sundry Churches. In the Acts of the Apostles, we find mention made of many Churches begun and enlarged: what were those? were they known to God only, and to his Saints, or also to all sortes of Christians? But truly necessity is a deadly dart; pardon them: for they that all these 1500 years cannot spy out so much, as one time, one village, one house embrued with their doctrine, until that unhappy Moncke by his incestuous marriage had destoured a Nun, dedicated to God by former solemn vow: or until that quarrelling Swizer had conspired against his country: or until that infamous runagate had undertaken an usurped authority in Geneva. If they will have any Church at all, they must needs fetch the same out of blind corners, and challenge those for their ancestors, whom they neither knew themselves, neither any mortal man hath seen, except they brage of such forefathers, who were manifest heretics, as Arius, Iouinianus, Heluidius, Vigillantius, the Image breakers, Berengarius, Waldensis, Lothardus, Wyclife, Hus, of all which they have begged some pieces of their devilish doctrine. Maruaile not though I have not feared these smoders, which if I shall once come to the clear light, I shall easily expel. For this is our speech together. Tell me, dost thou believe as the Church doth, which flourished these many hundred years past? Yea verily: let us therefore discourse of our countries and times; what Church dost thou believe? The congregation of the faithful, whosenames are unknown, but it is apparent that many such have been: Is it apparent that many such have been. To whom it is apparent? To God; who saith so? we that have received our doctrine from God himself. This is a loud lie, how may I believe it? If thou were fervent in faith, thou should know this as assuredly, as thou dost that thou art alive: Can you refrain laughing when you hear such foolish answers? All Christian people are commannded to cleave fast unto the Church, they are warned to take heed, lest they be slain with the spiritual sword: they are bid keep peace in the house of God: to commit their souls in trust unto this pillar of truth, there to make all their complaints to take for heathen all such as are cast out of this Church: and yet all that, have so many men, so many hundred years, been ignorant, where that Church is, or who belong unto it; will they in darkness still stand upon that point? that where or in what place soever the Church is, there are contained therein, only saints, and such as are predestinate to go to heaven: whereby it falleth out that if any man will refuse to obey his prelate, he may think himself to be blameless in so doing: if he persuade himself that his said prelate hath committed any great offense, & by that means is excommunicated out of the Church. When I perceived that my adversaries invented such devises, and that they would not associate themselves to any Church, that heretofore hath been: and that when they were quite deprived of the thing it self, they would needs (though with much ado) keep still the bare name in possession, I solaced myself, with the hope I conceived of your ripe judgments, yea and I nothing doubted, but that as soon as you should find out even by their own confessions, these their juggling tricks, you would straightwaies, like plain honest and wise men cut off such foolish snares, framed of set purpose to work your overthrow.

WILLIAM WHITAKERS. The answer to the third Reason.

W Hat is it, Campian, you further bring unto us? you propound unto us the nature of the Church, wherein you bring nothing besides your accustomed manner of vain and childish oratory, neither worthy the hearing of our University men, or answerable to the opinion that is held of you. As touching the Church there are many questions and great controversies, and at this day almost all disputations about religion are reduced to this head. For your Catholics being tossed with the boisterous storms of other disputations, have been willing to take harbor in this haven of the Church. Here they dwell, here they place all their hopes of safety and victory, here they hide themselves, whensoever they are beaten out of the field. Therefore they fortify this sconce with all the skill they can, and strengthen it with munition on all sides; for which cause I marvel so much the more to find you, from whom so great things are expected, in this controversy to be so sleight and shallow; for you neither teach, nor conclude, nor yet propound anything for your Church against ours, which hath in it either forceable reason or proof. But it may be this is but your first skirmish, you will happily afterwards deal with us hand to hand; yet I will trace you out in your own steps, that I may lay hold of you, if happily I may find you anywhere certain.

So soon, say you, as the adversary heard the Church but named, he waxed wan: yea Campian, it made him blush, when he perceived so chaste & holy a matron, so impiously & insolently to be abused by you. The Church doth ever expel you, and deny all commerce with you. Yet you as very audacious & importunate wooers give not over your suite to compass her. Sure there was no cause why your adversary should wax so wan, unless he feared some evil measure from such cutthroats as you are. Yet notwithstanding, say you, he hath devised one thing, which I would wish you to note well. You will sure acquaint us with some great and unheard of matter; verily I much desire to know what is this one thing: yet I fear it will prove stark nothing; and for all your throes, you will bring forth but a mouse. As for the honorable praises of the Church, you mention, we both acknowledge those, and speak far greater things of it: but verily they agree not to your Church at all; for it is the Babylonish whore, a branch cut off from the true Vine, a den of thieves, a broad way leading to destruction, the kingdom of hell, the body of Antichrist, a sink of errors, a great mother of fornications, the Church of the wicked, out of which every Christian ought to depart, which Christ shall one day fearfully destroy, and give her the just recompense of all her sins. In vain then do you reckon up the praises of the Church, unless you can demonstrate that they are proper to your Church, which you shall never be able to do, so long as Rome standeth. He would not, say you, seem to gain-say the Church, he kept craftily still the name of the Church, but the thing it self by his definition he took quite away. We verily, Campian, reverence and honor the Church, as our mother, and in our definition we both retain the name, and clearly set out the nature of the thing it self. But you having lost the Church long since, do yet challenge the name and the vain 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 do altogether darken and hide it. We ascribe those properties to the Church which comprise the true nature of the Church, whose presence make a Church, and their absence mar or destroy a Church. But what are those properties which you affirm to darken and hide the Church? we verily judge this to be proper to the true Church, to hear the word of Christ, and keep it, to use wholly and purely those Sacraments, which Christ, when he departed from his Church, left her, as a pledge of his love to her, and as a proof of her loyalty to him. These we maintain as the most true and substantial properties of the Church, and this definition, made of the natural and inbred principles and grounds of the thing, which we define, you shall never be able to overthrow. I pray you what is there here that hideth the Church? doth the word of God; do the Sacraments hide the Church? yea these are they that make the Church appear as clear as anything at noon day, these give unto the Church strength, health and beauty: abolish these, there will remain nothing but the carcass of the Church. What drowsy dream then is this, you tell us of an airy body? as if we denied that the Church could be found on the earth; we never doubted but the Church ever hath been, and ever shall be upon the earth: though we also grant that the sight of it being sometime so clear that it may be seen of all: at another time is so obscured & ever shadowed, that one can hardly know it. But no Church pleaseth you, save that which is continually flourishing, and which is visible to all men's eyes, which hath a continual succession of Bishops to be fetched from the beginning, and which is subject to the Pope. Now Campian, as for you, you come to late to tell us of these frantic popish dreams; we have heard, discussed, and distolued them, above a thousand times. Do you think you are able to make us believe, that the state of the Church is such, that it cannot be hid, that treachery should prevail nothing against it, an open enemy nothing, Antichrist himself nothing? These can never quite overthrow the Church, they may drive it to straits and thrust it into corners. Augustine compareth the Church to the Moon, which sometime while it is enlightened by the Sun-beams, shineth out, a • another time it is deprived 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 continually gaining and losing of light.

Will you that I manifest it to you by examples? while David and Solomon reigned, the Church flourished in Israel; but when Ahab reigned, the face of the Church was so far obscured, that the most divine Prophet Elijah complained that there was not one remaining save himself. If there could be such a havoc made of the Church, that of all that great number of the godly, there was scarce one to be seen, (though there was a good sum remaining of them.) it need be no wonder that in the kingdom of Antichrist, who surpasseth all Ahab's and Jezebels in all brabarous cruelty, that the Church should be so wasted, that there should appear a marvelous scarcity of faithful men. And yet could Antichrist in that great havoc of religion and the Church, never so far prevail, but there was a remanant of many thousand thousands of Saints, who never bowed their knees to the beast, neither ever received the mark of the beast. Let us pass along to those times when Christ lived upon the earth, and consider the state of the Church of Jerusalem. For no Church can be more like to the Church of Rome, then that, as the state of it was, when Christ did perform the work of our salvation. They had the Scripture, they were a people zealous of the law, they had the Temple, they had Levites, Priests, yea a high Priest; what was wanting here to make a perfect Church? Christ at length showeth himself openly, and bringeth that happy message of salvation; 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 celestial doctrine; the author of our salvation. This Church then, Campian, was it a true Church or no, what think you? If it was, then the true Church hated Christ, and judged him worthy of death. If it was not, then where and what is the true Church? for Christ at the first had a very small number, that if you answer Christ and his company was the Church, then you fall into that crime, which you reprove us for. If then this might befall the Church of Jerusalem, that though it had, and by continued succession enjoyed the name of the Church, yet in very truth it was nothing else but a cave and den of thieves: I see not what the Church of Rome can challenge to it self, why it may not be said long agot to have lost the body of the Church, though it keep 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 heretic, and that it is the Catholic Church? The Church of Jerusalem condemned Christ, and him and his they would have denied to be the true Church, if by any color they could, that they might free themselves out of those straights, they were brought into. But happily they will say, there is no such thing to be found in Christ's new Church. But S. Paul prophesieth of an Apostasy, that should be before Christ's coming to judgment, which Apostafie is from religion and the Church, as the most auncien • Fathers do understand it: and Christ prophesied evidently of the small number of his. When the Soune of man shall come shall he find faith on the earth? If hardly any faith shall remain on the earth, and the Church cannot be said to be a Church, but improperly without faith, it followeth necessarily that when Christ cometh, their number shall be very small, who may truly be called the Church. You have now those Scriptures which do thus paint out the Church unto us, unless you think yourself better able to puttray it, then the holy Ghost himself could do, who hath set out the Church in far better colors and manner, then I find yours to be, in which there is nothing left but painted walls. But, say you, there are Epistles of Christ written to the seven Churches which were in Asia; there are also diverse Epistles which were written by S. Peter, S. Paul, S. John, and by others unto sundry Churches; in the Acts of the Apostles we find mention made of many Churches begun and enlarged. What then, Campian, what think you may be inferred hereupon? These were not known to God only, but also to all Christians: whoever 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 ever seem to make question whether a Church might be visible or no? we verily call all those visible and apparent Churches, which profess the pure word of God and hold those rights and Sacraments which are commanded by Christ. And so at this day by the blessing of God there are many visible Churches in England, Scotland, Germany, France, and other parts of Christendom, though it grieve you Jesuits they should be so visible and apparent. But what kind of reasoning is this? Those Churches to whom Christ and his Apostles writ were visible: therefore the Catholic Church is ever visible. Have you learned such Logic as this at Rome in your famous schoolts of Jesuits? or do you, Campian, think that these manner of Allegations should go for proofs in the ears of our Vniuersity men? but where are those Churches now, which were then so flourishing? Shew me the Church of Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamos, Corinthes, and the rest. Now they are nowhere to be seen, and are no longer Churches. And that which we have seen already befall those Churches, teach us, 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 shall the downfall of any city or Empire ever be able to abolish it. And at this day there are many flourishing Churches, which are equal to your falsely called Catholic Church, for the number, & undoubtedly are far better for the truth they hold.

But you say, That for 1500. years we could not spy out one town, one village, one house seasoned with our doctrine. Nay, Campian, that is very false, for in the Apostles time, all Churches, all cities, all towns, every family embraced the same faith and religion which we now profess. After that by little and little, the purity of doctrine began to be corrupted, and diverse superstitions spread far and near; though the holy Fathers did as much as they could, resist, until that mystery of iniquity, which took rooting in the very Apostles time, spread it self by all the parts of the Church, and at length possessed it wholly. Yet Antichrist that man of sin, could never prevail so far, but a great multitude of the Saints remained; and those, whose names were written in the book of life, did utterly abhor all those filthy and wicked superstitions of Antichrist. For in the Church of Rome it self even in the worth times of it, yet many were ever found, who worshipped the God of their Fathers, and kept themselves unpolluted with that horrible Idolatry. And this can histories of all times witness, which I could now recite if it were needful, and reckon up to you, many houses, villages, towns, cities, and countries, where Christ had many and populous Churches. The Greek Church could never yet be brought to join itself to your Church, and it is 〈◊〉 opposite to you, as ever our Church was. And yet you so forge these things, as if the Pope of Rome long ago had had the whole world under his subjection. Until that unhappy Monk, as you say, by his incest •••• marriage had deflowered a Nun, dedicated to God by 〈◊〉 sole •••• 〈◊〉 or until that quarrelling Sw ••• had c •• spired against his country, or that infamous •••• gate had undertaken an usurped authority in Ge •••• . So, Campian, go on to rail and revile every good man, pour out the gall of your bitterness, seeing you have undertaken to spend all your venomous darts upon them. Luther's name is written in the book of life; and his memory shall ever be sacred among all good men, and your reproaches shall not be able to pierce or wound him. It is a true saying, that a false repreach pierceth not the skin: you call him Monk, & yourself is but a Frier; now Monks were ever accounted more honest then Friers. But he by incestuous marriage de •• oured 〈◊〉 Nom ••• , dedicated to God by solemn vow. Luther indeed took to wife in holy wedlock, a Virgin that once was entangled by a rash & superstitious vow, after she had been more rightly instructed in the truth of religion. Exclaime bitterly as you list. Call Zwingli also a swash buckler, seeing yourself is a player of a Price. But tell us wherein he did ever show himself such a cutter? forsooth he boldly ventered his life with his fellow citizens. If Zwingli at the command of the Senate went to war against the enemies of his coūtry & religion, where he perished by cruel thieves, who lay in wait for him, what did he vnbefitting a valiant man, a good citizen, and a faithful Pastor to do. For whereas you challenge him with conspiracy against his country, besides that it is a shameless lie, I wonder why you should object 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 Calvin whom you call a seareback: runagate, the whole Church of Christ knoweth to be an excellent man, and a most constant servant of the Lord: who was as far from lewdness and dishonastie, as you are from shamefastness and honesty. If he was seared, S. Paul was so too, yea & diverse others: but indeed he was not. And whereas you call him a runagate, I pray you tell us, where you have lived for these diverse years, and remember what yourself were. Calvin never forsook the Church, he once took upon him to govern, but there he lived with the special love of all, and there he ended his days: but why do I answer you anything in defense of those excellent and worthy men, whom you shall never justly defame, though you burst your heart with lying.

But let us now hear your communication as you call it. And here you demand, Whether we will subscribe to the Church which flourished these many hundred yours? we answer, we will subscribe: but say you, to which Church? I answer to the Church which is built upon the foundation of the Prophets and Apostles: that is, to the Churches of Jerusalem, Antioch, Ephesus, and all those famous and excellent Churches of which we read in the Epistles written by the Apostles, yea even to the ancient 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 read in histories that they kept the seed of that doctrine, which the Apostles taught among them, sound & uncorrupt. These Churches as long as they did continue in the Apostles doctrine, were true Churches; & to those Churches we have and ever will subscribe. And by this I think we have cut off the progress of your conference, for we have not given you such an answer as you feigned to yourself. Wherefore that which followeth in you hangeth together like a rope of sand. but no answer will please you, unless we offer to subscribe to your Romish Church: but that we justly disclaim, because it hath foully corrupted the ••• stles writing. You must find you out other subscribers, Campian, for we will subscribe to none but the Apostolical Churches. But one thing, say you, they will still stand upon in darkness, that where and in what place soever the Church is, there are con • eiued therein only Saints, and such as are predestinate to go to heaven. We speak not so of the Church as you write: for we are taught by the Scriptures thus to distinguish the Church, that it is sometimes visible and sometimes invisible. In a particular visible Church, of which they are members, who will hear the Word, and receive the Sacraments: we confess there are many feigned Christians, who had rather have the visard of faith, then true faith indeed. An invisible Church we affirm to contain only the godly, who with a true faith lay hold on the Gospel. These though they may be seen as long as they live amongst men, seeing they are men as others be, yet because neither their faith nor God's love, which maketh them members of the Church, is visible, we affirm that this Church, consisting of holy and faithful men, is altogether invisible. Christ is the head of this Church, to this only the elect ca • join themselves, we 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 soever upon the earth doth profess the doctrine of the Apostles and Prophets, we profess that to be the true Church of Christ, though many wicked men be found in it. Neither are we the first who did invent and devise these things, as you say of us, but are ready to prove thē both by the holy scripture and by authority of Antiquity. Comfort then yourself, Campian, as much as you can, with the wits of our Vniuersity men, and promise to yourself great things from us, but see you bring more dexterity of wit, or else without doubt you can never deceive us with this shallow conceit. If you should propound these foolish and childish things in the populous assemblies of our Vniuersity men, I persuade myself, they would not only tear to pieces these your childish shifts, but do as much by you too, for abusing so shamefully their learned conceits.

EDMVND CAMPIAN. The fourth Reason, which is general Councils.

A Great controversy for the keeping of the ceremonies of the old law, which in the Primitive Church much moved the minds of faithful people, was by a Council gathered together, of the Apostles and some elders decided. Children then believed their Parents, and sheep their Sheepheards, charging them in this sort: It hath pleased the holy Ghost, and us; after this there were holden four general Councils of ancient Fathers, for the rooting out of heresy, which budded up abundantly in every age, which were of such authority above 1000. years ago, that great honor was attributed unto them, as though it had been unto the four Gospels. I will seek no further; even here in our own Country by an act of Parliament, the self same Councils do retain still their former force, and pure authority: which said act I will here allege: And call thee, thyself O England, my most loving Country, to witness. If thou reverence, as thou pretendest, those Councils, then wilt thou yield up the supremacy to the Bishop of the chief sea, that is, to Saint Peter. Then wilt thou acknowledge upon the altar, the unbloody sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ. Then wilt thou pray the blessed Martyrs and all the Saints in Heaven to make intercession to Christ for thee. Then wilt thou restrain these leacherous Apostates from their filthy carnal copulation, and open incest. Then wilt thou build up many things, which now thou pullest down, and wish many things undone, which now thou doest. Moreover, I promise and undertake, as occasion and time shall serve, to prove, that the Councils holden at other times, and namely the Council of Trent, have been of equal authority and credit with the four first Councils. Wherefore then should I not come to this place of trial, securely and courageously, to mark into what corner my enemy will creep, seeing I am aided with the valiant and piked garrison of all the Councils? For I will allege both most manifest matter which he shall not be able to wrest aside, and also most substantially proved, which he dare not contemptuously reject. He will perhaps go about to trifle out the time, with multiplying of many words: but if you be the men that I have always taken you for, you will take so good heed unto him, that he shall neither rob you of your ears nor eyes. If there shall be any at all so mad, as to oppose himself against the sages of all Christendom, and those, such men as for holiness of life learning and antiquity, are too great to be challenged; I would willingly behold that brazen face, the which when I shall sh • w you, I will leave the rest to your imaginations. In the mean while, I will give you this caveat, that whosoever affirmeth, that a general Council, duly and orderly kept, and finished, is of no force or authority, the same man seemeth to me, to be one of no judgment, nor of any wit; and not only an asse in divinity, but also void of discretion in worldly policy. If ever the spirit of God illuminated the Church, surely then that time is most fit to send down the holy Ghost, when the religion, perfection, knowledge, wisdom and honor of all Churches dispersed throughout all Christendom, are assembled together into one City: and using all means both divine and human, whereby the truth may be searched out, they call upon the holy Ghost, promised by God unto them, that by his assistance, they may establish godly laws, for the safe and wise government of the Church. Now let there some petty peart heretical Doctor leap out, let him look up stately, let him scorn and mock, let him lay all shame aside, let him saucily give judgment of his own judges, what game, what pastime shall he make; we have spied out such a one, even Martin Luther, who saith, that he more esteemeth of the voices of two honest and learned men (ye may well imagine his own, and Philip Melanchthon's ) if they come together in Christ's name, then he did of all general Councils. O worthy company! We have found out also, another of the same crew, to wit Kemnitius, who hath undertaken to examine the Council of Trent, by his own unreasonable giddy brain: what hath he gained? an evil name: so that he, except he prevent it by recanting, shall be buried for an heriticke with Arius: whereas the Council of Trent, the elder it waxeth, by so much more it shall flourish daily and continually. O good Lord, with what diversity of people out of all countries, with what choice of Bishops throughout all Christendom, with what excellency of Kings and Common-weals, with what profound divines, with what devotion, with what lamentations, with what abstinence and fasting, with what flowers of Universities, with what knowledge of strange tongues, with what sharp wits, with what study, with what endless reading, with what store of virtues and exercises was that sacred place replenished? I heard with my own ears Bishops rejoice, being men of great birth and very well learned, of which, one was Anthony Archbishop of Prague (who created me Priest) for that they had been brought up certain years in that famous School; so that they acknowledged no benefit that ever the Emperor Ferdinando bestowed on them (to whom otherwise also they thought themselves no little beholding) to be more princely and bountiful, then this was, that by him being sent in Embassage from Pannonia, they sat in the Council of Trent, together with the rest of the Fathers there present. This thing the Emperor full well perceived, who greeted them in this sort at their return: We have maintained you in an exceeding good School, why made the adversaries no hast hither, being promised to go and come safe; that they might openly have confuted them, against whom they croak like Toads out of their hoales. They have broken promise (say they) with Hus and Jerome, who? the heads of the Council of Constance. That is a lie: for they made them no promise. And yet Hus had not been put to death; if that he, false and treacherous villain as he was, not only by an escape, which the Emperor Sigismundus had forbidden him upon pain of death; and being taken, was brought back again: but also by breaking certain covenants which he had made in writing with the Emperor had not lost the benefit of that safe conduct: Hus was hedged in for his hasty knavery; for whereas at his country in Bohem, he had stirred up barbarous tumults, and was therefore commanded to appear before the general Council at Constance, he contemned the prerogative of the Council, and made suite for a safe conduct to the Emperor. The Emperor sealed him one; all Christendom, which is greater then the Emperor, unsealed it again: the arch heretic would not recant, and therefore he was burnt: As for Jerome of Prague, he came privately without any safe conduct at all to the Council of Constance, and being apprehended did appear, and had liberty to say what he could, and was very courteously entreated, and suffered to go abroad at his pleasure. He was cured of his disease, and abjured his heresy, he fell again, and therefore was burnt. But wherefore do they so often inculcate and call to memory, this one example amongst six hundred? Let them peruse their chronicles: Martin Luther, one hated both of God and man, personallie appeared at Augusta before the Cardinal Caietane, and did he not belche forth of his venemouse gorge, what poisoned speeches he could, and at length being protected with the Emperor Maximilians safe conduct, went he not safe away? The same Martin Luther being sent for, to come to Wormes, though he had both the Emperor, and almost all the Princes of the Empire his Enemies, did he not upon the Emperors word come and go safe? Finally, did not the ring-leaders of the Lutherans and Zwinglians in the presence of Charles the fifth, the open enemy to all heretics, Conqueror, and sovereign, upon a truce granted them, exhibit at an assembly at Augusta, the confession of their faith, which before they had so often altered, and went they not without hurt away? Likewise the council of Trent provided for the adversary most large warrants to come and go safe, but he would not use the same. He beasteth forsooth of himself in corners, where when he can utter three Greek words, he may seem to be a great learned man: He flies from the light, which would make a slender scholar to be accounted learned, and so advance him to seats of great dignity. Let them purchase for us English Catholics, if they love their souls health, such a safe conduct in writing: we will not allege Hus for our excuse, but make our speedy repair to the court, putting our whole trust in the Queens Majesty's word. But that I may return thither from whence I digressed: All general Councils are on my side, the first, the last, the rest; these shall be my weapons. Let the adversary expect, a well headed dart, which he shall never be able to shake off. God grant that Satan in him may be quite overthrown, and Christ reuined.

WILLIAM WHITAKERS. The answer to the fourth Reason.

T HE next place is concerning Councils, not much differing from the former; for what is a Council but the flower, and as it were a little model of the whole Church? And therefore whatsoever may be said of Councils, it appertaineth to the nature of the Church; but when as these for more plainness sake, are sometimes distinguished, I do easily permit you to propound them distinctly. Now the name of Councils is honorable, their credit singular, and their authority of great esteem, and you do never more insolently brag, then in this place: for when you do but name Councils, you think that you have sufficiently confuted your adversaries, and promise unto yourself assured victory. Neither will I go about to extenuate the dignity of Councils, woēdering that Nazianzen, should so unjustly judge, and so injuriously write of them. For he saith, that he had deliberated with himself and fully resolved to avoid Episcopal Conuocations, because he had never seen a good issue of any Synod. Which howsoever it hath been true of many, which by reason of the ambition, and busy meddling of some, have not taken away ancient controversies, but rather have sowed the seed of new contentions: yet many Councils have been approved and commended by their most wished event. Whereas therefore you appeal to Councils, we will follow you in many, & in their most weighty censures and decrees: for in all neither do you yourselves judge it necessary. But let us now hear you discoursing concerning Councils.

A weighty question, (say you) concerning lawful cere ••• ies, was cleared in a Council of the Apostles and Fld • rs assembled together. The children believed their Parents, and the Sheep their Sheph • ard, commanding in this form of speech; It bath pleased the holy Ghost and us. Where you make mention of a Council most excellent, and above all exceptions: in which nothing was done rashly, peruersely, and factiously (as sometimes in other Councils it hath been accustomed) but all things divinely, and by the authority of the holy Ghost himself. and therefore if we did not believe this Council, we were unworthy of the name, either of children or of sheep. This Council resolved that important question concerning ceremonies, and freed the necks of Christians from that most grievous yoke of Mosaical rites: whereby the greater cause of grief is offered us by you, who have imposed upon the Church, contrary to the express commandment of this Council, another yoke much more intolerable, then that of Moses. For this is clear and manifest, that the ceremonies brought into the Church by you, and imposed upon the consciences of men, are twice as many, as those which in time past Moses by God's express commandment enjoined unto the people of Israel. And this is that of which Augustine long agone complained, namely that by the multitudes of ceremonies, the state of Christians, was become worse then the state of the Jews themselves, which if Augustine spake of the ceremonies of his time, how much more would he have thus complained, had he seen the great multitudes, which were afterwards added to them. But if the Apostles and Elders according to the meaning & judgment of the holy Ghost, did determine that those ceremonies which the Lord himself had ordained, were to be abolished, how intolerable is your boldness, who contrary to the decree of this spirit, and Council have obtruded, upon Christians your innumerable traditions and needles ceremonies. Did the Lord therefore abolish his own ceremonies, that he might establish yours? did he abroga •• a few, that he might bring in a multitude? did he ease us of lighter, that he might impose heavier. Whereby it appeareth that the divine institution of this Council, which, as it was before all other in time, so above all other in excellency, is most wickedly by you violated. And is it to be thought possible, that you, who have demeaned yourselves so impiously towards these Parents and Pastors, will be more respective towards others? Nay there is not any Council, which you have not long ago trodden under feet, so that everyone of you, are infoulded in a thousand excōmunications. And dare you, Campian, notwithstanding make mention of Councils, 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 heresy, the four general Councils of the ancient Fathers, which were of such strength and authority, that a thousand years since, they were had in singular account even as God's word it self. And we likewise do freely confess, that the authority of those four Councils was good and profitable. Read what learned Luther hath writ of those four general Councils, and so also you may know our judgment of them. Notwithstanding there is no reason why we should assent unto Gregory, who professeth that he doth embrace and reverence these four Councils, as the four books of the holy Gospel. For this were rather to violate the Gospel, then to reverence the Councils. Although as I take it, Gregory's meaning was, that what was decreed and concluded in these four Councils, out of God's word against Arriu • , Eu •• onius, Macedonius, Nostorius, Eutyches, and Diosc • ru • , that he firmly embraced, and would not suffer these decreet, which are approved by the Evangelical writings, and in which this impious heresy is condemned, to be revoked and repealed no more then the Gospel it self, neither can I imagine that it was Gregory's purpose to affirm this of all these Councils, that the Council of Nice, Constantine • ple, Ephesus and Chalced • n, were fully equal unto the holy Gospel in authority and dignity. And so we our selves do not doubt, that those things which these Fathers have determined against those heretics, before named concerning the consubstantial subsistence of the Father and the Son, of the divinity of the holy Ghost, of the one person of Christ in two natures, are as true as the Gospel it self; not because these Councils so judged and concluded, but because in the Gospel, the self same doctrine of faith is delivered. Further you say, That also i • •• r own country, by our Parliaments, the same Councils retain their ancient right. It is true indeed, that in these and all other things, which they propound, if they be consonant to the holy Scriptures, they do still retain their ancient right and dignity. But lest you should suppose that we did ever attribute thus much to these Councils, that we judge all that to be necessarily embraced, whatsoever they have decreed; hear you now what our Church hath thought and ordained of these general Councils. Councils, not only may err, but also sometimes have erred, and that in these things, which belong to the rule of piety, and therefore whatsoever by them is decreed as necessary to salvation, hath no vertus nor authority, unless it may be shown that it is taken ou • of the holy Scriptures. Cite you now these words, and then contest (as you call it) your sweet country. And in like manner, this your most dear country in which you were borne, brought up and graced, doth contest, entreat, and beseech you, by all those things, which are unto you most swee • e and best esteemed, that you desist anymore in this b • dde cause to be troublesome unto 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 foreign enemy: and that you would at length return thither, from whence you have stra • ed. And surely you would not contemn this speech of your country, if you could, even for a little space, lay aside, that prejudicate opinion which you have sucked from Rome, and brought with you hither into England.

But let us hear, what is this your contestation? If, say you, you will re • erence these four • Councils, you will chiefly hon • r the Bishop of the chief • S •• , that is Peter. And so do we ascribe great honor, unto Peter, and that worthily; neither do we contend with you about him; but this affirm, that those things which were proper unto Peter, cannot in any wise appertain to your Pope, who was never like either Peter or Paul. And in truth what madness is this, so insolently to brag of Peters great virtues, when in the mean time, you cannot prove that your Popes are endued with any such? Do you suppose that any man that is in his right wits, will think that Peters faith, piety, and all the rest of his virtues, have been derived to your Pope by a lineal descent, from so many other Popes, of whom a great number, were not men, but monsters? This doubtless is a gross dotage, and fit to be taken away, with the mad man's 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 governeth at Rome, with the name of Peter? doth he teach? doth he feed Christ's sheep? surely he cannot. Doth he perform the duty of an Apostle, or of a Bishop? nothing less. How therefore doth he demean himself? Sitting in the Vatican, he provoketh to war, moveth seditions, armeth subjects against their Princes, and filleth the whole world with vpro •••• ▪ Did Peter thus behave himself? is this to be Peter? can you deny that these things be true, and shall I then yield unto him the like honor, that is due to Peter, being so unlike him in conditions? But let us further examine your words; You will (say you) chiefly honor the Bishop of the chief Sea, that is Peter; but by what Council do you prove that necessary? you allege the Council of Nice Can. 6. In which there is not so much as any mention of the Bishop of the chief Sea, or of Peter; neither in truth could anything be produced of greater force against your Bishop, then that decree of Nicene Synod: for it matcheth all Metropolitans and Patriarchs in an equal rank of honor with the Bishop of Rome; neither doth it attribute anymore to him, then unto y ^e Metropolitans of Antioch, Alexandria, and the rest of the other Provinces. If you please, you shall hear the words of the Council: Let the ancient custom be in force, which was in Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis, that the Bishop of Alexandria have the chief dignity, over all these things: because also this was the custom of the Bishop of Rome: and in like manner at Antioch, and in the rest of the Provinces, let the Primacy and authority be received unto the Churches.

You see (Campian) I suppose that no extraordinary prerogative hath been given to the Bishop of Rome: and that his Province and Jurisdiction hath been circumscribed within determined bounds and borders. And after this same manner doth Ruffinus, (if you do not credit us) interpret this Canon. This Auncient custom is observed at Alexandria, and in the city of Rome, that the Bishop of Alexandria take the charges of Egypt, and the Bishop of Rome of the Churches of the cities neire adjoining. And therefore let the Bishop of Rome take care of the bordering Churches of the neighbor cities, with which the Nicene Synod hath enjoined him to rest satisfied; and hereafter let him not trouble himself, with the care of our Churches, which appertain not unto his charge. And so you see, that if you had been well advised, you would never have mentioned this Council. But you adjoin also unto this the Council of Chalcedon, that thereby you may prove that the chief honor is to be ascribed unto the Bishop of the chief sea, that is unto Peter. I grant, Campian, that this sea in time past, was had in the chief place of honor, and I know very well that the chief dignity was attributed to the Bishop of this sea; the reason whereof you may easily perceive out of the self same Council. For this was not done by any commandment of Christ, that the Church of Rome should excel in dignity, all other Churches of the world: but the Fathers testify, that the cause why that City was invested with greater privilege than others, was this, because it was the chief seat of the Empire. You may find the words themselves in the same act which you cite. But if (as you say) the Church of Rome ought to have the preeminence above all other Churches in the world, in divine authority, what then meant the Chalcedonian Fathers, to affirm that there were some perogatives granted unto that Church, for this cause alone; in that Rome was the head of the Empire, and therefore they thought that the Bishop of that City, which was the Empresse of the world, was worthy of some more honor than others? And this honor to speak of was only this; that the Bishop of Rome should have the preeminence of place in Councils, the priority of speech in delivering his opinion, and the precedence in rank and place. And thus neither do we our selves, now much envy this honor to the Roman Bishop, but that if so it please him, he may enjoy it; so that he do not (because he hath the chief place) imperiouslie tyranize over his brethren, as he hath done for many ages, and persuadeth himself that he may do it lawfully. But seeing it pleaseth you to object unto us, the Coūcel of Chalcedon, that you may challenge the chief honor, as due to your Bishop of the chief Sea, before I proceed further, I would gladly you should resolve me in this question, why the Fathers of this Council, made the Sea of Constantinople, equal to the Sea of Rome? for so they decree, and diffinitiuely determine: that seeing great privileges were granted to the Church of Rome, in respect of the Empire of the city, they thought it a matter of great equity, that the new Rome that was now graced with the Empire and Senate, should enjoy the same privileges which old Rome had done. And although the Bishop of Rome did most earnestly contend and labor, that the Bishop of Constantinople might not be made his equal, yet he could not by his best means effect his desire, but that the decree of the Council prevailed, which had equalised the Bishop of Constantinople, with the Bishop of Rome. And therefore me thinks you have but ill defended the honor and dignity of your Bishop, when you allege the decree of that Council. Moreover, the Council of Constantinople which you also cite, decreed no other thing for the Roman Sea, then that the Bishop of Constantinople should have the prerogative of honor next to the Bishop of Rome. And this we also confess, that in times past the Provinces were so distributed, that Rome had the chief, Constantinople the next, and so everyone in their own order. But what maketh that to this cause, which we have now in hand? For this is not the honor which the Bishop of Rome challengeth unto himself: this not the height of power and majesty which he so often arrogateth. The Council also of Ephesus is alleged by you with as little 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 reverend Father, because he threatened to excommunicate Nestorius, unless he abiuted his heresy; these things are common unto the Bishop of Rome with others: neither was he only intitled reverend, neither could he alone pronounce judgment against heretics. But if these would rather please you; This is the faith of the Catholic and Orthodoxall Church, unto which all the Orthodoxall Bishops give their assent; you interpret these words amiss. 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 every place have approved, and we also do defend.

But what now followeth in your contestation? Thou wilt (say you) acknowledge the unbloody sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ on the Altar. And for this you cite the 14. Canon of the Nicence Council, in which there is not so much as any mention made neither of unbloody, nor of sacrifice, nor of Altar. But Deacons are there prohibited to arrogate so much unto themselves, that Bishops or Priests being present, they should take upon them to administer the Sacrament of the Lord's supper, because it was not lawful for Deacons to deliver the Lord's body unto Priests. Now it is an usual thing to call bread the Lord's body, because it is a Sacrament of the Lord's body; neither in the mean time do I deny that the supper of the Lord is called by many of the ancient Fathers, an unbloody sacrifice: both because we retain the mysteries of Christ's death without any blood, & also offer up praises & thanksgiving as it were for sacrifices unto God; and therefore Cyril joineth in the supper, these together, unbloody sacrifices and praises. And Eusebius writeth, that we build an Altar to the Lord, of unbloody and reasonable sacrifices, according to the new mysteries. Now if you ask what manner of unbloody sacrifice this is, let Eusebius himself answer you in his own words. He hath delivered unto us, a memorial of his death, which we offer unto him in place of a Sacrifice. Again, you propound the eleventh act of the Council of Chalcedon, which containeth nothing at all, which appertaineth to this matter in hand, neither that place of Socrates which you quote. You might have dealt better and more simply, if you would have cited the words themselves, and not only quoted uncertain and confused notes in y ^e margent: but you feared lest you might have been too easily discovered, unless you had masked yourself under the vizard of deceit.

But let us examine the remainder of your contestation: Thou wilt pray (say you) unto the Martyrs and all the Saints, that they would mediate for thee unto Christ. Thou wilt restrain effeminate Apostates from wicked copulation. Whether the Martyrs and heavenly Saints pray unto Christ for us or no, we know not: but certain it is, that they are ignorant of those things we do. And therefore we rather go unto Christ, and pray unto him alone, who both knoweth our wants, and also will and can grant unto us such things as we desire. You if you please may seek after the pirling streams, but we will draw out of the fountain it self, neither do we regard the inveterate custom of praying unto saints (for though this custom is ancient; nevertheless, it hath flowed from the well-head of human superstition, and not from divine authority:) and whereas you adjoin your conceit concerning the restraining offeminate Apostates from wicked copulation; and for this purpose allege some Canons of the Council of Chalcedon: in this you follow your old wont: for there is only one Canon to be found against ministering widows, which after they had taken upon them the office of ministration, married again: but how unjust this law is, it may easily appear. For when as Saint Paul would have these widows to be sixty years old at least; this Canon doth admit of those who are but forty: and yet notwithstanding permitteth them not to marry. But you will say they have vowed single life: First, prove that they ought to make any such vow, and then, that if they shall perceive, they can by no means perform their vow, that they have done otherwise then they should when they married. To make a vow in things indifferent, which you cannot possibly perform, is to mock God, and to commit the crime of impious temerity: but to persist in this wicked vow is a double sin. And therefore that which the law prescribeth is to be embraced: The best course in evil promises made, is not to observe them; and we are so to behave our selves, as Bernard counselleth his sister. In evil promises keep not touch. In a dishonest vow change thy purpose. Do not perform that which thou hast vowed unadvisedly; 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 lawful mean •• whereby it might be quenched? But you are always harping upon this string; that they are bound by the laws of a vow: therefore let Cyprian make you answer. If they have by their vow, consecrated themselves to Christ, let them persevere honestly and chastely without any feigned devises. But if they will not or cannot perse • ere, their best course is to marry. And would Cyprian, think you Campian, have given this counsel to Virgins, if he had judged such marriages wicked, or no better than public incest, as you in your intemperate style term it? And indeed how much more honest course were it for you Monks and Friers, to avoid your too too public and notoriously wicked fornication, by embracing chaste marriage? for so it might come to pass, as your old Pope Pius was wont to say: That many of you might be saved in marriage, which are now damned in single life: But he that is filthy, let him go forward in his filthiness unto his old age; and let him that is holy, • lie uncleanness, and prefer sanctimony of life, before vice and wickedness. And these are the main matters which you have delivered unto us, in that your grave contestation, and have labored to persuade by interposing the authority of Councils. But you might have considered (Campian) that the counterfeit names of Councils, ought to be of far less authority with us, then the most undoubted truth of God's word. And whereas you further affirm, that The Synods of other times, and namely that of Trent, are of equal authority and credit with those first Councils: I must tell you, I believe you not, although you promise and take upon you to prove it, when need requires. You promise indeed much, but perform nothing. But here I entreat the godly Reader, and beseech all Christians, that they would attentively mark, what Campian here avoucheth, to wit, that all Synods, and namely that of Trent, are equal to the four general Councils: which four Councils, are by Gregory, whom Campian citeth, marched in equal authority with the four Gospels: from whence it necessarily followeth, that all Councils of other times are of the same authority and credit with the four Evangelists. I will not urge this point further, neither will I now shake you up, as you usually do Master Luther, but rather leave you to be beaten with the rod of men's silent judgments. After this you being shadowed with this impenitrable shield of Councils, enter the lists, and observe whether your adversary conuaieth himself; for so great a warrior you are, such a skillful Champion, and so fierce in fight, that as soon as you but show yourself, forthwith all your enemies betake them to their heels; and eftsoons you declare how you mean to behave yourself in this fight, and what a great slaughter you intend to make. But take heed, Campian, least that may worthily be applied to you, which is spoken in the Proverbs: He that is rashly confident, before the conflict, is commonly a coward in the combat.

You speak much of the dignity of Councils, which we also acknowledge to be very great, but nevertheless, the holy Ghost is not bound to multitudes of men, to stately preparations, nor to sumptuous pomp. And we may often observe that in Councils there is much contending amongst contrary factions, and sometimes the greater part prevaileth against the better. You say that Luther durst presume to affirm, that he preferred the judgment and suffrages of two good and learned men, before the Councils. And in truth why might he not prefer them; and who could justly find fault with that speech? Seeing Gerson the Moderator of the Council of Constance, doubted not to prefer the judgment of one man, before the whole Council. We are, saith he, to give more credit unto a man learned in the holy Scriptures alleging catholic authority, then to a general Council: which also Pa • ormitan hath confirmed, writing in this manner: We ought (saith he) rather to believe a simple lay man, alleging the Scripture, than the whole Council together. You say further, That Kemnisius dared to peise the Council of Trent in the balance of his own giddy brain. But Kemnisius did not examine that Council by his own square, but by the rule of God's holy word: And what gained he? (say you) and answering yourself in your own question, you say, nothing but infamy: If Kemnisius have not your good word, it is no great wonder; for he hath achieved that by his learning, virtue and industry, that he may seem worthy of envy and hatred from such as you are. But if true and deserved praise be due to good deeds, he hath obtained an honorable reward; even the everlasting glory of a good name. Yea (say you) if he take not heed, he shall be buried with Arius. But it behooved you, Campian, to trouble your head, rather about your own, then Kemnisius his funerals: and take you heed, least for your evil deeds, there be a sepulcher provided for you amongst the damned.

Now here again you begin more highly to extol the Council of Trent; as though we knew not the notable carriage and behavior of that famous and goodly Synod. But for my part I easily allow you to be so far in love with it, neither in truth will I become your riuall. Others have 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 go about to refute your affections. Let it enjoy, for me, that credit and estimation which it can. Although everyone knoweth thus much, that it was not to be esteemed a Council of the whole Christian state, but rather a Conuenticle of a few men running together into the same place. There was there present a sort of sill • e Friers which did sustain the greatest part of the burden, by disputing, writing and playing the Orators. For as for the Bishops and chief Cardinals, they busied their heads about other matters, for which they were specially 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 brags, that they long abode in that school; out of which as yet, as far as I know, not many, either learned divines or good Pastors have come. You also vsher in Antony of Prague greatly congratulating with himself; for you would needs show him some kindness, because he made you a Priest. Well; Campian was created Priest by Antony Archbishop of Prague; surely I fear lest you traveled too far to buy such base wares. But now you may celebrate your Masses, seeing you are shaven and anointed, and made a Priest.

Moreover you demand & exceedingly triumph, why your Adversaries called hither, and secured by the caution of public promise, did not make all hast to come unto it? In which you are sufficiently answered in the Apoligie of our Church. For what should we do there? or to what end should we undertake so long a journey, either that being mocked and abused, we might return home again, or being burned in the Council, we should pay for our rashness? For what place of disputation was left amongst those, who had every man plighted their faith to the Bishop of Rome, & had religiously bound themselves by oath, that they would never either do or say anything againg his dignity and pleasure? what therefore might be hoped for from these, which might draw any to the disputation? besides the calamity of John Hus of Bohemia, and Jerome of Prague, whom the Fathers burned in the Council of Constance, brought just cause of fear. And yet Hus came to the Council, trusting in the protection of a public promise. Yea but (say you) the Constantine Fathers made no promise, and therefore did not break any. But Sigismonde the Emperor gave his public warrant, unto whom it was fit that he should give credit. Notwithstanding, coming to the Council, he was presently apprehended and cast into prison, and pleading his cause before the Council he was condemned and burned, although Sigismond stormed at it. Neither did he fly, as you falsely report, neither in truth could he escape: but thus this holy and innocent man was devoured like a sheep by furious wolves. And what I pray you, did the Emperors authority, commandment, or public warrantize profit him? The Emperor (say you) signed it, but the state of Christendom, greater than the Emperors, did repeal it. And who then can be safe, if the Emperors bear no sway in the Council? Neither doth the horrible murder of John Hus, contrary to a public warrant of protection, so much discourage us from coming to your Councils, as that decree published by the Council it self, That promise is not to be kept with Heretics. Should I then believe you, who I know will keep no promise? If I do, surely I am worthy to perish after the same manner. Jerome of Prague likewise came to the Council of his own accord, and making public profession of his faith, was burned. So that the case of these two, (than the which all Christendom at that time had not anymore holy or learned) shall remain as a perpetual monument of your treachery and most horrible cruelty; and as a notable caveat unto all the godly, to beware of you for the time to come. Concerning Luther, whom you, cursed Frier, call the hatred of God and men, the hand and power of God himself so defended him, that you could never hurt him. For will was not wanting to you for the destruction of Luther, but opportunity. But he was safe (say you) upon the Emperors word: neither in truth durst the Pope attempt Luther's death, after the Emperor had promised him safety. For would Charles the fifth, think you, have endured it? It was not behooveful for the Pope to have attempted anything, whereby the Emperors faith might appear falsified: for Charles would never so easily have put up such an indignity as Sigismond had done in time past.

But (say you) they do too much brag in corners, in which when they have but sounded three Greek words, they would seem to be very wise. They might perhaps seem wise to you, who scarcely (as I suppose) can sound three Greek words. They cannot (as you say) endure the light, which would bring a Scholar into account, and would recall him into some place of reckoning: and is this it, Campian, which you hunt after, a name, same, places of account, to be pointed at with the finger, and to be thus spoken of, This is the man advanced to greatest grace, excelling in worth, and worthy place? Doth this grieve you that you are not highly esteemed of, and do not sit in high place? Well man, proceed in your virtuous courses, and go forward in the way, into the which you are entered to your great praise, and there is good hope you may ascend unto such an high place as you are worthy of.

But whereas you desire, That the English Catholics may obtain a Patent of impunity, if they love the salvation of their souls, surely you require a thing unjust & unequal. For what liknes is there in this, that learned men should assemble from all parts, unto a public Council, and that Runnagates should be permitted to return unto their country? We will (say you) with winged speed hast unto the Court, relying our selves upon the Princes word. And so indeed you safely may: for if she give her word, you may promise unto yourselves assured security. And I the more easily believe you speak the truth, seeing some of you already, have hasted into the Gourt, having no promise from the Prince to rest upon. But Campian, fly you rather to the Indians, that you may take a survey of your Popes new Province: for our most wise Prince desires no such guests, but banisheth you as far as she can from her.

But now at length you return thither whence you have digressed, and gloriouslie conclude this point, concerning Councils: saying, The general Councils make all for me, the first, last, and middle. You have gotten an easy and speedy victory: I am almost persuaded that you are become another Caesar: V • ni, vidi, vici, I came, I saw, I overcame; 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 frantic speeches; but as yet I discern no spear: either a Iauelin, or a thongue, or strength, or (which I rather believe) all these are wanting unto you. Surely we of the Universities, Campian, do greatly desire to try how skillfully you have learned to toss your spear, and we hope it will come to pass, that you being pierced with our darts, will at length know and acknowledge your audacious temerity and slothful ignorance of this fight.

EDMVND CAMPIAN. The fifth Reason, which is the Fathers.

A S that famous Sirname of Christians increased first in Antioch, so Doctors, that is, very deep Divines, and Prophets, that is, most famous Preachers, first flourished there. Our Lord himself provided for his flock in time to come, such a sort of Scribes and wise men, as were experienced in the kingdom of God, bringing forth both old & new things, that is, having God still both in Christ and Moses, in the new and Old Testament. How mischievous an act is it to expel with rebuke these men, which were given us by God for a special benefit? The Adversary hath expelled them. For what cause? for that if they had stood upright, he of necessity had fallen down. So soon, as I thoroughly perceived that, without anymore adoo, I desired to make, not that flourishing fight which the common sort of people use, when they contend one with another in the open streets, but that severe and sharp combat, by which we buckle▪ one with another in your Philosophy schools, foot by foot, & man by man, close joined together. If we may once come to the Fathers, the field is fought, & the wager won, on our side. For they are all ours, assure as Gregory the 13. is a most loving Father to all the Churches children. For to omit diverse places, which here and there dispersed, being gathered together out of the ancient writings of the Fathers, do very fitly and plainly fortify our faith: we have their whole books, which of set purpose do expressly and copiously paint out lively that self same Evangelical religion which we maintain. What orders of heavenly powers, what sacrifices, what solomne rites, doth that twofold Hierarchy of the Martyr S. Denys, make known unto us? That matter touched Luther so nigh the quick, that he affirmed this blessed man's writings to be most like to dreams and most pernicious. Caussaeus an obscure upstart in France, following the steppes of his Father Luther, blushed not to term this Apostle S. Denys borne in a noble country, an old dotard. The Magdeburgeans which lately set forth the Ecclesiastical history in Centuries, were greatly grieved at S. Ignatius, so was Calvin also. Insomuch that these bench whistlers pried out certain foul blemeshes and unsavory speeches in his Epistles. In these men's conceits also S. Irenaeus writ one foolish toy; and S. Clement, who was author of the book called Stromatum, yielded out of his works cockle and dregs. And the residue of the Fathers of this age, which were in very deed Apostolic men, left unto their posterity blasphemous and monstrous doctrine. In Tertullian they greedily catch at that fault, which being told thereof by us, they with us also detest. But let them call to mind, the book which he writ de Praescriptionibus, wherewith the heretics of our time had so sound a blow, was never hither to reprehended by the Church. How sufficiently and evidently hath Hyppolitus Bishop of Portua foreshowed the reign of Luther's heresies, which was a strong pillar▪ in Antichrists building? And for that cause they call him amost childish scrible, & a masker. That critical French man Caussaeus, and the Magdeburgeans do call S. Cyprian (who was the flower and honor of Afric) a block head, a man cast out of God's sight a deprauer of the true doctrine of Penance: why, what hath he done? he hath writ for sooth one book of Virginity, and another of those that are Relapsed, and certain treatises of the unity of the Church, yea & such Epistles also unto Cornelius Bishop of Rome, that except this blessed Martyr be disgraced, Peter Martyr the Vermillian, and all his confeder a • s, must be taken for worse then adulternous & Church-robbers. And lest I should stand too long upon particularties, aft the Fathers of that age are generally condemned, as men that have corrupted wonderfully, the sincere doctrine of Penance. Ho • I pray you? the Austerity for sooth of the Canons which at that time was used, doth highly displease this plausible sect, which are fitter for Chambers then for Churches, and is accustomed to tickle sensual ears, and to so • cushions to every elbow: wherein, I say, wherein hath the next age offended? forsooth S. Chrysostom and other Fathers of that time have foully darkened justification by faith only S. Gregory Nazianzen, whom ancient writers for honor sake, have Sirnamed Theologus. 1. the Divine, by Caussaeus judgment, was but a brabler and knew not what to say: S. Ambrose was bewitched of an evil spirit. S. Jerome is as deeply damned in hell, as the devil himself, because he was injurious to the Apostle, a blasphemer, a naughty man, a wicked fellow. Gregory Massonius esteemeth more of one Calvin, then of an hundred Augustine's, a hundred is but a few. Martin Luther careth not a button, if there were against him a thousand Augustine's, a thousand Cyprians, a thousand Churches. I think it will be to no purpose to wade any further in this matter, for who may marvel, if they that thus rail against these worthy men, have also been saucy against Optatus, Athanasius, Hilarius, both Cyrils, Epiphanius, Basel, Vincentius, Fulgentius, Leo, and Gregory the Roman? And yet if there may be any just defense of an unjust cause, I do not deny but the Fathers have, wheresoever you read in their works, such matter, as may cause the Adversary to take pepper in the nose, so long as they follow their own humors. For they that cannot away with prescript days of abstinence, how is it likely that they can abide S, Basel, S. Gregory Nazianzen, S. Leo, and S. Chrysostom, who have set forth in print very godly sermons, concerning Lent, and Ember days, as things usually at that time observed among Christian people. Can those men choose, which have sold their souls for riches, bodily pleasure, dainty fare, and fine apparel, but bear deadly hatred to S. Basel, S. Chrysostom, S. Jerome, and S. Augustine, whose excellent books of the order, rule, and virtuous life of Monks, are usually in every man's band? May they that have intruded seruill will into man, that have cut off all Christian funerals, that have set on fire the relics of Saints, continue friendship with S. Augustine? who hath penned three whole books of man's freewill, one book of care to be taken for the dead, one long chapter of that his noble work De ciuitat. Dei, concerning miracles wrought at the Churches, Chapels, and sepulchers of holy Martyrs, and certain Sermons of the same matter. Can such as measure faith by their own captiousnes, refrain from anger towards S. Augustine, of whose penning there is extant a notable Epistle against Manachie, wherein he confesseth, that for his faith he will cleave unto Antiquity, unity, continual succession, and to the Church, which by prescription alone challengeth among so many heresies, the title of Catholic? Optatus Bishop of Miletan confuteth such as took part with Donatus, by the Catholic cōmunity. Their wickedness he accuseth by the decree of the Pope Melchiades; he reproveth their heresy by the succession of the Bishops of Rome. He displaieth their madness, by their dafiling both of the blessed Eucharist, and also of the holy oil. He abhorreth their sacrilege, in breaking down of holy Altars, whereupon Christ's body is laid, and also in polluting of the Chalices, which contained Christ's blood: I would gladly know what they think of Optatus, who is commended by S. Augustine as a worthy and Catholic Bishop not inferior to S. Ambrose, and S. Cyprian, and whom S. Fulgentius also recordeth to have been an holy man and faithful Interpretor of S. Paul, not unlike unto S. Augustine, and S. Ambrose. They read S. Athanasius Creed in their Churches: Do they for all that bear him any good will, who hath highly commended as an ancient writer in an exact book, S. Antony that hermite of Egypt, and also hath humbly appealed, with the Council of Alexandria unto the Sea Apostolic of S. Peter? How often doth S. Prudentius in his Hymns pray unto the blessed Martyrs? what Hymns doth he endite in their praise? how often doth he worship the King of Martyrs at their ashes and bones? will they allow of this man? S. Jerome in the defense of Relics, and honor of Saints writeth against Vigillantius, and for the preeminence of virginity against Jovinian: will they tolerate this? An high solemn feast was kept by S. Ambrose in the honor of his Patrones Geruasius and Protasius, to the great reproach of the Arians; which act the holy Fathers have highly commended, and God himself adorned with many miracles: will they be friends with S. Ambrose? S. Gregory the great, that Apostle of ours, is flat on our side and for that title is hated of our Adversaries, whom Calvin in his fury doth deny to be brought up in the school of the holy Ghost, because he called holy • Images the books of unlearned people. A whole day would not be enough for me to reckon all the Epistles, Sermons, Homilies, Orations, Treatises, and disputations of the old Fathers, wherein of set purpose both gravely and eloquently, they have confirmed our Catholic doctrine. So long as these books of these Fathers shall be sold at the Stationers shop, in vain are the hauens and sea coasts watched so narrowly; to no purpose, are houses, coffers, and chests straightly searched; to no end, are penal proclamations set upon so many gates. For none of our late writers, neither Harding, nor Sanders, nor Allen, nor Stapleton, nor Bristol, do more vehemently inveigh against these their new found dreams, then those Fathers do, whom I have named: which things when I well considered, my courage began to rise, & I had a desire to fight, in which conflict, on which side soever the aduer sarie shall start, except he yield due honor unto God, he shall have the foil: if he allow of the Fathers, he is caught; if he disallow of them, he is nobody. Thus it fell out when I was: a young student at Oxford. John Jewel the captain of English Calvinists, challenged in most bragging sort all Catholics at Paul's Cross in London, urging and alleging like an hypocrite, all the Fathers that ever flourished within six hundred years after Christ. Certeine worthy men, which then for religion lived as banished men, in the Uniuersity of Lonan, though through the iniquity of the time, they lived in great distress, yet answered his challenge. That subtlety, folly, impudency, and saucines of Jewel, which the fore said writers have luckily discovered, hath done so much good to the common sort of people in England, that within my remembrance I dare boldly say, there scarcely happened any one thing more profitable, to the afflicted English Church then this. Proclamatiōs forth▪ with were set on every gate, that no such books might lawfully be read or kept in their houses, whereas Jewels exclamations at Paul's Cross, did almost extort the same out of the writers hands. But they that came to the scanning of this matter found that the Fathers were all Catholic, that is, on our side. Neither did Laurence Humphrey conceal this blow given him and his fellows, who when he had highly extolled Jewel otherwise, noted yet want of discretion in him for this one thing, that he for his part had allowed the judgments of the Fathers in matters of controversy, which when the said Laurence Humphrey without any circumstances plainly protesteth that he neither hath, nor will have anything to do. I did once also familiarly request Toby Matthew, who new for preaching beareth the bell, whom for good learning sake and likely seeds of other good virtues, I dearly loved, that he would plainly tell me, whether he that so diligently read the Fathers, could be of that side, whereunto he labored to allure his audience. He replied no, if he both read them, and withal believed them. This his answer is very true, and I persuade myself, that neither he now, nor Matthew Hutton, who as I hear is a famous man, and bent much to study the Fathers, nor any other of the Adversaries, which do the like, do otherwise think. Wherefore, yet I might come surely to this combat, to encounter with such, who as though they had a Wolf by the ears, are enforced to discredit their cause forever, whether they reject the Fathers or stand to their judgment. For by doing the one, they truss up their trinckets to fly away, and by doing the other, they are streightwaies strangled.

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

N Ow Campian calleth upon the Fathers, from whom, because he presumes of a firm defense, he earnestly desireth a conflict, not like those light skirmishes of men in the streets, but a serious and constant disputation, such as Philosophers use: Campian (you see) hath a better mind to converse with Philosophers, than with Divines: for being furnished with Rhetoric and Logic, and having spent most of his time in often declaiming and in inventing and answering sophistical captions, he doubteth not of a famous victory, if Philosophers were Judges. But (Campian) these matters are not to be disputed among Philosophers, which are otherwhiles deceived with probability and apparance of truth, following that opinion which themselves judge most agreeable to reason. This question in hand, must be discusted in the assembly of most grave and learned Divines, whom no juggling of words, no subtlety in disputation, no wit, no cunning, no youthful insolent boldness, in quarrelling lying, or soolish vaunting, can once move, much less remove them from the truth they are persuaded of. Here can you not have liberty to brag of your counterfeit devises, Philosophy may not sit as judge in these controversies, neither will those things, wherein you chiefly trust, be here of any authority: you must leave your own erroneous and endless walks, and be drawn perforce into the compass and limits of Scripture and true divinity. For Christ and his Apostles (as that discreet man said in the Nicene Council) commended not Logic and vain subtlety unto us, but a naked opinion, consisting in faith and good works: And this simple and sincere word of truth, will easily dissolve all your cavils, will dispel your artificial 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 unto them, the war is ended. Now I must tell you, you make too much hast, and ouerslippe many things. Is the battle ended, say you? Why, who had the victory? This is verily childish and too ridiculous, but yet usual in your combats, to triumph before the victory. But I would hear how you have finished the war, with such admirable expedition: For (say you) the Fathers are as surely ours, as Gregory the thirteenth himself; the most loving Father of the Children of the Church. Give me leave to answer you in your own words: My friends who are present, can you forbear langhing? What could be affirmed, more weakly, fondly, or absurdly? Call you him, the most loving Father of the Churches Children, whom we knew to be their furious and mortal adversaries? And conclude you that other to be as true as this? I grant as well the one as the other, for both are most false. What think you? have you not got a famous victory? And thus (Campian) you use to make an end of battles, and put to flight great armies of adversaries. What remaineth, but that as Conqueror, you be crowned with a Laurell garland, and carried with triumph into the Vatican, and solace yourself many years with your dear Father Gregory, that good old man? But now (Campian) proceed and prosecute the victory, which you have gotten. We have (say you) whole volumes of the Fathers, which do fully, distincty, and purposely declare that Evangelical religion, which we now defend. Now you muster and reckon up your armies; whereby you procured this victory, look well to them, you were best, and lay sure hold of them, lest they revolt, and forsaking you, come to our Tents: for you force them to be with you against their wills. So that in the most dangerous and important fight, they fly unto us with speed, and do most sharply assault and batter you. But let us consider your volumes: The twofold Hierarchy of Denys the Martyr, what orders doth it teach us, what sacrifices, what rites? Assuredly it teacheth us novelties, unheard of in the Scriptures; we therefore leave both them and their author wholly unto you. For, though this Denys, whosoever he were, was both for time ancient, and in his style of writing, not unlearned; yet, that he should be the Ar •• pagit • , whom Paul at Athens converted to the Faith, is altogether incredible. If you ask me a reason of this my opinion, I pray you read diligently and consideratly that which Laurentius Valla, and Eras • us of Roteradam have written of him. Both of them persuade, by no feigned surmises, but by very weighty reasons, and such as (I ween) you will hardly gainsay, that this Denys cannot be the party you report him to be. You then have no reason to be angry with Luther or Caussaeus if they handled this counterfeit somewhat roughly, and censured him freely. Where you say Calvin and the writers of the Centuries were offended with Ignatius, I confess they had just cause of offense. If heretics alleged him, to be a patron of a wicked and detestable opinion, Calvin might with reason and discretion reject him: how aptly and truly he was by them alleged, I cannot tell, let them look to it. Howsoever it be, the truth ought not by his authority to be borne down, whose credit is little, if any at all: you are not ignorant what the judgment of all the learned is those Epistles of Ignatius. Eusebius indeed makes mention of some of his Epistles, and Jerome of others: but now many more go under his name, which they have not mentioned. Jerome also reports a saying of his; and Theodoret another, which are not found in those Epistles which are carried about: what would you have more? Gratian himself favors not overmuch this your Ignatius. You see then, of how obscure, suspected and uncertain reputation are these two, which you place in the forefront of your army.

You are offended, that the Censors, as you call them, upbraid Irenaeus, as in something fantastical. We use not to speak reproachfully of Irenaus, whom we confess to have been both holy and learned: but what is this to the purpose? If Iraneus have written something foolishly, must be therefore by and by, be wholly yours? And if some where we have noted his opinion, as not true and sound, do we therefore reject all his works? Is this your manner of disputing (Campian) is this your skirmishing? are you of opinion, that never any word passed from Irenaeus unadvisedly, or which might justly be termed unreasonable? Then tell me, Campian, how Christ preached only one year, yet was baptized the thirtieth year of his age, and died the fiftieth? what, shall we believe, that Christ taught only one year, and that the fortieth year? will you deny this to be a very new, strange, and almost frantic novelty? Besides that, many write Irenaeus to have been one of them, whom the Fathers call Millenaries; think you that was not a frantic opinion? And can you doubt of Clemens, whether he hath sometimes sown Tares? what call you that, where he denieth, that Christ indeed did either hunger or thirst? Again, that Christ taught but one year, which he had of Irenaus? Again, that the Philosophers in hell expected the coming of Christ, & being taught by own mouth believed? Will 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 deny it, bring me one whom I will not convince to have erred by your own judgment. You dare not say, we have wronged Tertullian: But you will us to remember, that the book of Prescriptions was never taxed; which, for ought I remember, never was: though I confess that writing, which you name, is notable, in which many things are written, very divinely, against your Church. I wonder you are not ashamed of Hippolytus; of whom Harding himself was almost ashamed. Think not that we are ought moved with authors of so small credit, so lately drawn but of darkness, as they scarce yet have learned to look upon the light. For what was this Hippolytus? He writ, you say, of Antichrist. But how worthily? that foolish book of Hippolytus, which a certain man, I know not who, of late days published, gesseth, that the Devil is Antichrist, and feigneth many other things: which neither can be true, nor were ever esteemed for true. And yet you marvel we set him so light, whom no man regards or reads, or almost knows. I can give you good leave to reckon him for your own, and if you will, let him have a better note in your army.

The accusation concerning Cyprian, is more heinous, whom all men reverence for his singular faith and excellent learning. But Caussaeus termeth him senseless and without God. They of Magdenburge, call him a corrupter of penance. Shall I be tied to take upon me, and defend every speech, which any man hath at any time uttered? This Caussaeus I never saw, nor before this ever heard of him. But in as much, as you so odiously accuse him, I suppose him to be some learned and godly man. Unto that he saith of Cyprian, I answer that which I remember I have read in Nazianzen, viz. that he was in his youth dissolute and given to much vice, and worshipped Devils, and used the help of Devils: He was (saith Nazianzen ) a worshipper of Devils, and after a disciple of Christ. Your vnreasonablenes forceth me to mention those things, which I had rather have concealed. For in the Fathers imperfections, you stick fast like a burre, and cease not to rub up the remembrance of those things, which you should do better, not once to touch, If these things which Nazianzen reporteth of Cyprian be true, then Caussaeus might say, that Cyprian at that time was foolish and godless. For I cannot think that Caussaeus would write so of him, but in regard of those times, or that any man would conceive so injuriously, of that godly Martyr: whereas they of Magdenburge complain that he corrupted the doctrine of repentance, therein they forge against him no new accusation, but rather disclose that which all men know to have been too true. Cyprian wrote something of Repentance very unseasonably and undiscreetly, and not he alone, but all the holy Fathers of that time, were tainted with that error. For being desirous by severe laws, to limit and restrain the evil manners of men, they made the greatest part of Repentance to consist, in certain outward disciplines, which they appointed: which severe censuring of sin & sharp punishing of wickedness, might happily be borne withal: but when they thought the punishment of sin to be discharged, God's justice satisfied, freedom from sin, and certain forgiveness with righteousness hereby to be procured; herein they diminished the power of Christ's death, they attributed too much to their own inventions, and in a word depraved the doctrine of repentance: because our sins are cleansed and removed, by no offices or works of ours, but only by the blood and passion of Christ. And so your objection of Repentance is answered. We do not for all this deny the works of Cyprian, nor reject the books of any Father of that age, as you falsely affirm, seeing both he and they agree with us in the greatest questions: but this is the privilege of you and your fellows, that you even greedily hunt after, and pursue, whatsoever is faulty in any author, as if all the Fathers errors, served to make up the body and faith of your religion. Something, you say, Cyprian wrote to Cornelius, which if we give credit unto: 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 us, either of adultery or sacrilege; neither can you out of those letters allege anything to our prejudice or your advantage: but this is ever your manner, to prove nothing clearly and distinctly, but only to name the Fathers, and from their names, to raise certain roving & uncertain suspicions. That which you write of Chambers and pillows, I pass over as nothing else, but scoffing and reproachful taunts, such as is common in every varlets mouth. Now you come to the next age, and here you mention Chrysostom, Nazianzen, Ambrose, and Jerome. But to what purpose I pray you? for what if Luther do censure Chrysostom sharply, because by too much advancing our works and merits, he obscureth the righteousness of faith? what though Caussaeus find something fabulous in Nazianzen? therefore are these Fathers wholly on your side? what is this else but dotage, and to speak without wit or fear? Some body said that Ambrose was bewitched by the devil; whether any ever said it or no, I never knew, neither is it greatly material; the best & most righteous men, may sometimes be so far bewitched, as they do not in some things perceive the truth: and you do too openly bewray your malice, by laboring to raise an evil opinion of him, and to make us infamous for such speeches as may have a good construction, though at the first they seem odious. Certeinly I have read many Papists, and heard of some, all passing shameless, and malepere; but more impudent then yourself, in all my life, did I never know any. There is no end of your lying, you fear no men's censure, there is neither faith nor truth in anything you speak. Even now you set upon Beza with a fresh lie. He (you say) hath written that Jerome is as surely damned, as the devil, because he was injurious to the Apostles, a blasphemous, a wicked, and an ungodly 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 Jerome was damned as well a • the devil, 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 alleged, there is no such thing: Concerning that he saith of Injury and Blasphemy, I will set down Beza his own words, that all men may know your impudency. Even Jerome, saith Beza, if it be true that Erasmus upon this place saith of him, is not only injurious to the Apostle, in that he findeth want of moderation, in this speech, wherein rather appeareth his Divine courage but also is openly blasphemous, in that even in Christ himself he hath found some sign of imperfection. Thus far Beza: the matter of his complaint, is about S. Paul's sharp answer unto the high Priest, in which Jerome, (as Erasmus testifieth) in his Dialogues against Pelagius, findeth some want of moderatiō, & not only so, but even in Christ himself, he looketh for some imperfection of piety; which reports of Jerome, if it be true as Erasmus affirmeth, why might not Beza justly esteem him, in the one injurious to the Apostle, in the other so blasphemous against Christ? For what can be devised more unworthy the Apostle then that in his answer to the high Priest, he should show too much spleen, or what could be spoken more blasphemous against Christ, thē that the grace, wherewith he was endued, was imperfect. But Beza further reprehendeth Jerome's exceeding boldness, in wresting the Scriptures, wherein he hath most just cause of complaint: for either Jerome wrested the Scriptures, or they are so weak and easy of themselves, as they may be any way turned. And truly he must be very desperate, that should defend Jerome's interpretations. Gregorius Massonius esteemeth more of Calvin, then of a thousand Augustine's: Luther is not moved though a thousand Augustine's, Cyprians, Churches▪ be against him. The answer is ready: whosoever speaketh truth, in that respect, is more to be esteemed, then a great multitude that could not discern the truth. They therefore that have observed the errors of the Fathers, either those you have named, or the rest, which here also you reckon up, Optatus, Athanasius, Hilary, Cyril, Epiphanius Basil, Vincentius, Fulgentius, Lee, and Gregory of Rome, and have admonished the Readers of them; are so far from malepertnes herein; as that contrary, they have performed a work, for the Church needful, profitable, and acceptable to all good and godly men. For as the true expositions of Scriptures, are to be expounded to the Churches, so are the contrary to be rejected. Jerome saith well, it is the worst kind of teaching, to deprave sentences of Scripture, and to draw them perforce to serve our turns. Wherefore we profess with Augustine; All writers and their sayings must be judged, according to the holy Scriptures, the authority whereof is more excellent, then the whole nature of man is able to conceive: not that I disallow the opinions of the most worthy Fathers, but I follow those that come nearest unto the Scriptures, and when the Scripture it self 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 unwonted, nothing boldly or arrogantly; but you have always been fliers of the light of Scriptures, as Tertullian speaketh: and therefore do so diligently provide for lurking holes in the Fathers, that you may always have some place of refuge. For seeing Scriptures fail you, what remaineth, but that you seek aide from any, even the meanest?

But you tell us, why we do so much anoid the Fathers. I had rather you would tell us why you do so carefully avoid the Scriptures. For (say you) they that cannot away with set times of Fasting, must needs be offended with Basil, Naziancene, Leo, and Chrysostom, which have published excellent Sermons of Lent. Christ ordained no set and ordinary fasts in the Gospel, Lent was appointed long after, and the manner of observing it in those times, was not one & the same in all Churches. We both allow and use public and Christian fasts which are fitted to the time and the Churches occasions: as for your appointed, and yearly solemn fasts, we do with good reason reject them, because they are full of superstition, and injurious unto Christian liberty. Our judgment of fasting is the same which Augustine hath taught: I find it not set down in any Commandment of the Lord, or his Apostles, what days we ought to fast, what not. Augustine then knew not these your set yearly ceremonies of fasting, not your Lenten fast, which hath a certain time and number of days prescribed. Further (you say) they that have set their souls to sale for gold, lust, excess, and worldly ostentation how can they be but most opposite to Basil, Chrysostom, Jerome, and Augustine, whose books of the profession of Monks are in every man's hands? what will you censure all to be covetous, lustful, gluttonous, or ambitious that are not Monks? back with that foot you were best, for fear of your head: for neither the Pope, nor his Cardinals and Bishops, hold it either necessary, or convenient for them to lay aside, their abundant wealth, continual pleasures, their dainty fare, their kingly honor, and thrust themselves into a Monastery; whosoever liveth after their fashion, cannot be well affected to Basil, nor any man that is holy. For they are altogether so drowned in sensuality and excess, making themselves drudges unto their ambitions, banquets, and delights. And to conclude: in the whole course of their lives, so behaving themselves, as becometh better sensual and voluptuous persons, proceeding out of the gardens of Epicures, then grave teachers out of Christ's School. Who knoweth not that the whole world crieth shame upon you, and hath done continually and most deservedly? you for all that blush not to lay those things to our charge, which are well enough known to be your own fault; your Prelates and Monks, whose goodly order and strait rule of severe discipline, (you report) differ as much from other men, as the Tarrentines were wont to affirm that they excelled all others, who giving themselves wholly over to pleasures, (while the most took great pains and always did something whereby to live) thought their life the only true life. Such is and hath been your life, that others must seem not to live, if that be to live which you have esteemed. But what need I answer you anymore of fasting and Monkish orders, which have not one Monk in your whole Church anything resembling those of ancient time, neither do you observe the old manner of fasting? but you go on, and upbraid us with fouler matters. They that have brought a bondage upon man's will, which have taken away Christian funerals, which have burned Saints relics can they (say you) be well pleased with Augustine? we (Campion) have wronged no Saints, we have neither burned their relics, nor taken away their funerals: only we could not suffer any profane superstition, injurious to the Majesty and glory of God; and for this we have the direction of God himself, being our pattern whom we follow, and Augustine also herein consenteth with us: But we have captivated the will of man, and then (you say) how can we be well affected unto Augustine? well enough, why not? for (say you) he writ three books of free will. A most witles and ridiculous collection: Augustine writ three books of freewill, ergo Augustine affirmeth that men have freewill. If that reason be currant, then this also: Augustine writ a book of two souls against the Manichees; also a book of lying; another of the quantity of the soul; ergo Augustine defendeth two souls in a man; ergo he praised lying; ergo he attributeth greatness & quantity to the soul. I pray you what difference is there? I grant Augustine writ those books you mention, but they overthrow not our opinion, who affirm that the will of man is in bondage: & if ever you had perused those books, you would never have affirmed it, nor once named the books in this matter. Augustine writ these books against the Manichees, wherein he disputeth not of man's freewill, which is the point in controversy, but of the cause of sin which proceeded from freewill, and he entitled those books of freewill, because in them he intendeth to show, that the original and beginning of sin is to be found in man's freewill, not in God. This you might easily have learned out of his retractations; for thus he writeth. The discourse was undertaken for them that deny sin to have his original from the free action of our will, affirming, that from this would follow, that God himself the author of nature is culpable. And so proceedeth, utterly denying, that he had any purpose in those books, to speak of that will, which is made free by God's grace. And whatsoever in these books passed his pen, which seemed to favor the Pellegians, then Patrons of freewill, as you are now, all that he carefully collecteth out of the whole work, and cleareth it from their cavils. Have we any cause to be offended with Augustine, which in this question is not against us? And that you may plainly perceive, how indiscreetly you alleged these books of freewill, mark what he writeth of the will of man in those same books: Hold thou fast (saith Augustine) this principal of piety, that no good thing happens unto thee, either when thou thinkest or understandest, or any way imaginest, which is not from God. And this was Augustine's constant opinion of freewill: after that being stirred by the Pellagians, he thoroughly understood the question, viz. that he judged it, to be utterly lost and gone. Man (saith he) by abusing his freewill lost both it and himself.

But yet further you urge Augustine against us, for (say you) they that make their captious devises, the rule of their faith, must not they be offended with Augustine, which hath an excellent Epistle against Manicheus? An Epistle (Campian) do you call it? it was ever accounted a book: but what is there in that Epistle (as you call it) against us? in which he professeth himself to agree with Antiquity, unity, perpetual succession, and with that Church, which alone amongst so many heresies, hath attained unto the name Catholic 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 wisdom and truth; else all the other bind us not; for they are of no value without that wisdom; but this wisdom and truth, though without these, is of it self to be preferred before all things: so saith Augustine, if the truth appear manifestly, so as it cannot be doubted of, it alone is more to be esteemed then all those reasons, that keep me in the Catholic Church. Thus then Augustine setteth more by the truth it self alone, and sincere wisdom, then all those things you mention, Antiquity Unity, Succession, and we perceiving this truth and wisdom so manifestly in our Churches, that none, that will see the truth, can doubt whether we hold the truth or no; do willingly give you free liberty to brag, whilst you list, of antiquity, unity, & 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 leave Augustine, and call out Optatus, Bishop of Miletum; of whom you say, you desire to know, what our opinion is. I verily think he was a good Father, and very like unto Augustine, and I take the things to be true, which many worthy men have said in his commendation. But he disproved the Donatists by the communion of the Catholic Church. Why should he not? or what doth that concern us? Augustine also observed the same course, and it was a good motive, that the communion of the Church should be objected to the schismatical Donatists, which seditiously without cause, separated themselves from the Church. But we deny your Church to be Catholic, and therefore you cannot thus convince us, though Optatus might thereby confute the Donatists. It must first appear, that it is the Church, before we can be convicted of schism. The Church of Rome was then the preserver of Religion, the maintainer of the true faith, and shined like a star in the sight of all other Churches: no marvel then though the most holy Fathers, esteemed much the reverence of this Church, & urged the heretics with the example of it, as a great prejudice unto them. Hence it is, that sometimes they allege the decrees and succession of the Bishops of Rome, thereby proving 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 falsehood. Restore us (Campian) the old Church of Rome, and we will never separate our selves from her: but of that Church you have nothing left, but the walls and old rubbish, yet still you brag of the name of the Catholic 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 ancient Fathers, which Altars in Africa, were not of stone, but wooden, as you may see in Augustine's Epistle to Boniface: and I grant the members of Christ, and his blood are received in the holy mysteries, but after a heavenly and spiritual manner, appropriate unto our most holy faith. As for your devouring of flesh, Optatus was not acquainted with it, and the ancient Church of Christ, not so much as ever dreamed of so great a monster.

They sing (say you) in their Churches, the Creed of Athanasius, but they favor him not; and why? because he praiseth Antony the Hermit. You speak wisely; as though we were so envious, that we could not with patience endure any man to be praised: nay there is somewhat else. He with his Synod of Alexandria, humbly appealed unto the sentence of the Apostolic Sea: this Epistle is all counterfeit, compacted of many lies, and monstrous flattery. Prudentius I grant as a Poet, sometimes called upon the Martyrs, whose acts he describes in verse, and the superstitious custom of praying to Saints had now taken deep root in the Church: which as a Tyrant hailed sometimes the holy Fathers into the same error. As for Vigillantius and Jovinian, against whom Hirr •••• writeth most bitterly; if they taught those things that are laid to their charge, we maintain them not. That Ambrose should be careful, to commend and set forth the praises of his friends Geruasius and Protasius, we willingly permit. Neither do we wholly mislike Gregory, with whom surely you have more cause to be offended, then we. But whereas he said that Images were lay-men's books, he neither learned in the school of the holy Ghost, nor found it in the books of the Fathers y ^t were before him; and thus at length, have you finished this longe catalogue of the Fathers. The reason I would fain know, that moved you to go thorough them on this manner. For what? are you so blockish yourself to think, or hope you, that any others will like of this kind of reasoning: viz. Luther, Calvin and their confederates, do write that Irenaus, Tertullian, Cyprian, Chrysostom, Augustine, Jerome, Ambrose, Gregory, Basil, and Nazi •• zen, do otherwiles err in some questions in this or that book, and they saw not the true meaning of some Scripture, but were sometimes deceived, that is, they were men: therefore they banish, reject and condemn all these Fathers? Is this your meaning, Campian? why then do you yourselves, being very often by plain authorities of the Fathers convinced, deny flatly that you are tied to the authority of any father, and from them you appeal to the judgment of the Church? Would you not think yourself hardly dealt withal, if hence I should infer, that you disallow the Fathers whole volumes? But this is the issue of your disputation, and the mark whereat all this your discourse aimeth, 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 heinous and vnhard-of wickedness.

Think not (Campian) our University to be so childish that they cannot discern the indifferency of our proceeding herein, from your unjust calumniation. The Fathers we esteem highly, we peruse them daily, we commend them to the reading of all such as exactly and diligently study Divinity. By this means we increase our knowledge, and are better furnished with armor of defense against you. You are afraid to want time, and therefore you omit many things, Epistles, Sermons, Homilies, Orations, Works, Disputations of Fathers, by which the Catholics opinions are confirmed. Some fragments perhaps, say you, thrown in corners, which without much pains and weariness you could not collect, yet your fellows of late years have diligently sought out and published: Whilest they (say you) are to be sold at the Stationers, so long our men's books are in vain prohibited: we are sorry you should write such things, as we must of necessity restrain, your books are such as it behooveth us to stop their passage, unless we would suffer the State to be stirred to sedition, the Church in danger of heresy, and men's minds filled with cursed opinions. For if Magistrates ought carefully to prevent, 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 books be nor openly spread abroad, out of which simple and unlearned men do suck poison of deadly error. Neither are we the first that have taken this course. You may remember in Queen Mary's time, that they proceeded by marshall law against all those, with whom any of our books were found. If this were in us a matter worthy of death, so that we were by and by drawn to punishment, as men guilty of high treason, and that without any iud ••• all proceedings, small reason have you to look, that your books now, should have such free liberty, to be everywhere publikelie sold. We take order, that the books of the holy Fathers, are brought unto us from every matte, we buy them, we have them in our private studies and public Liberarie a woe • place them in open view, that they be knowns; nor only by face, but by daily familiaricie. Where you affirm, that neither Sanders, nor Harding, nor Allen, nor Stapleton, nor Bristol, do more •• gerly inneigh against those dreams, then the Fatherd before mentioned: you have added this saying as an overplus to the things that went before. These your old soldiers have employed in this case, whatsoever, either reading or leisure, or cunning, or wit, or diligence, or malice, could supply unto them, and for all this have gained nothing: and hope you, that are not worthy to be compared with these, to perform that, wherein they have failed? yet you said, that thinking of these things, your courage increased, and you desired the combat. I bewail (Campian) your rashness, and foolish hardines, which will needs take upon you, the patronage of a desperate cause, with the undoubted loss of your credit and safety; and I wish that the day may once come, wherein you may make trial of your strength in the combat which you desire.

John Jewel (say you) challenged the Catholics, when you were a young student, calling upon and desiring the help of the Fathers, as many as flourished 600. years after Christ. That worthy man, did that he knew himself able to perform: he had read over all the Fathers with special judgment and diligence; he saw how you deceived the ignorant, he had a care to preserve his countrymen from your dangerous error. And hereupon without any boasting, as you would have it, but trusting only in the power of God, and the truth of the cause, he calleth forth all the generation of Papists unto this trial, viz. if they could confirm their opinions by the holy Scriptures, or by the witness of Fathers and Councils, they should overcome: if they failed, they should confess themselves were vanquished. Certeine renowned men (say you) living as Exiles as Lo • ane, entertain th • offer, and allow of the condition. Harding was the captain of these, he adventured himself hand to hand, in this combat, but how worthily performed he the condition? I • well calleth for Fathers; Harding produceth certain Clements, Abdies, Martials, Hippolyes, Amphilochytes, and others of this rank, Fathers of worshipful antiquity: If all the ancient Fathers of the Church, be (as you brag) of your side, why should Harding turn his back so cowardly, bringing in for witnesses in a most weighty cause wherein we demanded the judgment of antiquity, a company of upstart bastards, I know not fromwhence, whom no man before had saluted, seen or heard of, passing by of purpose, the known and truly noble Fathers? Is this the reverend antiquity you talk of? must we have these fellows digged out of their graves, to help you in your desperate cause? hear me (Campian) that which Jewel then said most truly and confidently, challenging you to the trial of six hundred years antiquity, offering also to yield you the victory, if you brought one plain and manifest authority, out of any Father or Council; that same we do all profess and promise, and will surely perform it.

Twentie years are expired, and not one of you hitherto could perform the condition: if you persuade yourself to have more sufficiency hereunto, then your masters before have had, why stay you? why sit you still? why discontinue you the defense of so good a cause? But alas, you are nobody, you have read nothing, you have no strength answerable to such an endeavor. The learned Humphrey did not tax Jewel, as if he had too liberally undertaken for the Fathers, or performed less then he promised; but only that he had yielded further unto you, then he needed, and called back the cause which was already determined by the Scriptures, to the authorities of the Fathers; which yet he did not, as though he distrusted anything, the trial of Scriptures; for he knew that they were sufficient to refute all popish errors: but that hereby he might beat down that their insolent and most false brag of antiquity, which prevailed with many. You say further that you have conferred sometimes familiarly with To • y Matthew, and w •• led him to answer freely, whether he that read the Fathers diligently, could be of that part which • e favored. Although in private and familiar conference we say many things, which we would not have further reported, or dispersed, yet I doubt not, but the worthy Matthew gave you such an answer, as was both agreeable to the truth, and fit for his judgment and wisdom. We must not in all things believe the Fathers, nor doth our faith depend upon their word. Sometimes they have erred and been the occasion of errors unto others; yet may we read them, & by their truths be more learned, by the contrary more wary. And this also thinketh Matthew Hutton that famous man, whom you surmise to be the only man amongst us conversant in the Fathers. And this also is all our opinions. After you have thus finished your discourse, you will now (as you say) without fear come into the battle and fight with us. You are still telling us of armies, skirmishes, wars, camps and of your battles: but you should remember that the trial of war is common to both sides, and the issues of battles uncertain. The and of war lieth in the strength of arms, not in the stoutness of words.

EDMVND CAMPIAN. The sixth Reason, which is the foundation of the Fathers.

I F ever that saying ( search the Scriptures ) was loved, and liked of by any, which was greatly regarded and ought to be amongst us; the holy Fathers assuredly herein excelled and exceeded: for by their labor and cost were the Bibles copied out, and conveyed to so many countries and nations of strange languages; by their great perils and torments were they delivered from burning by the enemies, and from destruction; by their pains and teachings, have they been throughout expounded most faithfully; they spent whole days and nights in the study of holy Scriptures; they preached out of every Pulpit the holy Scriptures; they enriched long volumes with holy Scriptures; with most faithful Commentaries they explained the holy Scriptures; they seasoned as well their feasting as their fasting, with holy Scriptures. And finally they exercised themselves, even until crooked old age crept upon them in holy Scriptures. And although they grounded their reasons also upon the authority of their Auncestors, upon the common practice of the Church, upon the succession of Bishops, upon general Councils, upon Traditions of the Apostles, upon the bloodshedding of Martyrs, upon the decrees of Pre ••• s, upon strange signs and marn •••• us ••• racles, yet their greatest desire was, especially to fill their treatises, with store of testimonies out of the holy Scriptures. These they urge, upon these they make their habitation, to these Scriptures as unto the coat armor of valiant soldiers, they worthily yield the highest and most honorable place, like noble captains, daily descending the Catholic Church, which is the city of God, by them kept in good repair, against all mischeeuous assaults of her enemy: the which thing maketh me the more to marvel, at that proud and foolish exception of the adversary, who like one that seeketh for water in the running river, complaineth for the scarcity of Scriptures, where greatest store of Scriptures are alleged. So long he saith he is content to be judged by the Fathers as they swerve not from the Scriptures. Doth he speak as he thinketh? I will see then that these most famous writers, most ancient Fathers, and most holy men, Saint Denys, S. Cyprian, S. Athanasius, S. Basil, S. Gregory Nazianzen, S. Ambrose, S. Jerome, S. Chrysostom, S. Augustine, and S. Gregory the great shall come forth well armed and upholden with Christ, with the Prophets, with the Apostles, and with the whole furniture of the Bible. Grant good Lord, that, that religion may reign in England, I say good Christ grant, that, that religion may reign in England, that these Fathers that embrace the Scriptures, so lovingly have built up out of the Scriptures. Look what Scriptures they bring, we will bring the same; look what Scriptures they confer, we will confer the same; look what Scriptures they allege, we will allege the same. Art thou also contented with this? cough out Sir a God's name, and tell me plainly what you think. I like them not thou wilt say except they interpret the said Scriptures rightly; what meanest thou by saying rightly? ô now I know, after thy own fancy. Art thou not ashamed of this blind entreat dealing? Then for as much as I am in good hope, that in the foresaid Universities, that most freshly flourish, there will join together a great number of such as will look into these controversies; not grossly, but with sharp judgment, and will weigh these men's trifling answer not partially, but in equal balance; I will therefore, with a cheerful courage expect this day of battle, as one that mindeth to march forward with the nobility, & force of Christ's Church, against a monks • multitude of ragged Rogues.

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

I Cannot well conjecture, Campion, what these new foundations of the fathers may be, which you propound unto us. As touching the fathers we have given you your answer, and have plainly proved, that they afford no foundation for you to build your cause vpō. And it is probable that you thought so yourself; therefore you judged it not safe for you to rest in them, unless you brought forth certain foundations by which you might strengthen the fathers themselves. For after you had said what you could remember touching the fathers, that you might show you esteemed their sayings as divine Oracles, because you saw that was too slender, and that no man would jump with you in that point, you now endeavor by certain foundations to fortify and strengthen the authority of the Fathers. Now the strength, and as it were the bond and sinews of this disputation is this The Fathers have searched the Scriptures most diligently, they have heaped up store of testimonies out of the holy Scriptures, they have attributed the chief place to these: therefore we ought to be content with their exposition of Scriptures; and without sin we may desire no better. This either is the sense of this place, or else there is no sense in it. And verily I profess you have laid these things down so faintlie and looselie, that I can hardly discern their scope: for what, I pray you, can be spoken more loosely? The fathers have diligently labored to understand the Scriptures: therefore in their exposition of them they have never 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 give you one example for a thousand. S. Paul writeth, that at Antioch he withstood Peter to his face: what a kind of opposition this was you would know, but cannot of yourself find it out. You wonder that Paul would oppose Peter, one Apostle another, and happily you suspect some mystery may be hid in it: you go to the fathers, you inquire of Jerome, and of Augustine, two very famous lights of the Latin Church. What do they tell you? Augustine think that S. Paul spoke ingenuously and as he thought Jerome that he spoke feinedly. If you approve the one, you must needs reject the other; for you cannot consent with both. Six hundred of this kind I could propound unto you. I know how, saith Jerome, otherwise to account of the Apostles, then of other writers. They ever sp •• k • the tr ••• , these as man have erred in some things. Yet they read the Scriptures, they were conversant in them, and spent themselves wholly in meditating upon them. From these you may discern how your accusation is most unjust, and our defense most equal and just. I desire not to diminish the fathers due and worthy commendations: so you will confess they are men, extol them with all the praises you can to the very heavens, where they are now free Denizens. I could wish, that that which they constantly did, either you would do, search the Scripture, or suffer us to do: then I doubt not but this fight would have a good issue. But the Scriptures which Christ ratified with his own voice, and commended to our diligent search, you fly from and abhor, as thieves do the gallows, you abandon them out of men's sight, and yet you have never done searching; for you compass sea and land to find out old traditions and customs long ago dead and buried, men's inventions, decrees of Popes, the corruptions of Churches, feigned and forged books, diriges, scrappes; dreams 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, as Christ hath commanded, and the ancient fathers have done. And would to God (as Origen writeth) we all would do that which is written, Search the Scriptures ) If we were commanded to search the fathers of the Church, unwritten verities, the Popes Canons, we would willingly set up our rest there; but when we are called from them to the diligent search of the Scriptures, do not much blame us, if we so far, as you speak, subscribe to the fathers, as they agree with the Scriptures. For you cannot justly blame that in us which you confess is commendable in them. For Christ commanded us as well as them, to search the Scriptures. That therefore which is enjoined us both, to search, it ought to be the purpose of both to find out. And do you judge it equal, that if they have erred in searching, we should tread in their steps, and reject the truth we have found out? For wheresoever they find out the truth they sought after, we receive it and consent with them. And therefore, Campian, make you no doubt, we speak unfeignedly; we 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 Nazianzen, S. Ambrose, S. Jerome, S. Chrysostom, S. Augustine, and S. Gregory the great, shall come forth well armed with the whole furniture of the bible. But what if they will not obey your commandment, neither serve for wages in your tents? will you compel them against their willes to bear arms in your camps? It is more then you can do: they will not endure themselves to be thus compelled or forced. You call them man by man, but they will not answer to those names: yea, both these now named by you, and all ancient fathers do proclaim open war against you, and if you please, let us spend a little time in the trial of it.

This Deuis whosoever he was cannot be on your side, while you maintain private Mass. For he hath described the public communion of the whole Church, such as Christ at the first instituted, and the ancient Church ever held. The very same thing doth Justin the Philosopher and martyr, who in his Apology before Anthony the Emperor, laid open the order of discipline, which Christ held in his holy assembly. At that time the whole people received bread & wine, now with you they receive neither. Cyprian makes all the Apostles equal with Peter, and directly affirmeth that they have like honor and authority with him, and forbids all appeals to the Bishop of Rome. Therefore he must needs deest your Pope, who preferreth himself both in dignity & authority before all other Bishops, & from all parts draws unto his courts all appeals. Lactantius writeth that it is a thing without questiō. There can be no religion wheresoever there is an image. If he now lived and saw your Churches full of images, would he acknowledge any sign of true Religion? Athanasius affirmeth, That the holy Scriptures given by inspiration are sufficient to instruct men in all truth: wherein with one word he hath put to slight the whole armies of your traditions. Epiphanius sharply reproveth certain foolish women, who worshipped the virgins Mary with a certain new kind of worship, and condemneth all that superstition. 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 Let none, saith he, worship the Virgin Mary. What would he say if he now saw not only foolish women, but also men, and all mortal wights offering up sacrifices and vows to the Virgin Mary? Basil is the author, that in his days there was a custom in all Churches, that the people repeated the Psalms in the holy assemblies. But in your Churches the people can neither hear nor understand those things which are read; but are only deluded with ridiculous gestures and pompous shows. Nazianzen speaketh no less honourablie of this civil and sociable life, than of the solitary life of Monks: which your cloister men cannot endure. Ambrose enueigheth bitterly against them, who think it necessary for them, when they would go to God to use some mediators, as men do in courts of Princes, before they can be brought to the King himself, they must seek the favor of some of his near attendants. Doth not this thing touch you, doth not this speech draw blood of you? who never ask anything of God in your prayers, but first you seek some of the Saints to be a mediator for you, to whom you commend the care of your business and requests. Jerome did too much contemn your Pope, and other your glorious Bishops, when he writeth that a Priest and a Bishop, by the law of God are all one; do you judge him worthy to be a Father of the Romish Church, the Bishop whereof you make not only to be far above all Priests, but also all Bishops? Gelasius who himself was a Bishop of Rome, condemneth your dry and maimed supper as Sacrilegious, and strictly commandeth, that either the whole be received, or it be wholly omitted. Will the authority of the Pope move you no whit at all? Vigilius writeth that Christ is departed from us in his human nature. The Son of God in his human nature is gone from us: but in his divine nature he is always with us, whereas you say Christ is present in both natures. Chrysostom exhorteth lay men and all the people that they would get them Bibles, read the Scriptures, and that at home in their houses the husband with the wife, the father with his children, would confer among themselves of the Scriptures. But this neither can, nor lawfully may be done in your Church, yea, it is a certain proof of an heretic, for any to have the Bible in his house. What shall I say of Augustine, who in the greatest and most principal controversies, as of grace, predestination, free will, justification, the Scripture, the Law, the Gospel, sin, good works, Sacraments, and Church is wholly and fully ours. I should never make an end if I should pursue particulars, and collect but a little of everything. Gregory the great, though he was a Bishop of Rome, yet will he take our part against you: For tell me, doth he not touch your Pope to the quick, when peremptorily he affirmed, that whosoever should call himself the universal Bishop, undoubtedly was the forerunner of Antichrist? Touching which title there hath been deadly hatred and bloody contentions betwixt the Bishops of Constantinople and Rome. John of Constantinople being a proud man, and very insolent, and ambitious, first challenged this unto himself: Gregory while he lived earnestly and constantly withstood him. And within a while after this title was taken from the Bishop of Constantinople, and given to the Bishop of Rome. Leave trifling, Campian, and even tell me plainly, if that name in the Bishop of Constantinople was a sign of the approaching of Antichrist, why may we not judge it in the Bishop of Rome, a notable ensign of the same Antichrist? now I have given you a taste by which you may judge other things: you must either get you other fathers, or for all these you must needs yield as overcome. Do we at length speak without riddles? what is it you else desire of us? wherefore Campian, get you into this campe, and show forth all your valor: you shall verily find you have to deal, not with naked and unarmed beggars, but with well appointed and well harnessed adversaries.

EDMVND CAMPIAN. The seventh Reason, which is the History.

T He ancient Histories of former times, do plainly discover the true form of the Primitive Church, thither do I appeal: as for the ancient Historiographers, whose authority all the adversaries do sometime usurp, these are well nigh all of them. Eusebius, Damasus, Jerome, Ruffinus, Orosas, Socrates, Sozomenus, Theodoretus, Cassiodorus, Gregory of Tours, Oswaldus, Regino, Marianus, Sigibertus, Sonoras, Cedrenus, Nicephorus. What song, I pray you, do these men sing? a song in praise of Catholics of their prosperous proceedings, of their interchangeable alterations, & what enemies they had; yea moreover (which I would have you well to mark) these men which are our daily enemies for our Religion sake, to wit, Philip Melangthon, Pantalion, Functius, and the Magdeburgeans, when they went about, to write either Chronicle or Ecclesiastical History, they should have had nothing at all to write of for the space of 1500. years after Christ, except they had gathered together the acts of those men, that take our part, and put in writing the treacheries and outrages of the enemies of our Church. Consider also the particular Historiographers of some special countries, who bended themselves curiously and busily to search out the special affairs of every such people as they undertook to write of. These as men desirous by all means they possibly could to enrich and beautify that work they had in hand, omitted not so much as banqueting feasts, or long sleeued coats, or strange haftes of daggers, or gilded spurs, and such like trifles, but they made mention thereof, if it had any smack of novelty. These men doubtless, if there had been any alteration in religion, or any digression, from their former faith, which was in the Primitive Church, that had come to their ears, many of thē would have recorded it: if not many, yet some few of them at the least; if not some few, yet someone or other doubtless would have made mention thereof. But nobody at all, neither friend nor foe, made any muttering, or gave any inkling of any such matter. As for example sake, the adversaries grant (because they cannot otherwise choose) that the Church of Rome, was once an holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, even then when it deserved these commendations of S. Paul, Your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world. I cease not to remember you in my prayers. I know that when I come unto you; I shall come in the abundance of the blessings of Christ. All the Churches of Christ do greet you, for your obedience is spread abroad in all places. Then also, when S. Paul having free liberty of the prison, there preached the Gospel abroad. Then also, when S. Peter governed the Church, gathered together long ago in that City of Rome, which he called by the name of Babylon. The whē that same S. Clement, whom the Apostle so highly commendeth, was chief head of that Church: then also, when Heathen Emperors, as Domitian, Nero, Traiane, and Antonius most cruelly murdered the Bishops of Rome. Then also, Calvin himself doth witness, when Damasus, Syticius, Anastasius, and Innocentius were governors of the Sea Apostolic. For at this time he freely confesseth that men nothing swerved, especially at Rome from the true doctrine of the Gospel. At what time then hath Rome lost this faith so highly commended by S. Paul? when fainted faith which before so flourished? In what age, under what Pole, upon what occasion, by whose compulsion, by whose power, hath a new strange Religion invaded, not only that city of Rome, but the whole world besides? what outcries, what rufflings, what weeping and wailing hath it caused? were all men in all the world besides in a dead sleep, while Rome, I say, Rome brought forth new Sacraments, new sacrifice, and new doctrine of religion? There hath not been found any one Historiographer either Latin or Greek, neither abroad nor at home, which hath vouchsafed so much as to make a little note in his books of so notable a matter, though it had been never so slenderly. Wherefore this is a matter manifest enough, if the History which is a faithful witness of antiquity, and the life of memory, do in many and sundry places copiously entreat and spoake of that faith which we profess: and if no History at all since the creation of the world do affirm, that, that faith which the adversaries do thrust upon us, was 〈◊〉 allowed in the Catholic Church; then are all the Historiographers on our part, and the invasions of the adversaries are not frivolous, and such as can make no man afraid, except it be first granted, that all Christians throughout every age, have fallen to gross infidelity and consequently into the deep pit of hell; until that Frier Luther committed aduoutrie with the Nun Katherine Bore.

WILLIAM WHITAKERS. The answer to the seventh Reason, which is the History.

N Ow you call us to History, the witness of times and reporter of Antiquity: and all that have taken pains in publishing the Ecclesiastical History, their names you set down, and like dumb shows, you carry them in great pomp: as though, Campian, the particular naming of all that have published any History were sufficient for the remembrance, and searching out the monuments of Antiquity. What insolent new kind of Logic is this, to reckon up the Historians of the whole world, and of particular countries, and then conclude they are your own? Have you of late from above procured this privilege, that whatsoever you lay your hands upon, shall by and by become yours? we have long since perused the ancient Chronicles, wherein the beginning and proceeding of the Church is set down, and we find not that they favor you more then us. If in them be some things against us, many moe, and more weighty testimonies they have against you, and such as give you a deadly wound; else would we never have collected the Histories of the ancient Church so accuratelie, and diligently, penning them exactlie, and distinguishing the several ages and times; neither would we have published them in the world, if they were so contrary unto us, as you surmise: for who have taken more pains to find out, or more faithfully restored the Ecclesiastical Histories, then our men, without whose labors many monuments of Antiquity had been buried in darlinesse? We therefore will never deny this trial of Antiquity, and seeing you appeal to ancient Histories, we condescend; yet with this caution, that we be not tied to those things which were apparently blemishes in the ancient Church. Especially seeing that writers of Histories intending to make a natration of things done, do not so much teach us what ought to be done, but have an eye to that which was then performed, and by that means set down many things worthy of reprehension, rather than imitation: and for the most part it happens, that Historiographers are possessed with the errors of the times wherein they writ; and ever the later writer the more corrupt. But here you exclaim that we seek evasions, and very perversely you slander us, that because we do not allow all, we refuse all. They that reform what is amiss, do not blame the rest that is not faulty. Strive while you list (Campian) and cry out of mazes and labyrinths, at length will you, nill you, by the cares must we bring you to the judgment of the Scriptures.

And herein, Campian, you very much triumph, when you demand at what time, under what Bishop, by what way, and proceeding, was a new religion spread over the City of Rome, and the whole world: and do not doubt, but that if any change and declining had been, many writers would have made mention of it, or diverse, or one at the least. It is hard for us to answer at what time, neither is it necessary to set down the very instant of time. All things were not at once overturned in the Church of Rome, sin and wickedness came to his height by degrees, and by leisure to ripeness; the hairs of our head are not all gray of a sudden, neither doth anything suddenly come to his maturity, and the growth of everything appeareth long after. This is manifest in such things, as having small beginning go on forward unto a greater quantity, until they come to perfection; you cannot deny, but there was a great alteration of Religion, in the Church of Jerusalem, what then? was the change all at once? show us then how those novelties entered into the Church, what time, what way, who was Bishop, and by what proceedings it increased. You Romanis • condemn the Greek Church, and yet it is nothing so corrupt as yours. Declare now unto me those circumstances of time in the declining of this Church, which you demand for your own. Poynt out the time, the Bishop, and the growth of their Apostasy. As the alteration of these Churches was then easy to be discerned when it first began, though now it be very hard to find out those circumstances: so we see plainly a great change in the Church of Rome, yet can we not certainly pronounce the several times of their several declining. Many are manifest, which were too long to rehearse, and those are distinguished according to their times and seasons. The case was with the Church of Rome, as we see it is in a great building: for as a house which is strongly built at the first, continueth so of it self a long time after sound and whole; but if for a time it be left and neglected, it beginneth in some place to decay, and to be full of chinks, which in time wax big by degrees, till they threaten ruin to the posts and roofs themselves, and at length by this means, the whole building is ruinated and falleth down: so the Roman Church in process of time declined from her ancient estate, and by the infection of error and superstition daily prevailing, at length she lost the very spirit and life of the Church. Eusebius reporteth, that one Polycrates Bishop of Ephesus, had written of the Church, that she was, whilst the Apostles lived, a chaste and undefiled Virgin. For then they that would have altered the holy pattern of sound doctrine, did it faintly and fearfully, not daring to creep out of their holes. But after that the Apostles departed unto the heavenly mansions, and none of that age left, that had been hearers of Christ himself, neither any of the Apostles living, then began abhominable error to gather strength, and openly in the Churches to advance it self. What more pregnant testimony of antiquity and history can you desire? Whilest the Apostles lived the Church was a Virgin, as soon as they were dead, she became corrupted, and the mischief no doubt in time increased and spread it self abroad. But I wonder that this Polycrates, was either so ignorant or forgetful that he considered not this, that the Pope of Rome was left unto the Church, in the Apostles rooms, to defend this Virgin, and preserve her chastity. Why calleth he the Church a Virgin? Because the Apostles were living, by whom her audacious adversaries were always discouraged and discomforted. But either in this respect the Church now wanteth a Pope, or else she needs him not at all. But Polycrates, although there were none left to preserve the purity of this Virgin, bewaileth her want as you see, which surely had been vnaduifedly done, if his opinion had been, that this charge belonged to the Bishop of Rome. The Church then from the Apostles time began to decline, and inclined to the apostasy, which the Apostle did foretell should be, and we see now fulfilled. Then those Wolves of whom the Apostle did forewarn, came into the Church and ceased not to destroy the flock. Then those Antichrists, whereof John affirmeth some were in his time, began to undertake the work, which after was perfected and accomplished: I might here show you many evident tokens of your Churches Apostasy, out of these your own Chronicles: they are no secrets, but such as any man that will read and observe, may easily discern.

And since you call us unto Histories, I will put you in mind of one thing related in an ancient story, consider it well whether it touch your Pope, or no, and then answer fully concerning the whole matter. A Council was assembled in Afric, of 217. Bishops; whereof Augustine himself was one, the glory and star of Afric: I will set down the story briefly. Zozimus Bishop of Rome sent thither his Legates, which should persuade the Fathers of Afric, that appeals might be made to the Bishop of Rome from all other Bishops. The Legates make relation hereof unto the Fathers, and withal produce a Canon of the Council of Nice, wherein the privilege was recorded: the Fathers wonder at this new decree, and answer the Legates that they never saw any such Canon in any copy Greek or Latin, and that, as they thought, the true and perfect copy of that Council remained with them, which Cecilianus Bishop of Carthage, which was himself present at that Council, had brought into Afric; notwithstanding they determine to send to Constantinople, Alexandria, and Antioch, such as might receive the true and natural copies, from the Bishops of those cities. The Popes Legates would fain have stayed them from sending, but could not. Cyril Bishop of Alexandria, and Atticus of Constantinople deliver unto the messengers the copies with letters to the Fathers of Africa, wherein they do avouch that those copies were most true and sincere. Then at length the forgery appeareth in the Canon of the Council of Nice no such thing can be found: so they writ to Celestine then Pope, and command him to surcease from making any such claim ever after and not to send abroad his Collectors, lest thereby they may seem to bring the presumptuous smokie pride of the world into the Church of Christ. The Pope for the time yielded not voluntarily, but perforce: for an hundred years after Boniface the second in an Epistle unto Eulalius inveigheth bitterly against Aurelius Bishop of Carthage, which was now President of the African Council, and affirmeth that he and his fellows, whereof Augustine was the chief, were all moved by the devil to withstand the Church of Rome; thus Pope Boniface censureth as schismatics, Aurelius of Carthage, & other the African Bishops, yea and Augustine himself among the rest, because they resisted the Bishop of Rome in that matter: as for Eulalius then Bishop of Carthage, he giveth him great thanks because he made friendship with the Church of Rome, that is he willingly permitted the immediate power of the Bishop of Rome over the Church of Afric. These things I have related out of their truest records, and of this kind I could rehearse many more, so little cause have you to promise yourself much help out of History.

Hence may be perceived what the purpose and endeavor of the Bishops of Rome have been these many years, viz. to make themselves Lord's of all Churches, which also at length they obtained. But because you ask the question and desire answer, when Rome lost her faith so much commended, and what that, which once was; ceased to be? I may truly affirm that though in many things she had made shipwreck of faith before, yet thē did it begin to be the seat of Antichrist, when Phocas the murderer granted unto Boniface the third, that the Church of Rome should be head of all Churches, and the Bishop of Rome should be called Universal Bishop. I will not too curiously search into the moments of times, a mischief creepeth privily, for a time vnespied of men. But the common opinion which men conceived of those times was, that Gregory the great was the last good, and the first ill Bishop of Rome. He was no better then he should be, and all that succeeded him were stark naught, everyone striving to go beyond his predecessor in all lewdness: so that, now a sink of all wickedness hath violently burst into the Church, and hath possessed all the parts thereof. You force me, Campian, to open the sores of your Church, which I had rather not touch, but you are so unreasonable, y ^t you neither spare us nor yourselves. Barnard, who was the only religious man, your Church had for many years, how often, and how grievously, doth he bewail, the most desperate estace of your Church? A shameful contagion sprea ••• h over the body of the whole Church: the servants of Christ serve Antichrist. From the sole of the foot to the crown of the head nothing is sound. With these and the like speeches used Bernard to bewail and complain of the intolerable wickedness of your Church, which he would never have done without sufficient reason, moving thereunto. Aeneas Sylvius, afterwards Pope, writeth that charity was waxed cold, and faith utterly gone, and what manner of Church shall we judge this to have been, when she had lost both faith and charity? But it may be you will say that he wrote this of malice unto the Church, and that after he changing his opinion, when of Aeneas he was made Pius, for that was ever his usual speech. Cast away Aeneas & take Pius. What shall I further recite Petrarch, Mantuan, and other Poets both learned and famous, which feared not with Satiricall verses to inveigh against the Pope and Cardinals and the whole clergy? all things were then so out of order, that all sins might without control •• ent both be practiced and openly blamed. I need not to seek far, remember what Cornelius Bishop of Bicontine, not many years ago, at the Council of Trent spake openly in the presence and audience of the whole Church: whose witness must needs be strong and effectual against you, though of it self it be little worth. Thus he saith, Would to God they had not all with one consent turned from religion to superstition, from faith to infidelity, from Christ to Antichrist, from God to Epicureanism. Behold the Marks of your Church, su ••• stition, infidelity, Antichrist, Epicure, for all this you are not ashamed to affirm that no History either yours or ours hath bewrayed or testified any such matter. But Campian, the more you defend the integrity of your Church, the more you cause us to manifest the corruptions of it.

Our adversaries, say you, do grant that the Roman Church was once a holy Church. This we confesle, and that then it was holy when Paul published those her worthy praise, which you remember; and yet those praises by you mentioned, do not belong to that Church alone, but were given also to other Churches. For what if the faith of the Romans were published in the whole world? this was no proper or peculiar privilege of that Church. Hath not the Apostle written as much of the Church of Thessalonica, Your faith to wards God is spread in all places? What if he made mention of the Romans without ceasing? so did he also incessantly remember the Thessalonians. What though he doubted not but he should come unto the Romans in abundance of the blessing of Christ? think you his coming into other Churches was less fruitful? What if all Churches saluted the Romans, and their obedience was everywhere spoken of? know you not that all the Saints used to salute one another? or suppose you that other Churches were not as obedient to the Apostles as this? But we grant you, that at this time it was holy: what would you more? Then also when Paul preached the Gospel there in his favorable restraint. This also we grant: what more? And then also when Peter gathered and governed the Church there, calling it Babylon. We deny not this. And though I can be well content that you call Rome Babylon, for I doubt not, but it is the same of which John writes so much in the Revelation, the mother of whoredoms, and abominations of the earth; yet I cannot be so easily persuaded that Peter means Rome in this place; here Campian you are always at a nonplus, & could yet never pro • ue that Peter was at Rome. But you take this for granted, and as already proved; which if any man once deny, then like the Mathematicians, you have done, and can go no further. But why may I not reasonably think, that Peter meaneth that Babylon, which once was the chief City of the Assi • ians, in which City certainly were many Jews, unto whom Peter was appointed Apostle peculiarly. If I should set down that which I could allege in this cause, I fear I should try your patience too much. In the mean time I allow well your confession that Rome is Babylon, and hereafter, at your leisure, you may declare upon what occasion the name of it was altered. You may not now be angry with us, if following Peters example, from henceforth we also call Rome Babylon.

Now I hope at length you will rest and be satisfied. Nay, but you proceed still unto the ages that succeeded: Then when Clemens governed the Church: then also, when the Heathen Emperors massacred the Bishops of Rome: Even then I confess, Rome was an excellent Church of Christ. Will this content you? Nay further you say; Then also when Damasus, Siricius, Anastasius, Innocentius executed the Apostolic function. This is not to descend by degrees, but to leap; for you hasten too fast from the forenamed to these. But how will you persuade us to yield you thus much; Because Calvin (as you say) frankly confesseth, that as yet they had not digressed from the doctrine of the Gospel: Do not you, Campian, catch hold of that which no man will give you, nor be too confident of others liberality? Calvin doth not grant that which you take for granted: therefore you must redeliuer it. Calvin in that place answereth to your ouerworne argument of succession, and she weth that the purpose of the Fathers, when they alleged the succession of Bishops, was not to prove those to be true Churches, where Bishops succeeded one another: but this first they assumed as most certain, that from the beginning of the Church unto the ages, whereof they speak, there was no alteration in religion; and thus they opposed to the new broached errors that doctrine which from the times of the Apostles was still preserved in the Church. Calvin then saith not that they had altered nothing in any point of faith, but that the Fathers used this argument of succession only in those cases, wherein it might appear they had innouated and altered nothing. Wherefore as we grant that the Church of Rome in the time of these Bishops was the true Church of Christ; but that they in nothing digressed from the doctrine of the Gospel, that Calvin never confessed, and we constantly deny. To say nothing of the rest. Thus Syricius swerved from the doctrine of the Gospel, when he entangled the Ministers of the word with the snares of enforced continency: and this doubtless was no small digression, but a plain departing frō the Apostolic doctrine. Now at length you make a stay, and pursue the histories of the Church no further: only you demand, when Rome ceased to be as formerly it had been; unto which question we have sufficiently answered. If you make doubt whether it now be the same it was, you may also if you list doubt whether the sun shine at noon. For this is as clear and without question, as that the present city of Rome, is become unlike the ancient flourishing Romans common wealth. And as he could not find Samnius in Samnius, and the other of whom the Epigram speaketh wittily, who found naught of Rome in the midst of Rome. So if you would now in the present Romish Church, seek for the ancient Church of Rome, you shall never find it, for she hath now lost, not the life only, but the very color and appearance of the true Church.

Seeing therefore all other things fail you, and also Histories themselves, on which you seemed much to rely, help you nothing, what remaineth but one of these two? either must you yield before the battle, or die in the battle. I wish you would once at length take knowledge of that which Nazianzen writeth. We have learned it to be commendable, as well to yield unto reason, as with reason to overcome.

EDMVND CAMPIAN. The eighth Reason, which is the Paradoxes of our adversaries.

W Hen that (most excellent men) I reuolue in my mind amongst many heresies wherewith I have to do, certain monstrous opinions of such as are fantasticallie given; I could not but condemn myself of slothfulness and cowardliness, if making trial thereof, I should be afraid of any man's activity and strength: let him be as eloquent as ye would wish, let him be as much exercised as you would desire, yea let him be one that hath thoroughly studied all sorts of books, yet must he needs be to seek, both for matter and words also when he shall undertake to maintain those his impossible propositions as follow: for (if he perhaps will give his consent) we will dispute of God, of Christ, of Man, of sin, of Justice, of Sacraments, and of Manners, I will try whether they dare maintain their opinions, & such sayings, as they, lingering after their own lure, have bruted abroad by their writings. God grant they will acknowledge these their own axioms: God is the author and cause of sin, willing, prompting, making, commanding, and working it, and their governing the wicked counsels of naughty men. The adultery of David, and the treason of the Traitor Judas, was as properly the work of God, as the calling of S. Paul was. This monstrous doctrine, whereof Philip, Melancthon was once ashamed, yet Martin Luther from whose breast Philip sucked the same, as highly extolleth, as though it had been some heavenly oracle, and therefore matcheth his said scholar in a manner with the Apostle S. Paul. I will demand also what mind Luther was of whom the English Calvinists affirm to have been a man sent from God to lighten the Word, when he razed out of the Litany used in the Church this verse, O blessed Trinity, and one God have mercy upon us: then in order I will proceed to the person of Christ, & demand of them, what these Paradoxes mean, whereas the Catholic Church holdeth that Christ is the Son of God, and God of God. Calvin saith that Christ is God of himself, and Beza affirmeth that he was not begotten of the substance of the Father: also be it agreed (saith he) that there are in Christ two unions consisting in one substance, the one of the soul with the flesh, and the other of the Divinity with the humanity. That place of S. John, I and the Father are one, doth not prove that Christ is God of one substance with God the Father: yea and my soul ( saith Luther ) cannot brook this word (Homouotin.) Proceed ye forward, Christ from his infancy was not full of grace, but daily increased in gifts of the mind, as other men usually do, and waxed wiser through experience every day more then other, so that in his childhood he was subject to ignorance, which is all one as if they should say that Christ was corrupted, with the spot and stain of original sin. But listen and you shall know more pernicious doctrine then this. Christ when he prayed in the garden, and plentifully sweat both water and blood, trembled through fear, and sensibly feeling of eternal damnation, uttered certain speeches without reason, and without consent of the inward spirit, yea speeches without consideration through the vehemency of his grief: the which speeches as unadvisedly spoken, he quickly corrected. Is there anymore such stuff? give diligent ear: Christ, whē he cried out with a loud voice, hanging on the Cross, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me, was tormented with the flames of hell fire, he let over-slip him desperate speeches, being no otherwise affectioned, then if he should have died an eternal death; if they have any worse stuff then this, let them empty their gorge. Christ they say, descended into hell, that is, Christ after he was dead, tasted of the pains of hell, nowhit less then the damned souls do, saving that he was to be restored again; for as much as by his corporal death, he could have profited us nothing, it was therefore requisite that his soul also should strive with eternal death, and in this manner to tolerate the pain, and pay the ransom of our sins. And lest peradventure any man should suspect, that this escaped Calvin by oversight, the said Calvin calleth you all forlorn knaves, if any of you, have debated upon this comfortable doctrine, oh cursed times! oh cursed days! what miserable doctrine have you bred up? Hath that precious and princely blood, which gushed out of the torn pierced side of that most innocent Lamb Christ Jesus (every little drop of which blood, for the worthiness of the sacrifice, was sufficient to have redeemed a thousand worlds) reliened mankind nothing at all, except the man Christ Jesus the mediator between God and man had suffered also the second death, the death of the soul, the want of grace, which is due only for sin, and detestable blasphemy? In comparison of this madness. Bucer shall seem modest, though absolutely he is indeed very impudent in that he taketh this word Infernus in the Creed only to signify Sepulchrum, that is, a grave, by a very over thou art figure Epexegesis, (which is a latter recital, or rather by a foolish and fond figure, which is commonly called Tautologia, ) that is an idle and superfluous telling of one • tale often. Of the English sectaries, some are accustomed to hang upon Calvin, whom they make their God, and some to take part with Bucer their great master. Some also mutter in their slieues against this article, dewising with themselves how without causing of an uproar, it may be quite cut out of the Creed, that it molest them no more. That, that also was attempted in a certain assembly at London, I remember one Richard Chenie, a miserable old man, that was amongst them told me, who though he was evilly entreated of thieves abroad, yet did he not repair home into his fathers house. And thus far, as concerning Christ his own person: now what say they of man? marry that the Image of God is clean blotted out of a mā, so that there is not so much as one spark of goodness remaining in him. His whole nature as touching all the whole faculties of the soul, is so quite altered, that no man not even he that is lately christened, nor any holy virtuous man, is anything else inwardly, but mere corruption and contagion; but whereto tendeth this? forsooth to no other purpose, but that they who will snatch at heaven, by their only faith, leading their lives in loosest sort, may accuse nature, may despair to attain to virtue, and cast off the burden of the holy Commandments from their backs. To this hath Illyricus the stādard bearer to the Magdeburgeans annexed, that his devilish decree of original sin, which he holdeth to be the most inward substance of men's souls, because (saith he) after the fall of Adam, the very Devil himself doth shape them anew, & transform them into his own substance. This is also an usual saying amongst these abjects, that all sins are equal; but with this condition, (lest peradventure the Stoics do quicken again▪) that they be weighed in the balance of God's just judgment: as though God, which is as a most gentle judge, would rather aggravate, then ease our burden; and notwithstanding that he is most righteous, he would yet exaggerate the offense, & make it more then it is in very deed. By this ballāce a silly poor Tauernour that killeth a cock whē there is no need, offēdeath God no lee, if he give judgment in his fury, then did that vile butcherly fellow being great with child of Beza his doctrine, that secretly with arpistolet most treacherously murdered that great noblemā of France, the Duk of Guise, a Prince of rare virtue, which was the most horrible, & lamentable deed, that ever was dove in any time, within the compass of the wide world. But peradventure those men that are set so eagerly in handling of the nature of sin, will show themselves great Philosophers in disputing of God's grace, which will help to heal and cure this malady. Good offices it seemeth, that they appoint for this grace, the which they impudently cry out to be poured into our harts, or to have sufficient ability, to withstand all sorts of sins: and place it altogeter out of our reach, in the only favor of God: which favor (they say) doth neither amend the wicked, nor purify the corrupted, nor lighten those that be in darkness, nor enrich them that want good works, but only doth hide that old heap of sins still remaining and sticking within us, by God's wincking thereat, to the intent that it be not imputed as deformed and odious in his sight: with which their vain imaginations they are so well pleased, that even Christ himself, for no other cause in their judgments may be said to be full of grace and truth: but because that God the Father did wonderfully favor him. What manner of thing then is Justice? a certain respective relation: not composed of the three Theological virtues, Faith, Hope, and Charity, which do close the soul with their beauty, but only a cloaking of sin, the which whosoever can apprehend by his bare faith, that man is as sure of his salvation, as if he were already in present possession of the endless joys of heaven: but go to, let him dream of this, yet how can he assure himself of future perseverance until his death? which gift of perseverance whosoever wanteth; he cometh to most miserable end, though for a season he embraced justice both sincerely and zealously. Nay verily, except this thy faith (saith Calvin ) doth foreshow thee thy perseverance so infalliblie, that thou canst not be deceived therein, thou oughtest to account it as a weak and feeble faith. By this point I know him to be Luther's own scholar: for a Christian man (saith he) though he would, cannot damn himself, but only by incredulity. I will make hast to the sacraments: they have lest (O blessed Christ) no Sacrament, I say none, not two, not one; for their bread is stark poison. Their Baptism, though it be true Baptism, by their judgment is nothing at all: It is not water of salvation, it is not a conduite of grace, and doth not make us partakers of Christ's merits, it is but only a bare sign of salvation. Therefore as concerning the nature of the thing, they esteem Christ's Baptism no more then the outward ceremony of Saint John. If thou have it, it is well, if thou want it, it is no hurt at all: only believe, and thou art sure to be saved before thou be baptized. What then shall we say of silly young Infants, who except they be holpen by the virtue of this Sacrament, can purchase nothing by their own faith? Rather (say the Magdeburgeans) then we will attribute any virtue to the Sacraments of Baptism, let us grant that there is faith in such infants sufficient whereby they may be saved, certain secret motions of which faith they feel in themselves; whereas without doubt, as yet they cannot discerue by any sense whether they live or no. A hard case surely for poor Infants: but if this seem so hard, mark what medicines Luther will minister for it. Better it were, saith he, to omit Baptism altogether, for except the infant believe himself, the washing of him in water is to no purpose at all. This tale they tell that stand wavering, what they may absolutely affirm in this point. Why then let Baltazar Pacimontanus intrude himself to strike the stroke between them, as an indifferent man, who being the first founder of the Annabaptists, when he could not conceive in his mind that there was any motion of faith in young children, allowed of Luther's simple shift, and abandoning the Baptism of Infants out of all Churches decreed that none should be christened until he come to years of understanding. As for the rest of the Sacraments, though that beast with-many heads, spoken of in the Apocalypse, do belch out many horrible blasphemies against them. Nevertheless because they are common at this present and have hardened our ears with the sound thereof, I will here let them pass. There remain certain pestiferous fragments of heretical doctrine, concerning life and manners, which Luther spewed out upon papers, for to infect those that read his books, with such poisoned stuff, as issued out of the stinking sink of his filthy breast; listen patiently, and blush for sham, and pardon me for reciting them. If my wife will not come, or cannot, then let my maid come to my bed. For the use of a woman is as necessary for every man, as either meat or drink or sleep is: Matrimony is better then virginity, Christ dissuaded and S. Paul dissuaded Christian people from virginity. But peradventure he will say that those are Luther's peculiar heresies. I say they are not. They are also maintained by Charke, though faintly & fearefullie. Will you see anymore of this stuff? why not? By how much the more wicked thou art (saith he) by so much the more art thou nigher to grace. All good works are sins; yea if God deal with us judicially, they are deadly sins, but if God deal with us mercifully, they are but small venial sins: No man thinketh of his own freewill any evil thought. The ten Commandments of almighty God, belong nothing at all to Christians. God hath no regard of our works. Those only are worthy partakers of the Lord's Supper which bring with them sorrowful, afflicted, tormented, confounded and unconstant consciences. We ought to confess our sins, but it forceth not to whom. For if any man obsolue thee, though it be but in jest, if thou believe that thy sins are forgiven thee, thou art absolved. It is not the office of Priests, but of Lay men to say their daily appointed service. Christian people are exempted from the laws of men. But I think I have raked deep enough, and I fear me a little too deep in stirring of this stinking puddle: wherefore now I will make an ende: and I would not have you think that I have dealt unjustly in reproving the Lutherans and Zwinglians jointly together: for the Zwinglians well remembering out of what school they came, wish with all their harts to be accounted as dear friends and loving brethren one with another: so that they think they have great wrong done unto them when there is any difference put between them, except it be in one only matter. I for my own part, truly do think that I am unworthy to take upon me so much as a mean room amongst a great mumber of chosen Divines, which in these days have proclaimed wars against all sorts of heresies. But this one thing I know assuredly▪ that be I never so simple, I cannot by the grace of Christ he in any hazard, whiles that I shall contend against such feigned▪ odious, foolish, and brutish devices, so long as I have both heaven and earth to help me.

WILLIAM WHITAKERS. The answer to the eighth Reason, which is the Paradoxes of our adversaries.

H Jerome said that he would not have any man to be patient, if he were suspected of heresy. And therefore, Campian, in so much the worser part do I take it, that these which you term Paradoxes, being so false, so many, and so horrible, be now by you objected against us. And certainly you that have ever exceeded all other Papists in impudency and audaciousness, have in this place in very deed surpassed yourself: for unless you had quite and clean put off both all religion of God, and reverence toward men, and now of late made shipwreck of your own conscience, and cast off utterly all humanity, you would never have admitted so much impiety into yourself, as to upbraid us with these monstrous opinions. But I perceive what you intend: for you hope that by slandering boldly, as he being most like you, was wont to say, somewhat would always clean fast. For since you lack true imputations, whereby you might oppugn our Churches, it remained that either you should leave off writing, which had been your honestest way, or at lest devise some slanders, which you would cast like vnomed darts upon us; which thing is both in it self very filthy, and also a sure argument of your desperatenes. But now if I shall so wipe away these your Paradoxes and impossibilities, that all men may perceive, they were ascribed to us by you most falsely and most impudently; I do crave not only of all men of our Universities, but also of all Christians, that have care of true religion, and of their own salvation, that they will not suffer themselves to be misled by any lies and impostures of the adversary, from that holy doctrine which they have learned. Wherefore I will set upon these your monsters, Campian, that after I have stopped your mouth, being full of blasphemy, both the glory of God, which is in hand, and our innocence, which is oppugned, may be preserved from your violence. You say, the disputation shall be, if they please, of God, of Christ, of Man, of Sin, of Righteousness, of the Sacraments, of Manners. But we are ready 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 Purgatory, and of the rest of your doctrines. Nevertheless either many are deceived, or else you do rather think of fighting then disputing. And I hope that you shall once have freedom granted you for that disputation, which you so often desire. But now let us attend how you endeavor to make us know these positions of our men.

God (say you) is the willing, suggesting, efficient, commanding, and working author and cause of sin, and such a one as therein governeth the impious counsels of the wicked. It is an horrible thing and not to be uttered, Campian, that any one should make God the author of sin: such an one were worthy to be smitten instantly by the Lord, with a thunderbolt into the deepest pit of hell. If Calvin, or Martyr, or Philip, or Luther, or any of us do affirm it, I do not deny but we are all guilty of horrible blasphemy and impiety. If I would largely prosecute this whole cause, which you do but touch, I should make no end: therefore I will declare in few words, both what we teach, and wherein you lie. We profess, not only that God is good, but also goodness itself; yea good in himself & in his own essēce: in whom there is no evil; 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 evil. These things we speak, these things we teach, these things we believe with our harts, and confess with our mouths. Seeing therefore God is so perfectly good, that all his things be in a certain excellent manner good, it hath been in times past inquired and most gravely disputed, whence that evil sprung, which had spread so far, & what might be the cause of this evil. This question Augustine often handled, because of the M • nichies, and therein also Thomas of Aquine employed himself much and diligently. We say that this evil was brought in by the Devil, who although he were made good in the beginning by the Lord, yet by his freewill he made defection from the Lord and sinned; • nd did persuade, and was the author unto man, to commit sin: from hence, whatsoever is sin either in the devils, or in men, did wholly flow, and not any the least piece of it had being from God, whom we do maintain by infinite testimonies of Scripture to be the author of no sin; and so do teach it in our schools and Churches. For he hateth sin, he loveth righteousness: he which is the Judge of the whole earth, it must needs be that he is every way most just: God is light, and there is no darkness in him. And these are the things which we teach the people concerning God, that all may understand he is a most severe revenger of all sins. Now then, Campian, with what face dare you, seeing you know these to be our doctrines, impute unto us such a slāder not to be uttered, in so much as you affirm that we speak and think things flat contrary? But you say Calvin and Martyr have taught this this thing. Nay rather they are wholly bent vpō this, that they maintain, that can by no means be. It would be long to set down their words. I do beseech the Reader, to read with an attentive and peaceable mind, these same very places, which Campian hath abused unto slander. And if they do not both deny most plainly that God is the author and cause of sin; and also if they do not prove that they do most truly deny this, which they deny, I will submit myself to any punishment. But yet there is doubtless somewhat, which these men say, and which Campian doth attribute to them: what that is, let us consider.

There was a certain inveterate opinion among men, that whatsoever sin was committed by any, all that was done, God only permitting, and not willing it: now they did separate this permission utterly 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 to permit those things which are done, not only that they might be done, as if he did no whit intermeddle himself in those things, nor had nothing at all to do therein, but also doth by his special providence so govern all things, as that nothing in the whole world happeneth against tha • , that he hath willed & decreed: certainly it cannot be denied, that God doth will after a sort those things, which the wicked do, & that this will of God is so effectual, that in the wicked actions of men, God doth execute his own decree. For in sin two things are to be considered, the action it self, and the corruption of the action: which thing your Aquine might teach you, which also he learned from Augustine. The action so far forth as it is a thing and a work, is good; for God effecteth it: but so far forth as this self same action is vicious, 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 be done; doth bring to pass a certain work of his in the evil actions of men; yet he doth those things that are just, nor ought he any way to be thought to be guilty of the sins of the men themselves: therefore that which a wicked man doth, that, as it is a sin, and as it hath the proper nature of sin, the Lord neither willeth nor suggesteth, nor biddeth, nor effecteth; nay he detesteth and revengeth it, and judgeth it worthy of everlasting punishment. But that which is spoken of the thing, that you apply maliciously and unskillfully, to the quality 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 whatsoever corruption is found in that action. I will not prosecute any long digression, nor overwhelm you with that multitude of Scr • ptures, which I could here use: for I have not taken upon me to expound any point in the Schools, but briefly to confute your filthy slander.

Now answer me, Campian, do you think that that which any one doth, how wicked soever, is done whether God will or no? If you hold that anything is done against God's will, what providence or omnipotency do you leave him? For he which permits that to be done, which he would by no means have to be done, it is certain that he is not endued with so great power, as that he can forbid that which he would not have done. Wherefore you must need • confess that all things which are done, are done by the will of God; not that God doth will, that is, allow the sins of men, but because by this means he doth exercise his judgment and execute his decree, which he both willeth and alloweth. God can use evil instruments well, and bring to pass by wicked men, those things which agree with his will and liking. Now whatsoever things God doth by evil instruments, those he neither doth nor alloweth, as they be evil things, but as they be his good and holy judgments: so as although he both willeth those things which be done, & doth move the wills of men, and doth exercise in evil instruments, though unknown to the instruments themselves, an effectual power, and doth govern the wicked counsels of impious men, that they can do nothing which he willeth not; yet both men are wicked, albeit they do those things which the Lord willeth; and the Lord is holy, howsoever he willeth those things which the wicked do. This may be made manifest by examples; but I had rather you should hear Augustine than me. When the Father (saith he) delivered the son, and the Lord his body, and Judas the Lord by treachery, why is God just in this delivery, and man guilty, but because in one thing which they did, the cause was not one for which they did it? Again, In that the wicked sin, it is their own: in that in sinning they do this or that, it comes from the power of God, who divides the darkness 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 disallowed. For God fulfilleth certain of his wills, being surely good, by the evil wills of evil men: as by the ill willed Jews, 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 have had it done, is termed Satan by him who was willing to be slain. And elsewhere: God (saith he) hardened Pharaoh by just judgment, and Pharaoh hardened himself by his own free will. And that you may plainly perceive there is nothing taught by us touching the will of God, but that which the Church of Christ long since hath taught, I will annex 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 wills, so as after a wonderful and unutterable 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 certainly doth he suffer it unwilling, but willing. And again: God worketh in the hearts of men to incline their wills whither so ever he will, whether to good according to his mercy, or unto evil, according to their merits. And that certainly in his judgment sometime open, sometime secret, but always just. I can use infinite testimonies in this matter, but I think, not very needful. I will raise up out of your own school Hugo de Sancto victor, who shall most clearly approve our opinion with his own words. For thus he writeth: His will is never idle, so as that is not done, which he willeth: neither in a word can anything be done at any time which he willeth not. And a little after: The will of God is ever 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 own will, to fulfill the will of God, but by his secret providence.

Do you perceive at length (Campian) that no new paradox is defended in our Churches, which was not both received in times past in the Churches of Christ, and is also defended as the truth it self? For that which you add, As the calling of Paul, so also David's adultery, and Judas his treachery, were the proper work of God: from whence you drew these positions I know not. These works of God not one of our writers do so compare together, as that we should say that God wrought alike in David and Judas to the committing of heinous offenses, as he did in Paul for his effectual conversion. 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 mind with true faith, which he lacked before: but to David and Judas he did cast in no new kind of impiety or inclination of will, nor did he stir up new motions unto sinning (God forbid that any Christiā should so much as think it:) but they running of their own accord, and stirred up by and of themselves, be did so hold and bend, that they unwitting to themselves, and not imagining any such thing, did execute God's decree. For by this adultery of David the Lord did both chastise David, in that he did punish sin with sin, as he is wont, and also he made a way open for his purposes in time succeeding. Like hereunto is that of Absalom: he defiled David's Concubines: the h • inousnes of which offense cannot be uttered: yet this way the Lord had decreed to take punishment of David. But the treachery of Judas, if you respect the covetousness and perfidiousnes of the man, did so displease God, that never anything did offend him more: and yet the Lord used both Judas treachery and the Priests cruelty for the finishing of that work of our s • luation, and he would have these wretched instruments to effect that divine work. Therefore the Apostles do testify that all these did nothing else but those things which the hand and counsel of the Lord did decree to be done. And yet there is not here any monstrous thing, whereof either Philip Melanchthon or any other ought to be ashamed, unless perhaps the holy doctrine of the Scripture seem monstrous to you.

As for that that you demand with what mind Luther did take away this verse from the Church prayers, O holy Trinity, one God, have mercy upon us, certainly you are too suspicious. If Luther did think erroneously touching the Trinity, convince him: his books are in men's hands, and they are read by you, as it seemeth, very diligently. Alleage, if you can, any one word, injurious either to the Trinity or Unity. For if out of all his writings, which are innumerable, you can draw no probable inkling of this suspicion, why do you make question about one verse taken away from the Church prayers? which whether it be taken away or no, I know not: and though it be taken away, yet how appears it that it was taken away by him? But Luther's condition is very hard, who must stand unto, both what he hath written, and what he hath not written. And these are those our paradoxes concerning God, which you could carpe at in the books of all our writers, which have come forth in a manner infinitely. The matter is safe and sound: the adversary hath viewed over all of them, and yet hath found nothing.

By and by you proceed to the person of Christ, and you demand what these words of Calvin mean; Christ i • the son of God, God of God, God of himself▪ What reprove you here Campian? what, that he said, Christ is the Son of God? or for that he termed him God of God? or else, that he affirmeth him to be God of himself? But which of these assertions is it, that is not holy, not granted, not agreeable to the Catholic faith? which if you deny, you do not convince any Paradox of ours, but you bewray your own heresy. But this is the point, unless I be deceived, wherein you have found, I know not what, knot, as it were in a rush. The Nicene Fathers do profess Christ to be God of God, to the end they may teach that the Son is of the same substance with the Father. This saying, some afterward catched at so, as that they did maintain that Christ is not God by himself and of himself, but that he received it of his Father: wherein they quite took away the Divinity of Christ. For unless he be God of himself, he cannot be God at all. For that he may be God, he must needs be God of himself. Wherefore howsoever those Fathers did say that Christ is God of God, yes Calain maintaineth that it is most firmly to be believed, that Christ hath this, to be God of himself, unless we will rob Christ of his Divinity. To be the Son, he received that indeed of the Father: for he is the Son of the Father. To be God, he hath that of himself, because he is God by himself. What say you now Campian? God of God, is with Calvin, God of himself: and say you so indeed? hath not Calvin admonished you of this, that the name of God is to be taken for the Father, when as Christ is termed the Son of God? That therefore which the Nicene Fathers deliver, that Christ is God of God, that is so to be understood, that we should confess the Son to be begotten of the Father, and not that we should attribute the name of God only to the Father: for we must look to it, that we do not so determine the Son to be of the Father, as that we should deny him to be God of himself. And these things Calvin 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 Catholic Church. Remember that sentence of Augustine: Christ in respect of himself is termed God, but in respect of the Father he is termed the Son: wherein you may acknowledge the opinion of the ancient Church.

Now you set upon Beza: for like to the fashion of mad dogs, you stand not in one place, but fly hither and thither, and upon whomsoever 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 angry with Beza, if he say the same things, which are wont to be said & maintained by your own selves? For you cannot be ignorant, what your Lombard teacheth touching the oslence of God, which both he, and the school men that have followed him do affirm, 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 do you reprove him? and yet we may not imagine that the essence is separated from the person, as if the essence of the Son were another from the essence of the Father: (for there is but one simple essence of the Deity) but for as much as person is distinguished frō essence; albeit not in the thing, yet by rolation; and since though Ancient were wont to speak after this manner, that they said Christ was begotten of the person of the Father, rather then of his essence: it is no marvel that the same form of speech did like Beza best, whose judgment it was ever, that we ought to set down determinations touching the highest mysteries very warily and with great consideration. Now that the essence is not begotten, the whole ancient Church held, as Basil writeth expressly: God is not begotten either of himself 〈◊〉 of any other. Albeit I do not very well know, whether these be Beza • words which you recite: surely I remember not that I have ever read them in Beza, nor can I find them in this place which you quote. But those that follow, are very malicious. Beza said once, that there be two personal unions in Christ, as you say, the one of the soul with the body, the other of the Godhead with the manhood. Which speech of his James Andreas reproved: and indeed not without cause; albeit this doth not follow out of that speech, that there are two persons in Christ, though there be two personal unions: but that, because it was written ambiguously, Beza professeth that he would willingly mend it. And what can you desire more? if he have erred, yet he persisted not in his error, but hath amended his fault: with what face therefore can you upbraid 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 everywhere teacheth those things, than which nothing can be more true and sincere: nor is there any of us that is wont to affirm or defend that which you object concerning those two personal unions. For we confess but one person, constituted of the two natures, as also we acknowledge but one personal union: for although Christ did assume both body and an human soul; yet these parts are not so personally joined 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 again you make recourse to Calvin, whom I thought you had quite given over before. Calvin denieth▪ that the place of John, I and my Father are one, doth show that Christ is God of the same substance with the Father. What then Campian? was it so heinous an offense, to dissent from the ancient Fathers in the exposition of one place? Did he ever deny that Christ is of the same substance with the Father? you cannot maintain it. For he always taught it most constantly, and confuted the Arians by other innumerable texts of holy Scripture. For what? do you think that he cannot be of the same substance with the Father, unless this place teach it? he that heedfully readeth over that dispute of Christ with the Jews, which John in that chapter setteth down, shall easily perceive that rather an unity of will and power, then of essence, is signified. Christ affirmeth that no man can take his sheep out of his hands: & that he may persuade it plainly, he adjoineth, I and my Father are one. I do not see how you can thereout conclude an unity of substance, unless you still understand that same word, One, of the substance. What is it then that Christ saith, not of himself only, and his Father, but of all the faithful, that they all may be one, as thou O Father art in me, and I in thee? That place in the Epistle of John, These three are one, the Ordinary Gloss doth thus expound, that is, witnessing of the same thing. 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 Arians. Not, I think, for that he did any whit favor 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 soul hateth this word, Homoousion. Luther never said that: only this he said, if he had hated that word, Homoousion, yet he should be no heretic as long as he held the thing it self. These are Luther's words: But if my soul did hate that word, Homoousion, and would not use it, I should not be an heretic: for who should compel me to use it, so as I hold the thing, which was determined in a Council by the Scriptures? But howsoever he did hate the name, yet he did love the thing it self as his own soul. And with this same name, it is certain that many and those very excellent men were in times past offended, in so much as they have wished it had never been heard of. For this name being once brought in, the Churches were at such conflicts between themselves through hatreds and contentions, that the holy Fathers themselves did not a little repent them of that name: nor if a man would have perhaps some name to be taken away, which hath given occasion of many dissensions, is he therefore to be thought to disallow the thing declared by that name. Jerome could not be persuaded to receive the three Hypostases, because he had that new name, Hypostasis, in suspicion: for he was afraid lest there lay some venom under that name: yet he did acknowledge and preach three persons. And now both those terms are received, nor ought any one to be offended with it.

Go ye forward, say you: go you also forward, Campian, seeing you will needs do so, but it had been better for you rather to give over, than to go on of this fashion. It is better to retire than to run ill. You reproach us now for this, that we say, Christ was not perfect in Grace from his infancy, but that he grew in the gifts of his mind as other men do, and was made wiser every day by experience. I do easily endure you to object many paradoxes against us, seeing you tax the very history of the Gospel with the same fault: for who may hope that he can escape your slander, who stick not most audaciously to fly upon the writings of the Gospel: for what do we teach else herein, but that which the Evangelist hath expressed in his writings once or twice? for thus we read in Luke. The Child increased, and was strengthened in the spirit, and he was filled with wisdom, and the grace of God was in him. And again, Jesus grew in wisdom, and in stature, and in favor both with God and men. What else can be understood out of these words, but that Jesus did increase both in stature and wisdom, & the more he grew in age, so much the greater progresses had he in the gifts of the holy Ghost: for so our Evangelist had written a little before of John: The Child grew and was strengthened in the spirit. Do you think that John was presently as soon as he was borne endued with perfect wisdom and grace of the spirit, so as he had no additiō ever made him? But Luke saith that Christ was full of wisdom. I do not deny it: albeit Luke do not say filled, as though he were full of wisdom, but filling, whereby some growth and addition is signified. But to grant that he was full, will you therefore have it that nothing was added afterward? what then do you determine of John, of whom the Angel foretold that he should be full of the holy Ghost from his mothers womb? Wherefore if Christ had this, that at what time he first was made man, absolute & perfect wisdom, and other gifts of the spirit were heaped upon him, certainly he had it not alone; nor am I moved with the authority of the schoolmen, who lest they might seem to think less honorablie of Christ, do attribute to him presently all perfections. And Damascens argument taken from the personal union doth not conclude it, unless we will think that the Deity did infuse all the quality of it self into the humanity of Christ. That which the Evangelist writeth of this progress of wisdom, pertaineth only to the human nature of Christ? And seeing that Christ would assume the whole nature of man, saving in sin, and lay off that person of God, and empty himself, and take the form of a servant, will it be unbeseeming the person of Christ, that we say he was made both wiser and fuller of grace by little and little? He was indeed most full of grace, • nd whatsoever grace any body hath, all that he drew out of this ever remaining fountain of most abundant grace: but yet this hindereth not, but that Christ, as the Evangelist writeth, might grow in grace: which thing also Ambrose confesseth. For so he saith: According to the flesh certainly he was filled with wisdom and grace. Nor do some of your men, Campian, differ from this judgment, lest you should perhaps imagine it to be so horrible, as that it cannot fall upon a Catholic: for I ansenii •• Bishop of Gandaua, who was present at the Cōuenticle of Trent, professeth that he doth willingly incline to this judgment: and Erasmus (albeit I name him not among writers on your side) doth give his note that it is the truer opinion.

But, say you, they affirm also, that Christ was ignorant of some things. And why may they not affirm it? This (say you) is as much, as if they affirmed that he was defiled with original sin. Now at length you begin to argue very wittely, that our University men may understand your wonderful subtlety in disputing. Would you deal on this manner with us, Campian, if that dispute, which you so often wish, might be permitted you? For what could be spoken more absurdly? Christ was ignorant of something: therefore Christ was defiled with original sin. As if he that is ignorant of something, which may be known, or he which is not endued with the perfect knowledge of all things, it must needs be that he is defiled with sin. Thus then I will return you a like argument: The Angels are now ignorant of many things (for they know not that day and hour) and Adam, before he sinned, was ignorant of many things: (for he did not understand that Satan lay in wait for him) therefore both the Angels are now defiled with sin, and Adam in his greatest innocence was a sinner. You shall never prick us with these goads so, as that we may fear any deadly wound. If you know not that there is an ignorance void of all fault, learn it of Thomas, who will teach you, that negative ignorance, which he terms nescience, is not sin, but the privative. If you can conclude that consequent out of our judgment, that Christ was ignorant of somewhat, which he then ought to have known, when he was ignorant of it, then you put us down from this our standing. For it is not a fault not to know those things, which yet may be known, unless it concern us to have them known. For who will blame a Porter, for that he is ignorant of the Mathematikes? But concerning Christ, I answer now that unto you, which toucheth this cause nearer. Although he were most pure from all spot of sin, so as nothing could be more uncorrupt; yet he took upon himself the punishment due to sin, that he might deliver us from it. Therefore also he would die, albeit death issued from sin. He then that suffered death for us, which sin brought in; can anything, which is ours, be unbeseeming him, so as it be not infected with sin? And you can never prove, that ignorance in Christ was any whit more faulty, than death. Christ as he was a true man, albeit a pure man, so he did never think, imagine or understand all things at once, and he did sleep sometimes. Do you think that Christ while he was sleeping, did comprehend all things in his memory? which though you should affirm, yet I see no reason to believe you. That which Christ spake of that day and hour, ( no man knoweth it, nor the Son himself ) Cyril writeth that Christ spake it of himself, and that he knew not the day of judgment, as he was man, because it is proper to the human nature to be ignorant of things to come.

But now, say you, we shall take knowledge of worse things, and here you recite many things concerning Christ's swea • e, horror, and sudden outcry. I acknowledge that which you allege, but I see no paradox therein. I am not ignorant what is wont to be given out by you in corners, that Christ is reproached, when we say he was tormented with so great griefs of mind. But it is so far off, Campian, that I do either deny or dissemble those things which you now object, that I do teach and avow them openly and freely. And though the whole nation of Jesuits should set upon me, yet I will never be ashamed to celebrate Christ's mercy, which I see to be violated by them with unspeakable injuries. For what think you was it that Christ felt, which brought so great sadness and vexation to him, that it wrung from him a bloody sweat? was it only death, which takes away life and sense? Do you think that Christ could be broken so with the fear of that death that he should conceive so much grief in his mind, to make him sweat water and blood, for the desire he had to escape tasting of that cup which he came to drink of? Did Christ so much abhor this death, which the Martyrs have gone unto, joyful and cheerful? That were indeed to cast a greater reproach upon Christ, while ye would avoid the lesser. Wherefore that which raised so great horrors in Christ, was the most bitter wrath of God against mankind, which Christ must needs have suffered for a time. For the whole weight of our sins was imposed upon Christ, which brought with it a most heavy remembrance of God's wrath. Seeing therefore Christ our Mediator being laden with our sins, did suffer the greatness of God's displeasure, and did alone endure the punishment of our sins, certainly he did quake, as man, and did express those incredible sorrows of his mind many ways. Hence came that speech upon the Cross, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? which he uttered not feinedly, but from his heart; not despairingly, as you wickedly write, but upon the consideration of God's wrath, which then he was to be subject unto. This is that Hell, of which Christ while he was alive, and not as you object against Calvin, after he was dead, did taste. And certainly this vexation, which Christ endured at that time, did equal after a sort the very pains of hell. But these things are reproved by you, because they be not understood. For the Papists with their dull hearts cannot conceive, what Christ performed for us by his death, and what pains he endured for the satisfying of his Father. Therefore they think wrong is done to Christ, when we say he suffered those things which he both would and ought to have suffered for us. For it was necessary not only that Christ should die in body, but also in his soul wrestle with death, because not only man's body, but also his soul had offended God, and deserved everlasting death. And they that speak against this doctrine, being very full of divine comfort, if Calvin do prosecute somewhat eagerly, no good man ought justly to be displeased with him for this cause. But that you cannot abide: and therefore you cry out, Oh wicked days! oh monstrous times! It may be you have seen a monster at Rome, or rather many monsters, which trouble you now with furious thoughts, and urge you to make an outcry. But we University men are not wont much to be moved with the clamours of mad men. For he overcomes in the Schools, not who can cry out most shrilly, but who cā dispute most fitly unto the truth. But I pray you, Campian, spare your voice a while, and gather your wits together, and then I trust you will be somewhat milder anon, when you have rested you a little, for I do not hear that this is the continual dint of your mind, and I do not doubt but you may be pacified with words. You say that Christ hath contumelious injury offered him by us. Wherefore? because he is by this means too much abased, and much is detracted from his Majesty. Concerning that Nazianzen answers you: Is Christ therefore spoiled of his honor, because he is become humble for thy sake? Now how great bitterness of grief Christ felt, learn of Rabanus, if happily you regard him. Thus doth he expound those words of Christ, Why hast thou forsaken me: Our Savior (saith he) spake this, carrying about him our affections, who being in danger think our selves to be forsaken. For his human nature was forsaken because of sin: but because the Son of God was made our Advocate, he bewails their misery whose fault he took upon him. And Jerome though he did differ from this opinion because of the Arians, yet the very power of truth did wring frō him some confession. Concerning Christ's prayer, wherein he entreated, that that cup might be taken away, thus he writeth: Nevertheless returning to himself, that which he had refused somewhat fearfully in his nature, as man, he ratifieth in his nature as he was God and the Son: Yet not as I will, but as thou wilt, saith he, let not this be done which I speak in my human affection, but that for which I came down to the earth by thy will. And Ambrose useth these words to Gratian: As he took my will, so he took my sorrow. Finally, I will annex the judgment of Melchior Cano, to whom you owe much on good cause, that you may know the opinion of a flat Catholic touching this matter. Surely (saith he) it was convenient that the Son of God, being to exhibit himself a sacrifice for sin, should take upon him not only the sorrows of the body, and of the sensitive faculty of the soul, but also the torments of the spirit, and the grief of the will, to the end that that most acceptable sacrifice to God for all our sins, might be by all means broken and bruised. And a little after: He being forsaken of God, and destitute utterly of all comfort, did not rejoice.

You say that Bucer in comparison of this madness was modest, although he were very impudent, who takes Hell in the Creed for the grave. I let pass your reproach, which you lack not in any place, nor am I disposed to extend any longer answer about this Hell. The matter is in some difference among learned men, who albeit they agree not so well among themselves about the thing, yet they agree herein excellent well, in that they affirm that the Papists do very wickedly understand it of Christ's descent into Hell. For as for Hell, whether it signify the burial of Christ, as Bucer thought, or that sorrow of mind, wherewith Christ was affected a little before his death, as Calvin would have it; yet we retain the Article, and we teach y ^t Christ did descend into Hell. If that cannot be otherwise understood than thus, that Christ did descend into, I know not what, Limbus Patrum, wherein you suppose the Fathers to have been, and that he did out of that place bring with him an infinite multitude of holy men, I will confess that Bucer did err, and that Calvin made a foul slip. But those your dreams concerning Hell, are worthy to be buried in Hell it self. Now as for that you say, that it was in deliberation in a certain conuenticle at London, how that article might be taken out of the Creed, this certainly is the first time that ever I heard of it, neither do I give any credit either to yourself, or to your wretched Cheiny, who told you this tale. Although if the ancient Creeds of the Roman and East Church did lack that Article, as he affirmeth, whosoever he is, that in Cyprians works expounded the Creed with his Commentaries, perhaps their fault was less, which would imitate the Church of Rome, which you hold cannot err.

Now you make your question concerning man: and you bring us in speaking on this fashion. The image of God is utterly blotted out in man, no spark of good being left: For so, say you, have Illyricus and Calvin taught. I know well the judgment of Illyricus, which I do not think ought to be laid to our charge. For you are not ignorant, Campian, that his opinion touching the image of God, and of the nature of original sin, hath been reproved and confuted by our men: he went somewhat farther than he should; I believe he did it, that he might remove himself farthest off from you, whom he thoroughly hated. But I would he had amended some things: then certainly had he been a very excellent man. As for Calvin you do him open wrong, whom you join with Illyricus in the fellowship of this judgment: for he writeth directly and flatly contrary to that, that you bring him in speaking; That the image of God was not quite blotted out in man. But this is your fashion, that when you cannot reprove those things which we do say, then you fain those things to be said by us, which may easily be reproved. We teach, that man was created and formed so in the beginning, that he was answerable to the image of God in all things. Now that image was a most perfect entirenes of all parts, heaped up with all good graces and virtues, which could be incident to the pure nature of man. Whatsoever he did imagine, desire, will, think, or understand, was holy and right, and agreeable to God's will, yea even to the rule of that law, Thou shalt love God with all thy heart, with all thy soul, with all thy strength, and thy neighbor as thyself. But after that Adam had slid back from God, we say that this image was pitifully corrupted and deformed, that neither the understanding did retain that ancient light, nor the will did love God, nay the whole will was turned from him, neither did there remain entire any faculty either of body or soul. Although therefore we deny not that some relics of that most noble image do remain still, yet we hold that all that which may reconcile and make us acceptable unto God, and be sufficient for us to salvation, is blotted out and extinguished. All reason, and judgment, and understanding, which was some little piece of that image, is not utterly lost, there is not no will at all left in us; but yet the fall of Adam did inflict such a blow upon all these faculties which yet remain in us, that neither can our will of it self will anything, which God may like of, nor our mind think, understand, or judge right and true things without error. Therefore John saith that the light shineth in the darkness, but yet the darkness comprehendeth it not. But now those greater things, faith, righteousness, holiness, and perfect virtue, which may lead us unto everlasting felicity, these did not only receive a wound to become weaker, but they did quite perish, and became none, until that they be renewed in us by the holy Ghost and the grace of regeneration. Wherefore thus doth the Lord speak touching man whom he had fashioned after his own image, whom also he knew thoroughly: The wickedness of man was great in the earth, and all the imagination of the thoughes of his heart was only evil continually. And that we might understand that these things were pronounced of mankind as it is in it self, and not only of those wicked men, who lived before the flood, the Lord doth again repeat these things after the flood, what time Noah only with his family were left alive upon the earth: Hereafter (saith he) I will not curse the earth anymore for man's sake, for the frame of man's heart is evil from his youth. Can you, Campian, judge better and righter of the image of man, than the Lord himself could? If all the thoughts of man's heart be both always and only evil, and the very frame and beginning & fountain as it were of all his thoughts most corrupt, what now is left of that image which was sometime so excellent, which may help any whit to attain happiness? Hitherto belongeth that which Christ saith, That which is borne of the flesh, is flesh: and that which is borne of the spirit, is spirit. If the whole man be flesh, certainly the whole is unclean. And Paul saith, we were the children of wrath. But the Lord doth not hate his own image, nay wheresoever he beholds it, he loveth it entirely. And Paul pronounceth that the whole man every whit is the child of wrath: wherefore that image which may make us acceptable to God, can never now be found in us. For he saith, not only that we are so hurt and wounded, as that yet some hope of life remaineth, but that we wholly, such as we are in our selves, are obnoxious and subject to everlasting death, as if nature had framed us thereunto. What should I heap up more testimonies of the Scriptures, which are so plentiful through the whole Scripture, that nothing is oftener repeated than the loss of this image? wherefor we judge so of man after sin, before restitution, even as Augustine writeth, whom the very School-men themselves durst not reprove. Natural gifts were corrupted in man by sin, and the supernatural extinguished. But of man regenerate we do not say those things, which you affirm, that nothing is found in him but mere corruption and contagion. For he is endued with the spirit of Christ, he possesseth Christ dwelling in him, he is endued with faith, hope, and charity. But he who hath nothing in him but corruption, it is certain that he is no whit regenerate. For the new man which is created according to God, must be reformed after righteousness and true holiness. Indeed that which the regenerate man hath of his own and proper to himself, is vicious. For so the Apostle saw another law in his members rebelling against the law of his mind: but those things which he received from God, are contrary to this corruption and contagion; which if any do deny to be good and holy, he may well be held blasphemous against the holy Ghost. As for that you both fain that we speak these things, and also express for what cause we speak them, you bewray your wonderful wisdom, which for those things that are not at all, can set down a reason wherefore they be. But we do willingly preach faith, and do easily permit it to be contemned of you. For you that defend nature against grace, and do trust rather to your own power than to Christ's mercy, and do make void the promises by precepts, cannot have an honorable opinion of faith.

You never keep your standing, Campian, and you begin the battle like a runnaway. For you have a wandering and unstable wit, as it seemeth. You oppose Illyricus to us again in the same cause, whose testimony ought not to be of force against us. For herein I profess myself no less an adversary to him than yourself, I had almost said, than to yourself. For what an unjust and unreasonable thing is it, that you should tax that opinion as defended by us, which yourself knoweth to be condemned by our Churches? Object our own opinion to us, Campian, if you can object any: we are not such, as that we should think whatsoever Illyricus could, as being a man, err in, did any whit concerno us. But either Illyricus must needs be drawn into this taxation, or else this place was quite to be left void by you. For beside Illyricus, I think you have no man that thinks so. If you desire to know our opinion of this matter, I confess indeed that that defense of Illyricus did seem ever very absurd to me. For it both smells of the folly of the Manichies, and it maketh two souls in a regenerate man: and which is a greater matter, it destroys the soul. That was always the judgment of the Catholic Church, which I profess to be ours, that the substance of the soul was not quite slain by sin, but only charged and infected with vicious qualities: and that sin is no inward substance of the soul, but an accident. Basel writeth truly, in that he denieth that sin is any living substance, or endued with a soul, but a quality contrary to the virtue of the soul. Augustine: Original sin (saith he) remaineth not substantially, as it were somebody or spirit, but it is a certain affection of an evil quality, like a disease. Finally Ambrose most plainly: How dwelleth sin in the flesh, seeing it is no substance, but a straying from good? Therefore let us, if you please, send away the suspicion of this error imposed by you upon us, to the author himself.

As for that you add, that it is a thing commonly held by this filthy sect, that all sins be equal, verily nothing could be spoken more impudently. Pardon me, Campian, if I answer you somewhat sharply: for your vnmodest and intolerable impudency wrung that term from me. Are you so far spent that you are not able to charge us with any true crime, but shamelessely to object those things against us, from which we, of all others, are farthest off? For who did ever more vehemently disallow, or more strongly confute this paradox of the Stoiks, than our Divines, whom you now pursue? All records of these times may be witnesses hereof, our books, Churches and Schools be witnesses, as also both the civil and Church Discipline may be a witness. Did you think that you could creep into the minds of our University men by these means, by lying so openly, so shamefully, and so boldly? O Rome, what a Campian hast thou returned to us! how much changed from him that he was when thou receivedst him? Art thou wont so to instruct, adorn and polish thy pensioners, as that they retain nothing of their ancient shamefastness? What may I complain of, or to whom should I appeal? surely even to the very same our University men, to whom you yourself write: they may convince you by their testimonies. For within these two years our Cambridge men have heard this very matter twice propounded and defended in the divinity Schools, That sins are not equal. If neither our own confession, nor the testimony of all mortal men can make enough for the defending of our innocence; be it, that we are Stoics, and heretics, and everything else.

But these are Calvin's words, saith Campian, howsoever with an exception, if they be pondered by God the Judge. What are these the words of Calvin? that he saith sins are equal, but so, if they be weighed by God the Judge? nothing less: for God's judgments could not be right, if so be he did judge sins to be equal. But mark ye a singular witness. The Fathers of the Council of Trent pronounce a curse on them, who affirm that a just man doth sin either mortally or venially in every good work. To this Calvin answereth that which Solomon saith, that man thinketh his own ways right, but God pondereth the hearts. But in the judgment of God nothing is sincere and honest, but that which floweth from the perfect love of him. Calvin speaketh not one word of the equality of sins, nor was there any cause why he should. Only this he intendeth, if the Lord would weigh in his balance the excellentest works of godly men, that he would easily find what to condemn: what is this to the purpose?

As for that, that Thomas Walsingham did object against Wycliffe, it is not much material, he wrote many things against Wycliffe being dead, and let pass no slander which witty malice could devise. While Wycliffe was alive, no adversaries could hurt him, but being dead they condemned him, they plucked him out of his grave, burned his body, when they might without danger devise anything against that most holy man. Neither can I ever be induced to believe, that Wycliffe taught these things, if this imputation depend upon no greater credit than of an adversary. As touching that, that you report of the Duke of Guise, I defend not the fact: he that committed it, suffered punishment greater I wis, than Tauerners are wont, that kill pullen when there is no need. I confess that the Guise was a man of admirable fortitude: I would he had been of more clemency. He was flaine, even as you say, by a wicked man, whom if perhaps either hope of impunity or fear of punishment did induce, that being examined, he did accuse very noble and innocent men, it is neither marvelous nor new. Him that he did appeach as the Ringleader of his plot, the King himself did pronounce an innocent: but as for Beza all good men have acquitted him in their judgments long ago.

From Sin you pass your speech to Grace: I would rather you yourself did make passage: and you hope, that we who are so strict in the matter of sin, will play the Philosophers so gloriously about God's Grace. Surely we shall think we play the Philosophers very well, if we refer all our Philosophy for the amplifying of the Cross of Christ. You also do treat of Grace, but as still you are wont, in few words. But what do you reprove in our Philosophy? because we place Grace out of us only in the fauouer of God. For you, Campian, would have your men to be persuaded, that we take all Grace from man, and do place it only in the mind of God, like Plato's Idea. But either you know not what you talk of in this place, and that you are ignorant of this Philosophy, or else you suffer not our opinion, being infolded in your slanders, to be manifest. For we make grace to be twofold (that I may omit many distinctions) wherein we do not disallow the Philosophy of your School men. For either Grace declareth the free goodwill and clemency of God toward us, or else it signifieth those gifts, which flow out of that mercy of God to us. That they commonly call, Grace making acceptable; and this, Grace freely given. Now for that goodwill and favor whereby the Lord embraceth us in Christ, and forgiveth us our sins, and receiveth us into favor; we place it in God: but the effects of this Grace are in us: which effects are these, that we do by the holy Ghost perceive that we are loved of God, that we believe in God, and repose all hope of salvation in that mercy of God. We do not therefore take away all grace from man, and place it only in God's favor: but that first grace, whereby he hath reconciled us to himself in Christ, and wherein our salvation is contained, that alone we place in God; which being felt by us, faith, hope, and charity and other virtues do follow it, which are ours, and resident in us. But we deny that position of yours of infused grace, whereby you defend, that the grace whereby we are justified, is a certain habit situate in our minds within: and we acknowledge no other justifying grace, but the great and free mercy of God, whereby he did elect and predestinate us in Christ before all eternity unto life everlasting, and hath called us in time and justified us. For grace infused, wherein regeneration and sanctification consisteth, and which the Scriptures call the new man, is not strong enough to justify us, because it never satisfieth the law of God in this life, and ought every day to be restored, and aspire to greater perfection. For so Paul saith, Although our outward man perish, yet our inward man is renewed daily: which place Augustine hath very often used in this cause. You see therefore both what grace we place in God, and what we confess to be infused into our hearts. For as for that you say we bark out, that grace is not strong enough for the resisting of sin, therein you go about thorough our sides to wound Paul himself, upon whō this your reproach reboundeth. For though he were endued with infused grace, as much as any other, yet he denieth that he could attain, to perfect that which is good: for that he did not the good which he would, but the evil that he would not: and that when he desired to do good, evil was present with him: finally that the law of his members doth so rebel against the law of his mind, that it maketh him captive to the law of sin. Hence you may know how great strength sin hath, which even the Apostle himself, albeit he were endued with singular grace, could not so fully resist, but that sometimes he was both overcome of it, and bound up in it, as Augustine speaketh. If you doubt, Campians, whether the Apostle spake this of himself, I had rather you should take advise of Augustine, than of the Masters of Trent, seeing they be very bad interpreters of the Apostle. What should I remember to you David, and the rest of the Fathers, who have taught by their examples, that it is not easy to resist sin? but herein you are like yourself, in that you say, that Christ is no otherwise said by us to b • full of grace and truth, but th •• , that the Father did very much favor him. I pray you Campian, whence could you gather this? Do we not say that Christ was full of grace so; that from his fullness we all receive grace: who of us did ever deny that there was very great and infinite grace in Christ. For they that say that Christ was so full of grace, that all men did declare that he was worthy of the unspeakable favor both of God and men, they do not only hold, that Christ was no otherwise full of grace, but herein that God did very much favor him; but also they do set out Christ's grace to have been more abundant. For they do confess, 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 love him and did perceive that he was beloved of God, this doth Brenz and Bucer, and all our Divines acknowledge.

What thing therefore (say you) is Justice? you make answer to yourself, a Relation. If you commence an action against us about Aristotle's Predicaments, certainly we fear not, but we shall have a Philosopher gentle enough in this cause. For though Justice be a Relation, yet Philosophy will not be cashierd: but that it is a quality you can never prove, either out of the Predicaments, or out of the chiefest Philosophy. But your Theological virtues, faith, hope, and charity, had never any injury offered to them by us: indeed they be so handled by you, that you seem to take them not for Theological, but for Philosophical virtues. But the cause that maketh us not to hold, that our righteousness is compounded of these virtues, as you would have it, is this, because they are never so perfect in this life, as thoroughly to satisfy the law of God: now the law must be satisfied or else we cannot be just. For the Lord doth allow no other righteousness, but the very same which is described in the law, which whosoever cannot attain, are pronounced guilty of eternal death. Therefore if we will be righteous and saved, and free from that horrible curse, such a righteousness must be sought out, than which the law cannot require a more absolute. And where shall we find this? Is it in our virtues, in our faith, in our charity? But these are weak many ways, and want that integrity which the law requireth, & whereunto it propoundeth righteousness. For faith is but begun, & we are always to pray that it may be increased in us. Now if faith be weak, other virtues which spring from faith, cannot be perfect. But righteousness must be of that kind, as that nothing at all may be added thereunto. From hence it followeth, that righteousness is not compounded of our virtues, as you unfitly speak, but it must be fetched elsewhere. Seeing therefore we had no such virtue, as might obtain righteousness for us with the Lord, Christ was given us 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 us, and apprehended by faith, is that righteousness of ours, which you inquire after, not heaped up with our virtues, as you would have it, but place in Christ, who is made unto us of God, wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption. And this is our righteousness, even Christ himself, whose righteousness and innocence being ascribed unto us, doth bring assured remission of sins, and true righteousness. This the Divines cal the first justice, after which followeth another, compounded of these virtues of yours. For with that remission of sins, which dependeth on Christ's obedience, faith, and hope, & charity are joined, which make us just also after a sort, but inchoatiuely not perfectly.

I have declared to you in few words our opinion touching righteousness, since you make inquiry, what it is. But your virtues cannot so clothe the soul round about, as that no naked thing may appear. For all our righteousnesses, are like filthy clouts, and those not only defiled, but also torn and rent in many pieces. Christ himself must be put upon us, that we may be found in him, not having our own righteousness which is of the law, but that which is by the faith of Christ; namely the righteousness that is of God through faith. For God was in Christ and reconciled the world unto himself, not imputing their sins to them. With this clothing our souls must be clothed, that they may be beautified and gloriously adorned: neither are we ashamed of that word, upon which you play, when we say that our righteousness is a covering of the fault. For so doth the Prophet David pronounce him to be a blessed man, whose iniquities be forgivē, & whose sins are covered. And this pardon we apprehend only by faith: now this faith is not feigned, nor dead, nor separate from other virtues, nor void of good works, but it is of that nature, that it worketh by love. It is therefore faith alone, which justifieth, that is, which embraceth Christ's obedience wherein our righteousness consisteth; but yet this faith which justifieth, is never alone: for it is ever accompanied with hope, and charity, and doth not suffer it self to be disjoined from it. For as the heat alone of the fire doth set the wood on fire, and yet this heat is not alone, but continually joined with the light: so faith alone of itself doth justify, albeit it can never be quite alone.

Now seeing that all our righteousness and happiness, do consist in the pardon of sins, we also teach that this ought to be most certainly persuaded to us and known of us, so as our souls may rest therein as in a most safe and quiet haven. For being justified by faith, we have peace toward God, through our Lord Jesus Christ. Now what could this peace be, it we were always distracted with a doubtful hope & thoughts, and tossed as it were with waves hither and thither about our salvation? Albeit therefore our consciences are set upon oftentimes by many terrors, so as they cannot be so secure in this life, as if we did already enjoy the endless joy of heaven; yet we say that this faith ought to depend most certainly and strongly upon the promises of God, so as we may expel all doubting about the grace of God, our adoption, and salvation. For true faith cannot agree with unbelief. It is the property of this to distrust God's promises, but the property of that is to overcome and drive away all doubting; as much as may be. But if faith be full of doubting, wherein doth it go beyond unbelief? let us believe the Apostle, who both knew very well, and hath described exactly the nature of true faith. He propoundeth Abraham unto vn, in whom we may behold a most notable image of true faith. What did he? did he stagger? was he in suspense with himself? did he doubt? nay in him all things were contrary: he against hope did believe under hope: he was not weak in the faith: he did not discourse against the promise of God through unbelief: he was strengthened in the faith: he was fully persuaded, that God which had promised, could perform it. And this faith was imputed to him for righteousness. This was Abraham's faith: shall ours be unlike it? but he is our Father, we his children, and children should be like their father. The conclusion is made now against you Campian, that by faith we are made certain of our salvation, and that your variable and suspicious faith is liker to infidelity than to faith. Basil saith excellently: What is the property of faith? a full or certain persuasion void of all doubting. But what mean I to convince you by testimonies of the ancient, whom the very Catechism of Trent doth confute? The word belief (saith it) as the holy Scriptures teach, hath the force of most certain consent. Wherefore he believeth, to whom anything is certain and assured without doubting. Now we believe everlasting life, therefore it ought to be most certain & assured to us without any doubting. I require now nothing more, the Catechism of the Council of Trent, ratified by the authority of the Pope and Council, teacheth me that a man ought to be certain of his salvation.

But are you not yet quiet, but still question farther, for (say you) how can a man be sure of his future perseverance? That may be certain, Campian, by faith, which if it be true cannot utterly decay. The Apostle termeth faith the ground of things that are hoped for, & the evidence of things that are not seen. Now how are those things extant which be hoped for, or demonstrated which are not seen, if faith be not perpetual? But they which are endued with this faith, they do now after a sort enjoy those good things, which are yet hoped for, & they do contemplate those things, which cannot be seen with men's eyes. So that faith admits us being alive here, and as the Apostle saith, walking by faith and not by sight, into the very possession of heaven, so as because we are certain that we shall one day be there, we seem now after a sort to live and converse in heaven. But all these things would be fading and light, if saith could not persevere. Therefore Paul had a most certain persuasion, that neither life nor death, nor things present, nor things to come, nor any other creature can separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus. But such as do not persevere, they may be separated: but these cannot be separated, therefore they persevere. And for this cause the pledge of our adoption, even the holy Ghost himself is given to us, who assureth us most certainly that we are the sons of God, so as now we do not doubt to call God Father. But how dare such a one call him Father, who thinketh that he may be sometime not his son? for the Saints may profess with the Apostle, we know that we shall be like him. Knowledge is certain, & consisteth on assured principles: to doubt is the property of opinion, not of knowledge. Hear Cyprian: Let such a man fear to die, who not being borne again of water and the spirit, is thrall to the fire. Let him fear to die, that thinketh not he hath his part in Christ's Cross and Passion. Chrysostom upon these words of the Apostle, Into this grace wherein we stand, writeth thus: The grace of God hath no end, it knoweth no full point, but it maketh progress unto greater. And anon after, saith he, we must be fully assured not only of things given, but also of things to be given as well as of things given already. And Augustine: because therefore (saith he) the promise is firm not according to our merits, but according to his mercy, no man ought with fearfulness to preach (the kingdom of Christ in his Saints) whereof he ought not to doubt. But Augustine is wholly ours. For as you did lately conclude, that Augustine did allow free will, because he wrote three books of free will, so may I reason after the same manner, that Augustine did think of perseverance, as we do, because he wrote one book of the good of perseverance. To this I will join Bernard, whose golden words these be, My conscience is troubled, but it is not over troubled, because I will remember the wounds of the Lord. But I will allege no more testimonies. Faith is either perpetual, or else it is none at all: either it perseuers to the last breath, ot else that which is esteemed for faith, is but some fancy.

As for that, that you allege touching Luther, who you say affirmeth, that a Christian though he will cannot lose his salvation, unless he will not believe, this Luther never affirmed, either in that book or anywhere else. For if you shall turn over all Luther's writings, which you have not saluted, nor I believe, so much as seen, yet you can find this sentence nowhere. The Fathers of Trent have condemned this proposition and worthily: for it is impious, and to be reckoned among the chiefest paradoxes. But whose soever it was, certainly it was not Luther's. But, say you, Luther wrote so in his book of the captivity of Babylon. That is false: yet he wrote some such thing. I will tell you what it is; and that in a word. Luther reproveth the Papists, for that they thought that the grace of Baptism is quite lost by sin, and withal they brought in Penance a new Sacrament, which they term a second board, whereby the grace of Baptism might be recovered. Therefore he denieth that the power and grace of Baptism can so be lost by sins, but that it may be repaired by faith; which thing he proveth by many and mighty reasons. In that therefore Luther taught, that the grace of Baptism cannot be lost, unless one will not believe; and this the Fathers of Trent and our countryman Campian do so interpret, as if he had said, that which these men object, that a Christian though he will cannot leese his salvation, unless he will not believe. Why should I confute so unsavory an imagination with more words?

You make hast to the Sacraments. And I will pursue you as much hast as you make. Now here you cry ont most pitifully, O blessed Christ, they have left never a Sacrament, not two, not one. Dare you appeal to Christ, whose Sacraments ye have banished with great reproach out of the Church, that ye might bring in certain impure Sacraments not worthy to be named? we retain those Sacraments which Christ hath commended to us: if there had been need of more, he would have left more. We have two Sacraments, Baptism, and the Lord's Supper: these Christ did institute, these the ancient Church acknowledge, and with these the later Church ought to have been contented. For that it is most evident, that for seven Sacraments, for so many you hold, that not a footstep of antiquity can be found. O blessed Christ, they have seven Sacraments, & yet they have no Sacrament, because they have not thine. For those Sacraments which are not thine, are no Sacraments at all. Their bread, say you, is poison, and what is our wine? but the common people among you taste not of that at all: belike, lest they should think that you did drink to them of a poison. We do use that bread and that wine in the Lord's Supper, which Christ himself commanded to use. That which he delivered, we have received: that which he did, we do: in the bread and wine we celebrate the remembrance of our Redeemer. If those were wholesome, ours cannot be deadly. Baptism (say you) although it be as yet among them true, notwithstanding in their judgment it is nothing. You yourself confess that our Baptism is true • I take it for granted. But why is it true? because we baptize so, as Christ hath commanded us. We keep the law of Christ, we throw your, I know not what, trash away; the like have we done in the other Sacrament, not have we departed a nails breadth from Christ's precept. If ours be true Baptism, then is out Eucharist true also. But in their judgment (say you) it is nothing. Why so? It is not the water of salvation, it is not the conduit of grace, it doth not derive the merits of Christ into vt; but only it is a signification of salvation. All these things are feigned & false. For we preach it to be the saving water, and a channel of grace, and we doubt not but it deriveth Christ's merits into us. For it doth not only signify salvation, but also it performeth & bringeth it indeed to them that use Baptism aright and holily. For in Baptism we receive forgiuene▪ of our sins, we are accepted into the family of Christ, we are endowed with the holy Ghost, we are raised up to a most certain hope of everlasting life. Are these matters of nothing to you, Campian? shall this Baptism be nothing, wherein we obtain so many and so great good things? but what manner of thing is your Baptism: or what hath it more, which ours ought to have? hath it grace? or the merits of Christ? or salvation? Ours also hath these things; what then is wanting in it, why it should not be true both in ours and others judgment? I know your meaning. It conueigheth not grace by the work wrought. This indeed is a magical and pestilent device, that you should think grace to be enclosed in the water it self, as it were in a pipe, which sheadeth itself forth into all men, though quite void of faith. For what availeth the Sacrament without faith, but to his perdition who receiveth the Sacrament: that monster I do abhor and detest with mine whole heart. You add, therefore they have made no more reckoning of the Baptism of Christ, then of John's, that is, a mere ceremony. I am not ignorant what the Fathers thought of the Baptism of John. But I heed what the Scriptures teacheth, not what they imagined. In them both there was the same ceremony, the same doctrine, and the same grace. If there were anything unlike in these things, I refuse not to confess, that the Baptism of John and Christ were diverse. Now John joined repentance, which is the fruit of true regeneration, with his Baptism, and off • ed this Baptism for the remission of sins. If the Baptism of John wanted not repentance and remission of sins, I see not why it should be held so much different from the Baptism of Christ. And what is the cause, why the Fathers demand, wherefor Christ, who needed no regeneration, did come to the Baptism of John, but because they judged that his Baptism had the power of regeneration?

Concerning that which you annex: If you have it, it is well: if you want it, there is no hurt: believe, and you shall be saved before you be baptized; we do not speak so loosely, as you imagine. For we will not have it to be in any ones choice, to be baptized if he will, and to leave it if he will not. Yet we do not think that Baptism is so simply necessary to salvation, that he that is not entered by Baptism, must needs perish everlastingly. For the salvation of a Christian man consisteth in the mercy of God, which is not so tied & bound to any Sacraments, as that he cannot save those, whom he will not have perish, without them. Where the opportunity of Baptism is not, God's promise alone is abundantly sufficient of it self. But whosoever either neglecteth Baptism through heedlesnes, or boldly contemneth it, him we condemn of very heinous sin. For he doth both diminish the Majesty of Christ, and also refuseth his own salvation. But he that committeth neither, shall not answer for the fault of another. Therefore very right was that judgment of Bernard, not the want, but the contempt of Baptism is damnable.

In the rest that follow, as being small matters, you do but trisle. For neither do you yourself declare anything of your own opinions, nor can you reprove anything in ours. But I long to know, what you think of the faith of Infants. I suppose, you will grant that they have grace? For (say you) Baptism conferreth grace. But will you not yield that they have faith? I wish therefore you would teach me, to the end you may draw me wholly into your opinion, how there can be any grace more ancient than faith. But (say you) how can they believe, who do not yet understand whether they live or no? and do they therefore not live, because they understand not that they live? It is absurd. Wherefore if they live, although they do not understand they do so: happily also they do believe, albeit they perceive not that they believe. That is hard (say you:) be it so. Nor do I speak these things, as if I were wholly of that mind, but to the end I may fish out your mind, which our Vniuersity m • n doubtless make great account of. But let us hear Luther's medicine: It is better (saith he) to omit it, because except the Infant believe, he is washed • e • er a whit. But this medicine came out of your shop, not out of Luther's. And indeed you have offered us many such like medicines, very unsavory, and ill favoredly seasoned: so that all your confections seem to be corrupt. But Luther did never persuade that Baptism should be omitted; & he was always earnest on that part, that Baptism should be given to Infants: and therefore you are so much the more unjust in this place, in that you would mar Luther's opinion with your medley. For these things are so alleged by you, as if Luther said, it were better to omit Baptism. Therefore let us hear Luther himself, and let Campians medicine alone. And yet (saith he) we deny not that Infants are to be baptized, nor do we anow that they receive Baptism without faith: but we say, that at Baptism they do believe by the power of the Word. He addeth: Or otherwise there would be mere and intolerable lies, when the Baptiser demandeth of the Infant whether he do believe: as intending not to baptize, unless it be answered in the child • stead, I believe. Wherefore doth the Minister ask whether he do believe, if i • be a certain thing that they do not believe, as Cocleus maintaineth? Then he concludeth thus: But we hold that Infants are not to be Baptized, • f it be true that they in Baptism do not believe. Luther then maintaineth and determineth, that little children do believe, and he reproveth the Papists, because they teach things contrary each to other, while they deny that an Infant hath faith and yet, to the end he may be baptized, they require faith of him. Who seeth not to what these things may be referred, so that he must needs be a most malicious man, who maketh Luther in these words a persuader of so wicked an opinion?

And these things do they speak (say you) being doub • full in their own mind, what to maintain positively. Howsoever some do doubt of the faith of infants, yet we all determine clearly and positively that they are to be baptized. Therefore there was no need that you should send for that Pacimentan • dayesman, who was always more inclining to your side than to ours. But why do you object the Anabaptists to us, who hate us much more eagerly than you, and not without cause? for we have both convicted them for heretics by our arguments, and also have expulsed them as seditious and pernicious men out of our Commonwealths, who if they dwelt not with you, could find no place to remain in through the Christian world. You pass over the rest of the Sacraments, which I acknowledge to be none at all: nor do I understand which is that beast of many heads, whereof you make mention, unless perhaps you mean that threeheaded beast, of which John writeth many things in the Revelation.

Hitherto Campian, you have examined certain opinions and positions of our men: in all which you have found as yet never a Paradox. For either the things that you object are such, as that nothing can be truer then they, or else they are craftily and treacherously wrested by you into a perverse meaning. But now, as if you were some new Censurer, and Master of the ancient discipline and severity, you make search into our manners, not, I think, to make them better, but to make them seem much worse than they be. Although he that reproveth the manners of other, it were meet that he should be without fault. And is there so great a change made of Rome upon the sudden? is their life now such? are their manners begun to be so goodly, that you being returned thence a Frier dare strive with us about virtue, shamefastness, and hon • sty? howsoever 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 sins in England, as you yourself have seen at Rome, the very tower of your religion and kingdom, all men will judge you to be too too impudent. Wherefore then do you propose to us those pieces of faults in Luther, seeing among you not only some fragments of vices, but huge bodies of the greatest crimes are plainly seen? surely as long as those public stews and dens of whores stand still in Rome, you could scarce honestly make mention of manners. But what are these pieces of faults in Luther? Is it for that you reprove some crime in his life? but that you neither can do, nor go about to do. You object certain sayings caught out of his books, and as you are wont torn from the rest of the body of the sentence; which seem presently as soon as they be propounded by you, to make show of some filthiness. About the most of which, seeing that you have had an answer made you by him whom you name, Reverend Charke, I marvel that you have returned them to us here again. There must needs be great lack of true imputations, seeing that you have no variety at all of false ones. And seeing that my fellow soldier and companion in Christ William Charke did labor diligently in these things, those things which are largely enough confuted by him, shall be run over now by me briefly and shortly. It shall be therefore enough for me to cut in sunder these your pieces, which have been before so broken in shiuers, as that they might seem able to hurt none.

Wherefore now spew out these your morsels of reproaches. And hear ye them: If the wife will not, or cannot, let the maid come. A filthy and vncleanely speech as it seemeth. Luther wrote a little book of marriage, in the second part whereof he remembers three causes, whereby he thinketh marriage may be dissolved. The first is Impotencie: another is, Adultrie: the third is, Desertion. Now he expounds that to be desertion, when as the willful and obstinate wise can by no means be persuaded to perform the office of due benouelence to the husband, for there are some such froward wives found, that although the husband do fall ten times into whoredom, yet they regard it never a whit. Wherefore Luther thinketh it fit for the husband, to fray his wife with words, and to threaten hir on this manner: If you will not, another will: If the mistrisse will not, let the maid come. With whom if threats prevail not, let him conuent her before others, and bring the matter to the Church. But now if she be neither moved with private threatenings, nor by the public reproofs of the Church, then, saith Luther, divorce her and take Ester into Vashties place. Only to propound these things in this manner, is a very evident confutation of Campians reproach. For who doth not mark what counsel Luther gave to the husband? not that he should presently take his maid, but that he should propose threats of divorce to his obstinate wife, and break her stomach by that mean? Now as for this opinion of Luther about this kind of divorce, though I do not defend, yet you cannot accuse it. For among you there be infinite causes of divorce, so as in so great liberty of divorce, it is marvel that any marriage stood in force. If Luther had at any time written any such thing, as we read was written by Clement, whom you brag to have been Pope of Rome, what tragedies would ye have raised? Hear Campian, & I would have you mark whereto this speech tendeth: The common use of all things, that are in this world, ought to be to all men. But through men's naughtiness one said that this was his, and another that; and so there is a division made between mortal men. Finally one of the wise men of the Grecians, knowing this to be so, saith, that all things among friends ought to be common. Now among all things, without doubt are husbands and wives. You may think you hear some Plato discoursing of the community of things: allege some like place of Luther's. What thē followeth after in those patches of yours? For because the carnal knowledge of the wife is as necessary to everyone, as meat, and drink, and sleep are. The Apostle commandeth, that everyone for the au • iding of fornication, have his wife, and every woman her own husband: and that they that cannot contain, should marry. They therefore who have it not given to them by God, as that they can always be without wives; to such it is necessary that they marry wives if they will be honest and chaste. For I confess that marriage is not necessary for them who may wallow without punishment in all manner of uncleanness and lust. But go forward: Marriage is much better than Virginitie, and against this, Christ and Saint Paul persuaded Christian men. The same things do not agree to all men: and that which is most profitable to someone, may be contrary to the inclinations of others. Virginitie is one of those indifferent things, which are as they are used: for it is not simply good (for then it were unlawful at all to think of marriage) but after a sort. Thus therefore stands the matter: they that can preserve their chastity in Virginitie, they may be desirous of Virginitie, and yet not absolutely, but by reason of the troubles which for the most part accompany marriage: but they that cannot live chaste, such must betake them to marriage, and that so as that if they do otherwise, they infolde themselves in great sin. So that Virginitie is never, save only in some respect better than marriage, but g marriage oftentimes is absolutely better than virginity. Surely we do think honourably of both these estates of life: but among you virginity is advanced, but marriage basely esteemed. Basil holdeth rightly, Let virginity be honored, let not marriage be despised. I had rather you should approve virginity by your deeds, than praise it with your words. Why doth the tongue sound out chastity, and the whole body show forth uncleanness? For so do ye. Even as Epiphanius writeth of the Origenists. You refuse marriages, but not lust: it is not holiness, but hypocrisy that is in honor among you. For neither did Christ nor Paul enjoin virginity to any one that had not power to receive it. For (saith Bernard ) virginity is not commanded, but advised. Nay, they that cannot contain, are commanded to marry. Wherefore the Apostle was not only of opinion that those ought not to keep their virginity, but also he dissuaded them from it: nor would he have dissuaded them from it, if Christ had persuaded them to it. Neither are these positions proper to Luther: for all good men do both acknowledge and defend them.

But let us hear the rest: The more wicked that thou art, (saith he) so much the nearer art thou unto grace. The grace of Christ is sufficient not only for small sins, but also for the greatest: nor are small offenders only invited by Christ to come to him, but they also that are laden with the burden of their sins. Luther exhorts thee not to go forward in sin, but that thou shouldest not despair of pardon. And certainly the more wicked that thou hast been in thy life by-past, so much the more abundant grace shall embrace thee, if thou be truly penitent for thy sins. For where sin hath abounded, grace hath ouerabounded. If you condemn Luther, who will think that you let Paul pass free? For you have the same action against both, since they be of one and the same judgment. What followeth? All good actions be sins; of God be severe in judgment, they are damnable sins; if he be favorable, they be but small ones, Luther said this, and he said it truly. For in every action of a man, though never so excellent, there is some fault, which may wholly mar the action, and make it odious to God, if that which is done be weighed in the balance of divine justice. But after that the Lord hath received us wholly to favor in Christ, those things which are but begun in us, & besprinkled with some blots, yet they please him as if they were entire and pure, because he looketh upon our persons, and he doth not make search into the worth and merit of the work. These things spake Luther and confirmed them by the sentences of sacred Scriptures and holy Fathers: which you could much more easily pass by than confute. Go forward. No man of himself thinketh evil. This is maliciously objected, as are all the rest. God doth throw into no man an evil thought, he compelleth the will of none to sin: yet nothing is done by chance or fortune: and in the very sins of men the providence of God ruleth. Those thoughts of men which are evil, spring out of a certain inbred naughtiness proper to everyone: and yet the Lord can apply them to his own will. For so Joseph answereth his brethren: Ye thought evil against me, but the Lord turned it to good.

Now you add: The decalogue belongeth not to Christians. God doth not care for our works. Touching the decalogue and works, this answer I make you briefly. In the law the old covenant is contained; Do this and live: Cursed is everyone that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. The law promiseth life to them, which obey the Law in all things: they that offend in anything, to them it threateneth death and damnation. An hard condition, and which no man can ever satisfy. Christ doth propose to us another condition much easier: Believe and thou shalt be saved. By this new Covenant the old is abrogated; so as whosoever believeth the Gospel, is freed from the condition of the Law. For they that believe are not under the Law, but under grace. What needs many words? Christians are delivered from the curse of the law, but not from the obedience of it. As for our works, surely God regardeth them: and if they be good, he rewardeth them: if contrary, he judgeth them worthy of punishment: but in justifying of us, God hath no respect to our works: for the just shall live, not by his works, but by his faith. Now go on. Only they do rightly receive the Lord's Supper, who bring sorrowful, afflicted, & confounded consciences. And so it is indeed, for they are no right receivers, who trusting to their own merits come audaciously, but they who heing opprested with the greatues of their sins, do desire to be eased. For they which are whole desire not the Physician. A contrite and broken heart is an acceptable sacrifice to God. wherefore they which have greatest feeling of their sins and sorrow for them, to them that heavenly food is wont to be most wholesome. Good Lord, who would ever think it might come to pass, that any Christian should dislike these things! But is there anything else? You may confess you sins, but to any body, who if he do absolve you but in jest, so as you believe, you are absolved. And why not? for it is not need full, either to number sins by our fingers, or to use a Priest or a Frier, such a one as yourself. We may confess our faults one to another, so as Friers may be idle hereafter. And whosoever believeth that his sins are forgiven him, him saith it self absolues, whether he be absolved in jest or in earnest.

Well, make haste. To read prayers by the hour, belongeth not to Priests, but to lay mē. What your Priests do, or what they think they ought to do, it concerns me not. Let them read, let them pray, let them say Mass, let them drink, let them play, and in a word, let them be always like themselves. It behooveth a Minister of the Gospel not to recite certain Collects by an hour-glass, and to make his walk in them certain spaces of hours, but to give daily diligence unto reading, exhortation, and doctrine; which things your Priests have ever thought to be far different from their office. But these same prayers by the hour albeit they do not ill agree to your sacrificing priests, who unless they should spend the time on this fashion, would never go out of Stews and Taverns, yet are they unworthy of a Christian man, because of their infinite superstition. Let us hear the rest. Christians are free from the laws of men. That never came into Luther's mind, to pluck in pieces the authority of the Magistrates, which he did always defend most diligently against the Anabaptists. Christians are free, not that they may obey no laws, and live only to themselves, but that they may understand that their consciences and minds are freed from making the laws of men to be religion. The Pope of Rome hath bound the consciences of Christian men with his Decrees and Canons, and thereby hath laid such a snare upon their minds, as that they might think they are no less bound by the Popes Canons, then by Christ's precepts. Therefore Luther freeth Christian liberty from those evil opinions wherein it had been infolded, and bringeth it into that state in which Christ would have it to be, that we should acknowledge him only to be the Lord of our conscience, and that we should obey the laws of men with a free conscience. We are now at length come to the bottom of this puddle, which although you have stirred with all your diligence, yet you have not found so much as one paradox, or a piece of a paradox of ours. But now if I would but a little make search into the most filthy puddles of your writers, as to reckon up what they have affirmed, of God, of the Providence of God, of Predestination, of the Person and Offices of Christ, of Original sin, of the Law, of Righteousness, of the Sacraments, of Purgatory, of the Pope of Rome, and of the rest of the greatest controversies in Religion, how many Carts should I fill with paradoxes, horrible to be spoken, or thought? But it is better not at this time to stir this common Sewre: and otherwhere (I hope) occasion will be given to speak hereof. Now in that you would join the Lutherans and Zwinglians together, therein surely you have not offended us, for we both reverence Luther as a father, and we embrace them as very deer brethren in Christ. And verily we hope it will come to pass, that this controversy, which is between us being compounded, we shall all with joint minds and studies set upon the common enemy. As for that you say touching yourself, I am easily persuaded to think it to be true, whether it be that you speak it heartily or sainedly. For what (I beseech you) have you alleged, for which we should not rather think you to be some Rhetorical Actor upon a Stage, then a learned and experienced Divine? Campian, if you be wise, be quiet, for (believe me) you cannot endure the force and violence of this combat. Let those choice and old soldiers put themselves into the camp, who are, if not more bold to provoke, yet more wary to avoid blows, and much more skillful in all discipline of war. To enter combat with these, both the Universities have many worthy men, and I trust there will never want excellent Divines to wage perpetual war with the broken bands of Antichrist.

EDMVND CAMPIAN. The ninth Reason, which is the Adversaries Sophismes.

I T is an ancient Prouerb, that a pore-blind man may be a King amongst the blind. Amongst the ignorant sort of people many times a coloured argument taketh place, the which the Philosophers school doth hiss at. The Adversary herein much offendeth, but namely in four kinds of fallaces he is well practiced, which I had rather disclose in the University schools, then in the common streets, whither only rude people do resort. The first fault is called Schiamachia, which is a forcible striking of the air, and beating of shadows on this sort, against those that are single and have sworn and solemnly vowed to live in Chastity, because Marriage is good, but Virginitie is better. They bring scriptures that speak very honorably of Matrimony: Whom do they pierce with their darts? Against the merits of a Christian man dipped in Christ's blood, without the which there is no merit at all. They recite testimonies, which command us to put our affiance neither in nature nor in the law, but in the blood of Christ; whom do they confute? Against those that honor Saints, as the most acceptable servants of Christ, there are vouched whole pages of scripture, which prohibit the worshipping of many gods? Such Arguments as these, which I see swarm amongst the Adversaries, cannot hurt us, well may they be loathsome unto you.

The second fault is Logomachia, which is a leaning of the matter it self, and contentiously to strive about a bare word. Find if thou canst (say they) this word Missa, 1. Mass, or Purgatorium. 1. Purgatory in the scripture. What if I cannot? Is there not a Trinity, a consubstantiality, or the person of God to be proved out of the Bible, because these words Trinitas 1. a trinity, Homoousios, 1. of the same substance, Persona, 1. a person be not there found? Of great alliance to this fault is Literarum aucupium, when neglecting the common usage and true meaning of the speakers, which is the very life of the word, they cavil against the bare letters. For thus they argue: Presbyter 1. a Priest, is nothing else in Greek but Senior, 1. an Elder. Sacramentum 1. a Sacrament, signifieth all kind of mystery. But S. Thomas herein as in all other matters saith most wisely, that in words we must mark not so much from whence, as to what purpose they are spoken. The third fault is Homonymia, which they most commonly use, as whē they say to what purpose was the order of Priesthood instituted, seeing that S. John hath called us all Priests? So hath he also added this, We are all Kings and shall reign upon the earth. Wherefore then were Kings ordained? Again, they say, the Prophet biddeth us observe a spiritual feast, that is, that we should refrain from our old sins: Farewell all change of meats, and prescript times of fasting. Is the matter so indeed? Then Moses, David, Helias, S. John the Baptist, and the Apostles were stark fools, who ended their fasting from usual food after two days, three days, and certain weeks, whereas their fast from sin should have endured so long as they lived. What this fallacy is you have now seen, I hast forward. The fourth fault added to this, is Circulatio, a going about the bush in this manner: Tell me (I say to one of them) the true marks of the Church. He answereth the word of God, and the purest ministering of the Sacraments. Are these marks to be found amongst you, say I? who doubteth of that, saith he? I utterly deny it. Then quoth he peruse the word of God. I have already perused it, and I think worse of your side then I did before. Tush, saith he for all that the matter is most plain; prove me that, say I: because (saith he) we swerve not a finger breadth from the word of God. Where is thy sharp wit thou braggest of? Wilt thou still for thy proof infer that which is in controversy? How often have I blamed thee for this. Wilt thou not awake out of thy dreams. Must thou have a torch lighted that thou mayest see to speak? I tell thee once again, that thou doest maliciously miscōstrue the word of God. I have for my witnesses fifteen hundred years. Stand to the judgment, neither thine nor mine, but of these 1500. years. I will stand, saith he, to the judgment of the word of God. The spirit doth breath where he listeth. Behold what roundabouts he fetcheth, what round rings he treadeth. I know not to whom this iester and coyner of so many waste words and foolish fallaces may be a terror; troublesome peradventure he will be: may it please your wisdoms to tolerate his troublesomnesse; as for the fear, the cause it self hath already quite taken away.

WILLIAM WHITAKERS. The answer to the ninth Reason, which is the Adversaries Sophismes.

I T is a goodly thing that Sophisters complain of fallacies, and that you, who yourselves are altogether compact of fraud, lies, and impostures, do upbraid us with Sophistry. All your Divinity, which ought to be honest and sincere without deceit and fraud, hath of late degenerated into a subtle fleight of disputing like School-boys and Sophisters: for after that you had abandoned true Divinity out of the Churches, and as it were exiled the light from men's eyes, then you began at last to put forth curious questions in the Schools; and so, as pore blind men, to be admired of those who saw nothing. Hence arose that innumerable army of Sophisters, who confounded themselves with their refined idle disputes, as with mutual wounds, in so much as who so could best skill of counterfeit and captious trifling conclusions, he should be reputed as some King or petty God over those blind and squint-eyed smatterers in Divinity. And this hope of domineering amongst so many blind ones hath egged on you Jesuits thus diligently to dwell upon this craft, and to put down all the ancient Sophisters for deceit and fraud, yourselves being yet but upstarts: For if there were ever any kingdom of pore-blind men over the starck blind, questionless it is now wholly descended unto you, to whom the ancienter orders of Monks and Friers do willingly yield the garland, because they think▪ you see something. Play your prizes now you noble Sophisters, and execute with all diligence the Sophisticall dominion which you have gotten, lest some hereafter happily sleely dispossess you of this honor: for shortly someone or other new family and sect of Sophisters will gather strength, which (if you look not well about you) will at last shoulder and shuffle you violently out of place, and enter upon this sovereignty over the school of Sophistry, which now for some years you have possessed. For out of doubt, kingdoms themselves entitled upon petty sleights and deceitful conueiances of words, cannot long continue. Seeing therefore this your whole show of new learning consists in furbushing up of untruths, and refining the former Sophistry, verily I make no question, but as it is of yesterdayes building, so it will shortly fall to ruin.

But for as much as you mention certain Sophismes as ours, and persuade your favorites that we use very much sophistry; before I answer to these your falsehoods which you lay to our charge, I will give the reader a taste of your own most notorious false-grounded disputations, and deceitful Elenches; that so, whether you or we be more truly to be termed Sophisters, the School and University it self may determine betwixt us, where you desire rather these things should be discussed, then amongst the vulgar. I for my part do appeal unto this school of Philosophers, and University of Divines; and I earnestly beseech all men who have understanding in the principles either of Divinity or Logic, and as many as ever tasted of any School-learning, that they will heedfully observe how current these your conclusions be, and examine them by the rules of right and true disputation.

And indeed to choose, I will there begin, where you yourself have made an entrance. We maintain, that it is lawful for Ministers of the Gospel, and for Deacons, to be married. You scorn the arguments whereby we make it good. Wherefore let us consider what goodly stuff is brought on your side for the contrary.

Pope Innocent, the second of that name, thus concludeth (you must suppose) by divine inspiration against these marriages: They which are in the flesh cannot please God: Unto the pure, all things are pure, but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving, is nothing pure. Be ye holy, because I the Lord your God am holy. And because S. Paul permitteth married people (by consent) to sleep apart for a season, to the end they may more conveniently give themselves to fasting & prayer; here hence the Pope gathereth, that this is much more to be done of Priests, whose office is to pray always, & to offer that daily sacrifice. Last of all, seeing they must be a temple of the Lord, and an oratory of the spirit, they ought not to abase themselves with bed-pleasures & uncleannesses. Now out of all these he concludeth that which he propounded, that Deacons and Priests are flatlie forbidden to marry. If these things be absurdly disputed, let us hear others. Seuerall Pastors have rule over several flocks: therefore the Pope ought to have dominion over all Churches. Christ said to Peter feed my sheep; therefore Peter is the chief & principal Pastor of the Church. The Lord made two great lights, the Sun, & the Moon: therefore the Pope excelleth the Emperor in honor and greatness. Here are two swords; therefore the Pope must bear both swords. The servant is not above his master: therefore it is lawful for no man to accuse or reprove the Pope. Christ prayed that Peters faith should not fail him: therefore the Pope cannot err. The vulgar people cometh seldom and negligently to the Lord's Supper: therefore the Priest may celebrate private Mass. Christ admitted only his Apostles to Suppe: therefore Priests alone must receive the Sacrament; the people ought to be contented only with one part. The title which Pilate fastened upon the Cross, was written in Hebrew, Greek, & Latin: therefore prayers must be read in the Churches in no language, but either Hebrew, or Greek, or Latin. That which is holy must not be given to dogs: therefore the vulgar people must be forbidden to read the Scriptures. This is my body: therefore the bread is turned into Christ's body. Fall down before his footstool: therefore the Sacrament must be worshipped. God is no respecter of persons: therefore he chooseth no man to life eternal, but with respect of merits. S. James commandeth that sick persons should be anointed: therefore we must now ever and anon anoint the sick. This is a great mystery: therefore Matrimony is a Sacrament. Elias and John Baptist lived in the wilderness: therefore they invented the manner of life and discipline of Monks. There are seven deadly sins: therefore there are just seven Sacraments. God made man after his image: therefore images must be set up in Churches. The chiefest of these is charity: therefore we are justified more by charity than by faith. I will go, saith the Lord, to my place, until they ponder in their heart, and seek my face: (which indeed he spake ironically, and after the manner of men) therefore men may be converted unto the Lord, by their own mere will and disposition. The Lord commandeth us to do many things: therefore those things may be performed of us. Christ descended to the dead: therefore he delivered the Fathers out of Limbus. The Church discerneth the Scriptures: therefore the authority of the Church is greater than the authority of the Scriptures. Saint Paul commandeth the Thessalonians, that they keep the ordinances which they had learned: therefore all things are not written which are necessary to salvation. He himself shall be safe, yet as it were through fire: therefore men pass thorough the fire of Purgatory to life eternal.

To what purpose should I rehearse innumerable others your disputations like these? Now, Campian, let us hear a few of your own. Augustine wrote three books of free will: therefore Augustine approved that man hath free will. Christ was ignorant of something: therefore Christ was not without sin. The Fathers diligently searched the Scriptures: therefore it is never lawful to dissent from the Fathers.

These your argumentations I have thus briefly collected: which what goodly ones they be, our University students easily perceive. Do you acknowledge them to be your own, Campian, so sophistical, so inconsequent, so full of deceit and falsehoods? You were in a great strait if you could not deny it; but if you confess it, you are quite overthrown: for all these are very unlearnedly concluded; either by mistaking words of double signification; or by wresting phrases figuratively spoken: or without any consequent; or from ignorance of the Elenche; or (to conclude) altogethe trifling. It sufficeth that I have touched these but lightly: now I come to those which you object against us.

There be four chief heads of deceitful disputing, wherein you say our sophistry chiefly consisteth: to wit, Sciamachia, a fighting with a shadow, Logomachia, a contention about words. Homonymia, a mistaking of the sense of words: and Circulatio, a going about the bush. Let us see how grossly we use to err in them. Sciamachia, or a fighting with ones shadow, you first define, then you produce examples (of our supposed practice.) I dislike not the definition, and hasten to those examples. Against those that have vowed single life (say you) they allege Scriptures which speak honourably of marriage; whom smite they with such weapons? Whom but yourself, Campian, and those so worthy Prelates on your side, which first imposed the vow of perpetual virginity upon Ministers of the Gospel. For if the Scriptures do indeed speak honourably of wedlock, then Pope Syricius, and Innocent the second of that name, and such others your stout maintainers of single life, can by no means be defended, who, as is well known, have spoken many things basely, despitefully, and wickedly of matrimony. Consider well those speeches which even now I produced, taken out of your law: deny, if you can for shame, that they be dishonest in themselves, and egregiouslie injurious to wedlock. Certainly if these Scriptures do indeed wound (the ancient heretics) Saturninus, Seuerus, Tatianus, the Encratites, and the Archontici, needs must they also most sharply touch you to the quick, which commonly are wont to judge and speak no whit more honourably of wedlock than they have done. For show me, Campian, if you can, wherein those reproachful speeches may any whit more touch the marriage of Ministers, than of other men. Thus then both you yourselves have apparently fled to the heretics holds; and also these Scriptures which do speak so honourably of wedlock, do disprove your heresy, and give you a very deadly wound. For thus I press our argument more effectually (than you:) If wedlock be honorable in every degree of men, and the bed undefiled; then in no degree ought they to be esteemed dishonest or impure: but the antecedent is true; therefore the consequent is necessarily true also. What can you here disprove? or why hath it not the force of a necessary conclusion, out of which you shall never be able to wind yourself? As for your sleight evasion, because of a former vow, I have already confuted it. Let us now proceed unto your other examples.

Against the merits of a Christian man, dipped in Christ's blood (say you) they recite testimonies, which command us to put our affiance neither in nature, nor in the Law, but in the blood of Christ: whom do they confute with these testimonies? Those arguments which are urged by our side against men's merits, do most clearly confute you and strike you dead. Mans nature is corrupt; and the Law showeth the disease, but doth not cure it: therefore all our hope of salvation consisteth in Christ's blood. But you have devised us a kind of merit, forsooth, dipped in the blood of Christ, which may avail much to deserve salvation. For so you maintain, that salvation doth not wholly consist in the blood of Christ, but that it much what dependeth upon your own merits; yet so as that they be dipped with Christ's blood; lest you might be thought down right Pelagians. To speak more plainly: this is that you teach, wherein the whole sum (first and last) of your righteousness consisteth: namely, That Christ hath merited for us by his blood, that we might merit salvation. This is that merit dipped with the blood of Christ, which you speak of, Confute now our arguments, if you can, which usually are alleged against it. Whatsoever is required as a debt, that meriteth not: but whatsoever (good thing) we do, is wholly a debt: therefore we have no merit at all of our own. And that you may understand, that we ought to put confidence in the blood of Christ only, and not in our own merits; I will thus reason from Saint Paul's doctrine. If righteousness be by the Law; then Christ died in vain: but if we be justified by our merits, we are justified by the Law: therefore if we be justified by our merits, Christ died in vain. What need I here mention innumerable other our arguments, not one whereof, but it is concluded demonstratively, and infallibly: whereas your own merits, alas, are very pitifully and shamelessly defended by you, against the blood of Christ.

You add to these a third example (saying) Against those which honor saints, as the most acceptable servants of Christ, there are vouched whole pages of Scriptures, which prohibit the worshipping of many gods: where are they now? Verily the Lord by his own authority reserveth unto himself, that we invocate him alone: wherefore who so worshippeth and inuocateth Saints, he giveth to them the honor due to God: for he both presupposeth that they can perform anything whatsoever, and also that they be present everywhere, both which are the peculiar properties of God only. So that whatsoever is (truly) alleged against many gods, that is altogether effectual against your Saints in heaven, whom both you worship more zealously than God himself, and rob him of his due honor to adorn them. There is (indeed) one mediator of God and men, the man Jesus Christ; he forever maketh intercession for us; therefore they which bring in new intercessors, and mediators, are injurious unto Christ. Tell me, Campian, have you any face to defend these your sentences following? Commaunde him by thy motherly authority; and those which are often chaunted in the rude ryme of the Mass of the virgin Mary's conception, thus:

That is to say, Thou (blessed Virgin Marie ) art the infallible hope of such as are in misery, the true mother of Orphans; Thou art the consolation of such as be oppressed, the medicine of such as be diseased, Thou art all in all to all men (or) in all necessities; and other such like abominable speeches, and full of strange blasphemy? If happily you think our reproving of these things, be but some fighting with a shadow, then do you no more respect the glory of God, than the shadow of an Ass.

The second error in disputation wherewith you charge us, is, that we often use Logomachia, which is when the sense is neglected, and men contend about the word. I understand it well: but which be those our faults committed in this kind? Can you find us (say they) the Mass, or Purgatory in the Scriptures. And is not this our demand reasonable? For where should these be found rather than in the Scriptures? There was nothing wont to be accounted more holy than the Mass, and there could nothing be invented more gainful than Purgatory: that neither of these now at last should be found in the Scriptures, certainly it may well seem a very strange and unreasonable thing. Belike then (say you) Trinitas, the Trinity; Homousios, coessential; Persona, a person, are nowhere in the Bible, because these very terms are not to be found there. Neither say we so, Campian, nor will it follow at all hereupon; and these things be altogether unequally compared. For albeit these very terms are not in Scriptures, yet the matter it self, and the sense, as Epiphanius writeth, cometh to hand in all places, and is easily everywhere to be found. But your Mass and Purgatory, are not in this manner in the Scriptures, seeing neither the names nor the things themselves anywhere do appear: yea they are plainly against the Scriptures. For what else is either the Mass, than as an empty sepulcher where is only the title of the Lord's Supper? or what is Purgatory more than a shameless merchandise of souls, and an intolerable contempt against the blood of Christ? Wherefore this is not a trisling contention about words, but a most weighty one about matters of moment; except peradventure you make account of the Mass and Purgatory, not to be matters of moment, but words of Art only. As for the name Presbyter, and Sacrament, it is appropriated from the common signification, to some certain and particular things, as likewise many other names are; (to wit) Ecclesia the Church, Episcopus a Bishop, Apostolus an Apostle, Dia • onus a Deacon: and these names we willingly use, but so that we carefully shun their impertinent significations. Neither was that indeed sufficient cause, why you should register Matrimony in the catalogue of Sacraments, because S. Paul wrote (thus) Sacramentum hoc magnum, This is a great mystery. For in that place, Sacramentum, is used in a large signification for any mystery, not for that ceremony which may properly be called a Sacrament. As for that counsel of Thomas Aquinas, we do very well approve it.

The third head, or kind of deceitful disputation which you say we usually err in, is Homonymia, equivocation, or a mistaking the sense of words: whereof you propound two examples: For (say you) we both confound the order of Priests, because S. John hath termed us all Priests; and also abolish choice of meats, and prescribed observation of days, because the Prophet highly commendeth a spiritual fast. I will speak a few words both of the one and other, that I may clearly quit us of this crime of Homonymie. Saint John alone hath not named all Christians Priests, but S. Peter also hath termed them a holy, and a royal Priesthood: and this name is in no place of the New Testament properly applied to the Ministers of the Gospel. For Christ being made an high Priest forever after the order of Melchizedek, hath no copartners of this Priesthood: therefore Christ hath left unto his (Churches) a Ministry, and not a new Priesthood. Neither doth there remain to us any such sacrifice; for the administration whereof some special Priests must needs be authorised. For that sacrifice of praise, and doing good, which the Apostle mentioneth, and which now remaineth only; that (I say) appertaineth indifferently to all Christians. Notwithstanding we permit none to execute the administration of this ministry, which Christ would have to be perpetual in his Church, but them whom it concerneth, and who are by due order called thereunto. Albeit then Christ have made us all both Kings, that we might be able to subdue our sins; and Priests, that we might offer him spiritual sacrifices: notwithstanding as it is not lawful for every man to dream of a kingdom, so it is a thing detestable for any man to enter upon the holy Ministry, who hath not that function committed unto him by divine authority. Wherefore I see not at all why you should charge us with any such Homonymy (or falsehood from ambiguous signification) in this word. As for your manner of fasting, that indeed is wholly in show, and hath nothing in it of a Christian fast, but the very name. For to make choice of meats, as a thing more religious, and to prescribe certain, and perpetual set days, wherein we must necessarily fast, the one is witless, the other superstitious. For what man, which is not deprived of judgment and all sense, will think that he fasteth, who (so that he abstain frō flesh) may at his pleasure glut himself with all manner of dainties? Or who can suppose that the Fridays fast is holier then the Wednesdays fast, but he must too much savor of Judaism? If S. Paul reproved the Galatians, because they did observe days, and months, and times, is it likely he would endure our Papists, which err more grossly and shamefully? If he forewarned the Colossians, that they would not be entangled with their superstition, which thought that some certain meats were not to be touched, not to be tasted, not to be handled, would he allow the papistical choice of meats? If he determined long since, that it was devilish and hypocritical to abstain from certain meats, if he were now living, would he change his doctrine, and command this abstinence to a Christian? We truly for our parts do always and very highly commend a true fast, whether it be private or public; neither do we commend them only, but also we use them, as this year last past may most plentifully witness for us, during which, public fasts were most religiously observed in very many places. As for those fasts of Moses, and David, & Helias, and John the Baptist, and the Apostles, wherein were they any whit like unto yours? for if fasting do consist in choice of meats, and in appointing set days, as you resolutely judge it doth, inform me (if you can) that they either at any time preferred fish before flesh, or used enjoined and yearly set fasts. For John the Baptist used continually to fast in his manner, and the others fasted as the times and present occasions required, in which their fasts, they abstained as well from fish as from flesh. Therefore in one word to wipe away your imputation of Homonymie, I deny that we use any. For in that, that we require the spiritual fast, we dislike not the external, howsoever this outward fast be nothing profitable without the spiritual. But this deceitful argumentation, if there were any such here, is rather by inferring a weak consequent, then by Homonymie, or equivocation; how beit, what the truth is we have sufficiently ciscussed.

You haste forward and join unto these a fourth manner of deceitful disputation, named Circulation, which is, when one after a few words to no purpose returneth again to the same, and beggeth the question. I acknowledge it to be a gross, and unsavory kind of sophistry so to do, but show me an example of our so doing. You propound one example, namely, about the true notes of the Church, for here, you say, we always make circuits and rounds, and use that very same thing for an argument, wherein the question lieth. But how prove you that? forsooth because we say the notes of the Church be, the word of God, and the Sacraments. And so we say truly, for they who have these, have a Church of Christ; but they who altogether want these, are utterly without both the Church and Christ. Let us contend about these notes, that it may be discerned whether you or we have them. Tell me, in what Court shall we try this title? before what Commissioner, before what Judge shall we commence our plea? I suppose the word of God must be consulted with. But you say you have already consulted with it, and you now favor our cause less then you did before. But I say, Campian, we rest upon the word of God, and not on your judgment. Yea but (say you) prove unto me that this is the word of God: nay it were more meet that you should prove it is not. And I also require of you, that you will do the same thing which you command me to do, namely, that you will prove your word and Sacraments to be the very same, which Christ hath commended unto his Church. Wherefore this is no more our fault, then yours; the controversy is about the word of God. You contend that you have it; I contrariwise defend that we have it: if you like not my judgment, why may not I dislike yours? But you say, we expound the word amiss: I again avouch that it is false which you say. Whither are you now come at last? go one foot further forward if you can. Why, say you, I have the testimony of fifteen hundred years. This is naught else but a frivolous, a foolish, and an insolent brag. You have not, I say, you have not Campian. You are ever here deceived, and turn round again, as it were into a circle, and are faulty in that same very thing, for which you reprove us. Touching the Fathers, I have answered you already. In the questions of greatest weight, they are wholly on our side; in those of smaller moment, their judgments are diverse, and they make for you in very few, and those of least importance. How much better would it stand with wisdom, that (as Augustine sometime wrote of Councils) neither you should object Jerome against me, nor I Augustine against you, thereby to prejudice each side, but that matter might be tried with matter, cause with cause, and reason with reason, by the authority of the Scriptures? For indeed, as the same Augustine hath elsewhere taught us, we must not have any men's disputations (howsoever otherwise they be mē of sound judgment and worthy praise) in like estimation as the Canonical Scriptures. Such an vnderstander (saith he) am I in reading other men's writings, such would I have other men to be of mine. And because you have mentioned Thomas Aquinas, learn of him what manner arguments may be taken out of the Fathers writings. Divinity, or holy learning, saith he, useth authorities of Canonical Scripture to prove or disprove a thing necessarily; but it useth the authorities of other Doctors of the Church to dispute of a thing probably.

These, forsooth, ô you truly learned University students are those so notorious sophistical errors, which Campian could find worthy his censure in our men's writings: I could wish you might have this so famons a Sophister to canuas awhile at home in your Schools, then verily would it easily appear how much truth excelleth falsehood, and how far sound learning prevaileth against vain bragging words: for I know well such Sophisters as this is can neither any whit affright, nor greatly perplex you.

EDMVND CAMPIAN. The tenth Reason, which is all manner of Witnesses.

T His shall be to you a direct path, so that the simplest that be, need not wander out of it. For who is, though he be but of the meaner sort of common people, so senseless (so that he have an eye unto his souls health) that cannot see, (if he look but a little about him) the path of the Church so plainly trodden, that cannot keep it, if he dislike of by-ways that lead him through brambles and ragged roches, and places that cannot be passed? These things shall be well known even of those that be ignorant as Isaiah hath prophesied, and therefore most manifest unto you. If you will, let us take a view of all things that are anywhere to be seen: let us traverse over everything wheresoever it be. All things do minister matter fit for our purpose. Let us ascend into heaven by imagination, there may we find such as through martyrdom, are as ruddy as the red rose, and also such as for their innocence while they lived do glister as beautifully as the white Lily. There may we see (I say) those three and thirty Bishops of Rome, which for their faith were immediately murdered one after another. There may we see such Pastors as throughout all nations upon the earth shed their blood for the testimony of Christ's name. There may we see the stock of faithful people that tread the steps of their Pastors. There may we see all the saints of heaven that through their pure and virtuous conversation upon the earth, gave a rare example unto all sorts of men. Thou shalt find that they both lived here, and died members of our Catholic Church. And that we may take a taste of some few by name on our side was Ignatius, that so earnestly thirsted after martyrdom, who in ecclesiastical matters advanced a Bishop even above a King, who penned also certain traditions of the Apostles, whereof he himself was a witness, least they should be quite forgotten. On our side was that Anchorete Telesphorus, who commanded that the fast of Lent which was before instituted by the Apostles shouldbe kept more strictlie. On our side was S. Irenaeus, who proved that the Apostolic faith descended unto us by the succession and sea of Rome. On our side also was that high Bishop Victor, who by a general Proclamation kept the whole Country of Asia in due obedience, which Proclamation, though to some it seemed somewhat hard, but specially unto this most blessed man S. Irenaeus, no man yet attempted to deface as foreign authority. Polycarpus was on our side that about the question of the keeping of Easter day, went and conferred with the sea of Rome, whose relics after he was burned, the faithful Christians at Smyrna gathered together, and gave due honor unto their Bishop, by observing yearly the day of his death, as an high and solemn feast. On our side were S. Cornelius, and S. Cyprian, those golden pair of Martyrs, which were both very worthy Prelates, but the former was the greater, who when he was Bishop of Rome, abolished the African errors. The latter also got great commendations through his loyal obedience which he shown to his superior, and dearest friend he had in the world. On our side was Sixtus, who when he song Mass at the Altar was solemnly served with seven men of the Clergy. On our side was S. Laurence, this man's Archdeacon, whom the adversaries cancel out of their Calenders. To whom Prudentius, a man that had been Consul in Rome about 1200. years ago prayed in this wise: O most glorious servant of Christ, what power is given thee, and what authority is granted unto thee in heaven, the great joy of the Romans do sufficiently show upon the obtaining of such requests as they make unto thee. Amongst the which number, I beseech thee mercifullie give ear to me thy rude Poet that doth confess unto thee my sinful thoughts, & also disclose my wicked actions, hear benignly, I pray thee, me thy humble suppliant Prudentius, that hath highly offended Christ my Savior. On our side were those most blessed virgins, S. Cecilia, S. Agatha, S. Anastasia, S. Barbara, S. Agnes, S. Lucia, S. Dorethy, and S. Katherine, who constantly kept their vowed chastity against the tyranny both of men and devils. S. Helen was on our side, who was most famous for the finding of the cross of Christ. S. Monocha the mother of S. Augustine was on our side, who when she lay on her death-bed most deuoutlie desired to be prayed for after her death, and to have the sacrifice of the mass offered for her at Christ's altar. S. Paula was on our side, who forsaking her fair palace situated within the city of Rome, and her goodly farms abroad in the Country, went on pilgrimage by long journeys even unto to the cave of Bethlehem, where Christ lay crying in his cradle, there in solitariness to spend the residue of her time. On our side was S. Paulus, S. Hilarion, S. Antony, who lived in solitariness till they were old men. On our side was Satyrus, that was brother germain unto S. Ambrose, who carrying about him in a stole that dreadful host, and being in present danger of shipwreck, hoping assuredly that he would protect him, lept into the raging sea and s • ome to land. On our side were S. Nicholas and S. Martin, who were both Bishops much exercised in watchings, clothed altogether in hair-cloth, and fed with fasting. On our side was S. Benet, who was father unto a great number of Monks. Ten years were not long enough for me to recite this infinite number of Saints, neither do I here make mention of them, whom before I placed among the Doctors of the Church. I do not forget my promise, that I would pass over things as briefly as I could conuenientlie: let him that would know more hereof peruse not only the large histories of ancient writers, but also much more rather the grave authors, which have almost everyone of them written special books of the lives of the Saints, for a remembrance to their posterity: then let him tell me what his opinion is of those most ancient Christians, and most blessed, of whether religion were they, of the Catholics religion, or of the Lutherans religion? I call to witness the throne of God, and that his tribunal seat, before which I shall stand to render an accompt of these my ten reasons, and of my said act in making my challenge, that either there is no heaven at all, which I and my adherents do detest, or that it belongeth properly to such only as are of our religion, which thing we for our parts hold for sound doctrine. Now on the contrary side, if you think good let us look down into hell, where lie some burning in everlasting fire. Who? the Jews: what Church are they against? ours. Who else? the heathen: What Church have they most cruelly persecuted? ours, who besides these? the Turks: What Churches have the pulled down? ours, who yet? the heretics: to what Church were they enemies? to ours. Forwhat Church I pray you hath always withstood the gates of hell, but ours? When after the expulsion of the Jews under Vespatian, and Titus his son, Christians increased at Jerusalem, O immortal God what coming of good people was there to the holy places that were there! What wonderful devotion was there among all sorts of people to see that City of Jerusalem! What zeal to see Christ's Sepulcher, what desire to see the manger wherein Christ lay, what thursting after the sight of the cross whereon Christ was nailed, what longing to behold all sorts of monuments there, in which the holy Church taketh as much delight, as doth a spouse in the garments laid off by her husband! Upon this began that mortal hatred and implacable of the Jews against us; for even at this day they complain, that our Ancestors were the cause of their Ancestors overthrow: as for Simon Magus, and the Lutherans, they received never ablow at their hands. Among the heathen there were many tyrants, who during their reign for the space of 300. years, by fits at diverse times, invented most bitter torments against Christians. Against what manner of Christians I pray you? Truly against the Fathers of our faith and their Children. Mark well with yourselves the speeches of this tirant, that broiled S. Laurēce on a Gridyron: It now well appears, that this is the order and fashion in your sacrifice. This doctrine you all agree to, that Bishops must offer up their sacrifice in plate of gold, and the people say, that the sacred blood smoketh out of your cups of silver, and that ye have tapers burning on golden candlesticks, during all the time of your night sacrifices. Also as common fame doth testify, your brethren have a special care to offer up thousands of pounds, though they sell their lands to get the same, the lawful heir being thus disinherited and brought to beggary, though his holy parents greatly complaineth for such shameful sale of lands, as should by right descend to him from his grandfathers. This wealth lieth hid in some secret corners of your Churches, and you think it a great godly deed to make your sweet babes go naked: fetch out these treasures which thou hoordest up by thy crafty persuasions, and wicked witchcraft, the which I say thou haddest in one dark hole or other: the commonweale, the Kings Eschecker, and the common treasure have need thereof. That money being employed for soldiers wages, the general lieutenant may be fully fraughted with soldiers. I understand that this is an usual doctrine amongst you. Restore to every man his own, behold the Emperor acknowledgeth his own physnomie stamped upon his own coin. Give to Caesar that which thou knowest to be Caesar's. Truly I demand nothing but that which is just. Thy God (except I be deceived) cometh no money, neither brought he with him at his coming into the earth any golden gilderds, but ministered his commandments by word of mouth, being purslesse himself. Performe faith fully that his doctrine which you openly preach abroad, restore your money willingly, content yourself to be rich in words. What manner of man seemeth this to be? against whom doth he thus rage? Whose Churches, sacrifices, lights, ceremonies, and ornaments hath he gone about to abolish? What Churches, golden goblets, and chalices of silver and costlie gifts and rich stuff envied he at? This man undoubtedly doth hold on Luther's part. For what other color have our mighty Nimrods pretended to cover their theft withal, when they robbed 1441 0536 V 3 God's houses, and made hanock of Christ's inheritance? On the contrary part, what Church was it that Constantine the great, the very terror of Christ's enemies, hath brought to quietness, even that self-same Church, over which the high 〈◊〉 Bishop Sylvester was governor, whom the said Emperor called out of the mount Soract, where he lay secretly for fear of persecution, that by the help of the said Sylvester he might be baptized with our Baptism: under what banner fought he, that he became so great a cōqueror? even under the banner of the Cross: who was his mother, that he attained • o so great honor? even that blessed woman Saim Helen: what fathers took he part with? with the Fathers for sooth of the Nicene Council: what manner of men were they? namely they were S. Siuester, S. Julius, S. Athanasius, S. Nicholas: to whose prayers did he commend himself? to the prayers of S. Antony: what room exacted he in the Council? the very lowest of all. Oh how much more Princelike was he; when he sat in this seat then they, that since that time ambitionsly have made sale for a l • ttle, that is far unfit for a King! It were too long to declare every matter in particular; but by these two Emperors, whereof the one was our deadly enemy, the other was our most faith full friend, one may easily conjecture of every other circumstance, which are like to these afore spoken of. For as under the Tyrant our Catholic Christians, had a trouble some increase, so under this Emperor through God's great mercy, they were brought to a most happy end. Let us look a little into the Turks affairs: Mahomet and Sergius the Monk, that fell from his religion, by howling in the deep pit of hell, oppressed both with their own sins, and the sins of their posterity. This monstrous and outrageous beast, I mean the Saracens and Turks, if they had not been quailed and driven back heretofore by the orders of Knights, in our holy warfare and by the Princes and people that take our part: as for Luther, to whom it is reported, that Suleiman the great Turk, for this cause gave great thanks by his letters, yea and as for the Lutheran Princes, to whom the fortunate success of the Turks is but a laughing matter, as for them, I say, this • aging fury, and most mischievous to mortallmen, had before this time destroyed and overthrown all Europe, and would have occupied himself, as busily in pulling down of Altars and signs of Christ's Cross, as ever Calvin was himself. Wherefore they are our peculiar enemies. Seeing that by our men's industry, hitherto, they have been kept back from off Christian men's throats.

Let us take a view of heretics, which are the very dregs and bellows, and fit food for hell fire. The first that cometh into my mind is Simon Magus: what did he? he took from man freewill, he was still prating of faith only. The next that I remember was Nouatian. What of him? he opposed himself to Cornelius the Pope of Rome. He was an enemy to the Sacramets of Perance, and holy Unction. Thirdly, I think of Manes the Persian, who taught that Baptism was not a sufficient mean to work our salvation. After him there started up Arius and Arian, who condemned prayers for the only, and was therefore forenamed the Atheist as well as Lucian was. Then followed Vigilantius, which would not permit men to pray unto Saints, and Jovinian, who maintained marriage to be as excellent as virginity: Finally there came after all the whole rabble of heretics, as Macedonius, Pelagius, Nestorius, Eutyches, Monothelites, Image breakers, and others; to which number our posterity will add also Luther and Calvin: what of all these? Everyone of them like carrion Crowes, hatched all of one kind of egg, rebelled against the chief rulers of our Church, and by them were confounded and brought to naught. Let us now leave speaking of hell, to return to the earth again. Whither soever I shall cast mine eyes, and incline my cogitation, whether I behold the Patriarchs, and Seas Apostolic, or the Bishops of other countries, or renowned Princes and Emperors, or the first entrance of Christian religion, into every nation, or any monuments of antiquity, or the light of reason, or the comely sight of honesty. I find that all of them do dutiful service, and speak favorably for our religion: witness hereof the Roman succession. In whose Church (that I may say as doth S. Augustine ) the principality of the Apostolic chair, hath ever been in force: witnesses also hereunto, are the seas of the rest of the Apostles, to whom the name Apostolic most excellently agreeth. Because they were first erected by the Apostles themselves, or by those that heard them preach. Witnesses also are the Pastors of every Church throughout the wide world, who, though their abode was in diverse places, yet our religion was common to them also. As S. Ignatius, and S. Chrysostom lived at Antioch: S. Peter, Alexander, Athanasius and Theophilus at Alexandria; Macarius and Cyril at Jerusalem, Proculus at Constantinople. Gregory & Basil at Capadocia, Gregory surnamed Tha • maturgus in Pontus: Polycarpus at Smyrna: Justinus at Athens, Dionysius at Corinth. Another Gregory at Nissa: Methodius at Tyrus, Ephreenus in Syria, Cyprian, Optatus, Augustine in Afric. Epiphanius in Cyprus, Andrew in Crete, Ambrose, Paulinus, Gaudentius, Prosper, Faustus, Vigilius in Italy, I • encus, Martyrus, Hilarius, Eucherius, Gregory of Toures, and Siluianus in France, Vincentius, Orosins, Heldefonsus, Leander and Isidorus in Spain: Fugatius, Damanus, Iustus Mellitus and Bede in England. Finallie, lest I should seem ambitious in reckoning so many names, what treatises or fragments of treatises so ever be extant, of those as in the Primitive Church preached the Gospel, though in countries far asunder, yet all of them do deliver unto us, one and the self-same faith which we Catholics do at this present profess; what cause (good Christ) could I allege, before thee for my example, but that thou mightest justly exclude me altogether frō thy blessed company, if I should prefer a number of hedge-creepers, both few in account, and also unlearned, divided amongst themselves in opinions, & of a •• so lo •• before • s •••• y light •••• pes of the Church? Witnesses also are all Pri ••• s, Kings, Emperors and all their C •••• -weals, the godliness of which Princes themselves, and also the people under their jurisdiction and their good government, both in times of peace and of mars, have at the first grounded themselves upon this sound rock of our Catholik doctrine. What famous men out of the East might I here recite unto you that bear the name of Theodosius? what worthy men out of the West, of the name of Charles? what Edwards out of England, what Lewesses out of France, what Hermingildes out of Spain, what Henries out of Saxony, what Winceslaes out of Bohemia, what Leopaldes out of Austria? What Stevens out of Hungary, what Iosephats out of Indie? And finally what noble governors of many Empires, and Rulers of particular Countries, throughout the whole world, who by their good example, by their force, by their laws, by their continual care, by their charges, have maintained our Church? For so hath Isaiah prophesied, Kings shall be thy foster Fathers, and Queens shall be thy nurses. Give ear, O Queen Elizabeth most mighty Princes, to your Majesty this great Prophet telleth this tale, he teacheth you precisely, what you have to do. And I tell you plain that one heaven cannot contain Calvin and these Peers. Let your Majesty therefore take part with these honorable Princes, that you may show yourself a condign heir unto your noble auncesters, answerable unto your excellent wit, correspōdent to your profound knowledge, worthy of high commendations, and finally fit for your royal dignity. Only this I endeavor as touching your Majesty, and will endeavor whatsoever become of me, against whom, as though I were your deadly enemy, these fellows do so often threaten hanging on the gallows: ô welcome sweet cross to me, ô welcome, I say, ten thousand times sweet cross of mine! the day will come (most sovereign Lady and Queen Elizabeth ) even that day I say will come, which shall ••• dently s • t before your Majesty's eyes whether of the two have more sincerely loved you, the society of Jesuits or Luther's progeny. I go forward, there will witness with us all coasts and quarters of the world, wherein the •• angelical trumpet hath been sounded ever since Christ's nativity. Was this, think you, an easy matter to shut the mouths of idols, and to translate the kingdom of God unto the Gentiles. Luther speaketh of Christ, and we Catholics speak also of Christ. Is Christ then divided? no surely, but either we preach a wrong Christ, or else he. How then shall we know who preacheth Christ aright? I will tell thee. Let him be true Christ, and on their side by whose bringing in Dagons necks were broken. That Christ which is on our side was well content to use the service of men of our Church, when he expelled out of the harts of so many people, such a number of Jupiter's, Mercuries, Dianes, Phebades, and an horrible dark rabble and lamentable hellishnes wherewith many in former time were oppressed. I have not respite to fetch matter out of far Countries. Let us then consider of such as either border upon us, or else are familiar with us at home. All these that follow sucked into their breasts either no faith at all, or the self same faith undoubtedly which we profess, that is, the Catholic faith; namely the Irish men from S. Patrick, the Scots from Palladius, and the English men from S. Agustine, who were all consecrated Bishops at Rome, sent from Rome, and always used great reverence towards Rome. The matter is manifest; I run forward: witnesses hereof are all Universities, witnesses all written laws, witnesses are the common manners of all people everywhere in their own countries, witnesses are the fashions of choosing Emperors, and the solemn ceremonies used in their Coronation, witness are the ancient rites exercised in the annointing of Kings, witnesses are the orders practiced in dubbing of Knights, and their very cloaks. Also witnesses 〈◊〉 the Church windows, witnesses are the pieces of money, witnesses are the gates & houses of every City, witnesses are the worthy works and virtuous lives of our au ••• st • rs; finally, witnesses are all manner of things both great & small, & all kind of orders, that never any other religiō but our catholic religion that ever took any deep root upon the face of the earth. When I saw myself guarded with all these helps, and felt myself comforted with the consideration thereof, I thought it a point of insolent folly, to forsake the great company of all these good Christians, and to join fellowship with the veriest ra •• hells that live: therefore I confess that I was greatly animated and urged unto this scholastical combat; wherein, unless the saints be driven out of heaven, and proud Lucifer recover heaven again, I cannot take the fail. Wherefore I trust, M. Chark, who hath conceived so evil opiuiō of me heretofore, will yet now show me a more favorable countenance, in that I had rather commit in trust this sinful soul of mine, which Christ hath so dearly bought, to a safe and certain way, and unto the Kings high way, then hang it upon the rocks and bushes of Calvin's devilish doctrine.

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

C Ampian, you are now low drawn and do plainly bewray your want and desperate beggary. Hitherto have you found no place of sure footing, and therefore now you have resolved to wander and run thorough whatsoever is in the world. So one while you fly aloft into heaven, by and by you slip down to hell: after you visit the Jews, Pagans, Turks, Heretics, Lands, Seas Apostolic, Nations and Countries far remote, searching diligently for any monument of your superstition. I am sorry and ashamed on your behalf, whom I see painfully busied about mere trifles. For what a witles kind of reasoning is this; first to reckon up the Saints in Heaven, and say, these are ours? Then to number up the damned, Jews, Gentiles, Turks, Heretics, and affirm those are the enemies of our Church? To rehearse those Countries that have been converted to the faith of Christ, and conclude by and by, these are of our Religion? would you take this man to be well in his wits, compassing Heaven, Earth and Hell so childishly, ridiculouslie, and impertinently taking unto himself, what he liketh, and rejecting the rest? A worthy cavil, fit for none but Jesuits, which when a man hath by one negative discharged, can never be proved by their perverse sect and whole society. These dreams of yours (Campian) are unworthy any answer, one word of denial confutes this whole Chapter. I will not bestow much time in answering this Sophism, so vnhansomely framed, and patched together; it shall suffice lightly to pass, and only touch everything in a word. First therefore you allege the prophecy of Isaiah, of a straight way wherein the simple should not err. Here the Prophet describes the entrance into Christ's Church, viz. that it should be ready, plain and easy. But this way brings us not to your Church: c for of this way the Prophet reports, that no profane man, no Lion or cruel beast shall be found in it; whereas all your ways are compassed with polluted men, raging beasts, Lions, Bears, Leopards, Dragons, Devils; and in conclusion, they lead miserably bewitched men, unto woeful destruction. As for us, we tread that way, which Christ and his Apostles have traced out before us, we avoid your erroneous and strange ways, because it is the way of sinners, that you s ••• d in; which way whosoever tread • , the way of pe • ce they have not known. First, understand the path well yourselves, and then direct the way unto us.

Let us (say you) as ••• d into heaven: I fear you Jesuits have no place there, Heaven is for Christians, not Jesuits. But suppose yourselves for the time to be in heaven, what followeth? Let us behold (say you) the Martyrs▪ 33. Bishops of Rome slain together, the Universal Pastors, companies of the faithful, all holy Saints. Well, survey (Campian) heaven it self, and all the heavenly host, look well in all the parts, and coasts of it whiles you list, you shall not find there (upon my word) one Jesuit not one Papist; for none shall stand in Mount Zion with the Lamb, that have received the mark of the beast, or belong unto Antichrist. But in heaven 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 justly claim as yours. Those were holy and faithful Bishops which shed their blood for the name of Christ. But your Popes for these many hundred years, what else have they done, but persecuted Christ, and murdered his true servants? If those 33. Bishops be in heaven (as doubtless they are) how many late Popes could I reckon up, which possibly cannot be where they are, in all things they are so unlike them? You pick out a few, let us see who these are: Ignatius, say you, was ours; why I pray you? He thought no man equal to the Bishop in causes ecclesiastical, not the King himself, and left in writing certain Apostolic traditions; neither say we that any man is to be compared with the Bishop in such things as belong to his office: He only ought to oversee holy things, viz. instruction of the people, administration of the Sacraments, use of the keys of the kingdom of heaven. These are matters of great weight, and exceed the kingly authority; yet are Kings above Bishops in wealth, honor, government, majesty, and they may lawfully both admonish them of their duty, and restrain them when they offend. If Bishops herein would equal themselves with Kings it were too intolerable. As for the Apostles traditions which Ignatius hath left in writing, we receive them so far as they agree with the Apostolical Scripture: if they dissent from those, we refuse them. The Epistles of Ignatius were most of them counterfeit, as every man may see: here you rehearse many, and still the vndersong is, these are ours: Telesphorus (say you) Irenaeus, Victor, Polycarp, Cornelius, Cyprian, Sixtus, Laurentius, are ours. But I affirm that all these do belong unto us: let us then consider how you will persuade us they are yours.

Telesphorus enjoined a more strict observation of Lent fast, appointed by the Apostles. I deny that the Apostles ordained any such Len • en fast, or that Telesphorus, commanded a more precise observation thereof. The Apostles were far from ordaining, and Telesph • rus from reviving so great superstition.

Clemens his Constitutions where this is reported, are not sufficient authority. But if this fast were prescribed by the Apostles, I wonder how afterwards it was discontinued, so as it should be necessary 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 commands the 7. weeks fast, hath the same authority with the rest of your decretal epistles of your Pope, which were not framed by the most holy Bishops themselves, but coined since by the most impudent Parasites of the church of Rome. Irenaeus (say you) declared the Apostolic faith from the succession and sea of Rome. So he might well then: for as Irenaeus elsewhere saith, They retained with the succession of Bishops, the gracious succession of truth: for succession is nothing worth without truth. Your Chair and Sea hath Bishoply succession; it hath not the succession of truth. Victor (say you) by his edict subdued Asia. He endeavored 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 keep Easter according to the Roman custom. When he began thus insolently to abuse his authority, Irenaeus tamed and restrained him. As for the controversy about Easter, Victor was so far from composing and ending it, that it continued unto the Council cell of Nice. You may see how well Victor subduer all Asia.

Polycarp in the question about Easter went to Rome, Smyrna gathered his relics. Wonderful reasons. Polycarp went to Rome to consult with Anycetus about Easter, and Smyrna gathered his relics; ergo Polycarp is yours. Doth not the learned Universities make you ashamed of this childish sophistry? His bones indeed were gathered by the Church of Smyrna, not to worship them, but to bury them, as Eusebius in the same place recordeth. But why are Cornelius and Cyprian yours? forsooth, because Cornelius abolished the ⁱ African error, and Cyprian had him in great reverence. Oh wonderful Jesuitical Logic who can choose but be much moved with such strong reasons? But let us hear another.

Sixtus is ours: and why so? Seven of the Clergy ministered unto him, while he served at the altar. Seven Deacons helped Sixtus to celebrate the Lord's supper, ergo Sixtus is yours. If this reason be of force, let him be yours hardly, I will not strive with you about him; but herein is nothing why he may not as well be ours as yours. Doth it become you (Campian) thus to trifle, thus to abuse our patience? What followeth? Laurence is yours: how so I pray you? Our adversaries have cast him out of their Calouder. We remember him with reverence as a saint, and a friend of Christ; though we worship him not as God. But Prudentine prayed unto him a thousand years ago. Give leave (Campian) to a Poet, to use poetical auersions, from whence yet no strong reason can be drawn. But if Prudentius were something too superstitious, what is that to us? Now you reckon up virgins, C • cilia, Agatha, and others: but what have they done why they should not be ours? When the Tyrants examined them of their faith, they professed themselves Christians: if they were Christians, they were ours. But Helen, say you, was ours, who is every way famous for finding the cross of Christ. That which Ambrose reports of Helen, is very suspicious, and Golasius Bishop of Rome calleth these things that were bruted of the invention of the cross, new revelations. But grant that Helen found the Cross, for it is not greatly material: Did she adore it? for that is to the purpose. Hear what Ambrose saith: She found the style, she worshipped the King, not the wood certainly: for this is a heathenish error, and a vanity of the wicked. Wherefore though she found the Cross, that is no reason to prove her yours, seeing she worshipped not the cross, as you do: for not finding, but adoring of the Cross makes a Papist.

Monica is ours, who at her death desired they should pray, and offer sacrifice for her at Christ's altar. Monica desired not that the sacrifice of the Mass should be offered for her, for the forgiveness and expiation of her sins, neither did Augustine either pray or offer for his mother in this manner. The desire of Monica was only this, that at the celebration of the Eucharist there might always be a remembrance of her, insomuch as she assured herself she was one of the heavenly society and community of saints. Augustine indeed prayed for his mother, I deny not; but this his fact proceeded more of affection to his mother then for any necessity. And the custom of prayer for the dead, which prevailed in many places, was not derived from the authority of the scriptures, but only from an excessive kind of love and reverence of them that lived, towards their friends that were dead. But that Augustine never believed his mother to be in Purgatory, that his prayers might relieve her there, it is manifest; for thus he saith, Forgeue her Lord, forgive her, I beseech thee, enter not into judgment with her ô Lord, yea ô Lord, I believe thou hast already granted that which I desire, but accept ô Lord the freewill offerings of my mouth. But if we should grant that both Augustine and his mother went a little awry, you cannot here infer that either of them are yours, for so much as we are not to give censure of the Fathers (in greatest causes) by one particular judgment, but by their continual and constant opinion. You annex hereunto Paula and Paulus, Hilarian and Authony. I could reckon six hundred Monks like unto these, whereof not one was a Papist, none of them yours. All these were Christians loving solitariness, that they might more quietly intend the meditation of heavenly things. Compare not your Monks with these, which are of another sort, and sect of Monks. These were holy, painful, faithful, full of good works: yours are impure, idle, idolatrous, devourers, hogs, oxen, asles: how are those like? But how shall it appear unto us that Satyrus the brother of Ambrose was yours? Being in danger, he leaped into the sea and swimming escaped by the strength of his faith. A goodly reason; he was a good smimmer, ergo yours: other pretence you make none. Why Nicholas and Martinus should be yours, you show no cause, for wearing hair-cloth, fasting and watching, are no marks of your Bishops. Benedict (say you) was the founder and father of the Monkish profession, therefore without doubt he must be yours. I could be content to leave him, as too superstitious, yet can you not prove that he was yours, or favored your religion in all or the most things. Here you say you pass over thousands, Francis I think you mean, and Dominic, and those huge swarms of white Friers and black Friers: I freely bequeath them unto you, and willingly suffer you to enjoy them, and all such as were like them. They were not of that worth that we should need greatly to strive about them. You pass over the Doctors in silence, which you formerly remembered; wherein I commend your wisdom, seeing to them you can make no claim without doing them too apparent wrong. You demand of all those before recited, whether they were Catholics or Lutherans; to which I will answer, when you have shown how Lutheranism dissenteth frō true Catholic religion. Luther taught no new doctrine, he restored and maintained the ancient Catholic faith. What though he was unknown unto those ancient Fathers, as being himself of later years, yet the doctrine he brought was Evangelical and Apostolic, which you had well nigh extinguished, which he restored to his former beauty and perfection. Answer me (Campian) this one thing; of all those you have named, what one was a Thomist, Scotist, Dominican, Franciscan, or Jesuit? when you have answered me touching those, I will answer as touching Luther. You call the Throne of God to witness, that if there be any heaven at all, it is proper to you. In any case avouch this boldly and confidently; though he that looks into your lines may well think there is no heaven at all. For neither will you enter into heaven yourselves, nor suffer those that would; and the lives of those of your side are such, as are far fitter for hell then for heaven. I know not (Campian) what heaven you dream of; if you mean the eternal habitation of God, and his Saints, I take God to witness the maker of this palace, and all the heavenly citizens, that there no place can be for you Papists, false Catholics, Jesuits. As you have devised a new faith whereby you must enter thither, so must you seek a new heaven; in this you may not be. God grant you may return at length into the right way that leadeth into heaven.

Now being fallen from heaven, you look into hell. I wish (Campian) you could seriously view those infernal regions and places of the damned; for though I do willingly think nothing but well of the dead; yet I fear you should find too too many of thē that have flourished in your Church, in those places. Certainly (to say nothing of the rest) your later Popes, as those which were called by the names of Boniface, Innocent, Sylvester, Gregory, Calixt, Urbane, Alexander, Adrian, Pius, Leo, Paul, & almost all the rest; were such, as hardly can any man think they could enter into heaven. And further, I call Christ the only teacher of heavenly doctrine to record, that such is your faith and religion, that who so maintains it fully and wholly, cannot reign with Christ, nor be partaker of that heavenly life; and therefore not Jews only, Pagans, Turks, and notorious Heretics are tormented in that fire that never goes out, but Papists also, of all Heretics the most vile and odious. Infinite are the souls of Christian men, which have been thrown headlong into this most woeful destruction these many hundred years by that Antichrist of yours, who alone hath more enlarged that infernal kingdom, then all Jews, Nerves, Muhammad's, Arians, Nestorians, Macedonians, Eutychians, and the rest. To you (Campian) I wish that salvation which consisteth in the true knowledge of God, and whom he hath sent Jesus Christ, and desire from my heart that now at length you will renounce that Roman Antichrist, with whom you have conversed, and return unto Christ the only giver of eternal life, from whom too long you have banished yourself.

But let us consider what these damned ones will further your cause. The Jews you begin with, and here you reckon Jerusalem, holy places, our Saviors Sepulcher, the Manger, Cross, and other 〈◊〉 from all which you cannot draw one argument for your purpose. I deny not, but great concourse of people thronged unto the City, partly to hear and see the Apostles whiles they lived, and also to behold those places, where Christ the Son of God had conversed; and at Jerusalem were many things, which might move and persuade men to go thither, that were anything curiously inclined. And although the Church then was too much addicted to these observations, and as a Spouse exceedingly delighted with any remembrance of her deceassed husband, yet was she then far from those superstitious pilgrimages, and dotings on Images, which with you Papists is now usual.

Neither was this often recourse of Christians into those places the cause of the Jews hatred unto thē, as you untruly surmise; but the Gospel was the true cause of difference betwixt them and us. They urge Moses; we teach that Moses must give place to Christ; from hence only proceeds their hatred unto us: but you are odious unto thē in many respects; your manifold idolatries continually hindering them from receiving the Gospel of Christ. Remoue your idols, that we all that are called Christians, may worship God in spirit and truth. The Jews then will join themselves unto us, and will speedily in great multitudes betake themselves to the sheepfold of Christ. The Jews complain they have been destroyed by your Auncestors; whom mean you, the Romans who raced the City under the conduct of Titus? These were enemies of the faith of Christ: will you be their posterity, or what other Auncestors have you, that have been author of so great calamity unto the Jews? They have, I grant, many things in their religion, which will ever alienate them from you: yet in many respects the Jews are much beholding unto you; so as unless they will incur the suspicion of great unthankfulness, they must love you again deservedly. For you give them leave to use their ancient Ceremonies, and that in Rome, and freely to utter their blasphemies against Christ without blame; so they pay tribute, they have impunity for all their sacrileges and blasphemies. The Lutherans (say you) never opposed themselves against them, neither did they ever receive any damage from the Jesuits. You proceed to Heathens, among whom you affirm those were most violent which devised the most grievous torments for Christians. I will easily grant, that those Tyrants that killed and murdered the Christians for the space of 300. years, were violent and outrageous above measure. What of this? These (say you) that were thus drawn unto all kinds of torment that could be devised, These were the fathers and children of our faith. Nothing less (Campian:) this should have been soundly proved, not barely affirmed. No likeness or affinity of faith or works can be found betwixt you and them, so far are they from being your fathers, or you their children. For as our Savior said to the Jews, If you were the children of Abraham, you would do the works of Abraham; so if these had been your fathers (as you say) & you their children, you should have resembled them as your fathers. But beware (Campian) lest that which follows agree more fitly unto you; You are of your father the Diu • ll. These holy Fathers if they were now living, would disclaim you from being their of-spring, so little you resemble them in anything. Be ashamed at length to call yourselves their posterity, from whom you have so foully degenerated; or if the name please you, endeavor that it may be proper unto you. But to what purpose make you mention of that Tyrant that broiled Laurence on a Gridyroul and why repeat you all these verses out of Prudentius? He speaks indeed of gold and silver and torches; what of all this? Torches were needful in the night season, at which time the Christians then used to meet, because they durst not assemble on the day, but to light candles (as you do) at noon days, is mere madness. The accusation laid against him by the Tyrant, of gold, silver, plate, and sums of money, was forged. He had heard that the Christians had a great mass of gold and silver, and concealed treasure, and being exceeding earnest after it, he sends for Laurence, and commands him to bring him that money. But where (Campian) was the plate of gold and silver which he brought unto the Tyrant? what Cups, vessels or treasures did he bewray. The Church did not then abound in wealth, neither had they then such plenty of golden basons, silver chalices, costly hangings, or any other great and precious treasure. They had then wooden dishes, but golden Bishops and Priests; but now (as Boniface said truly) we 〈◊〉 golden vessels, wooden Priests; neither doth he therein play the Lutheran • , as you play the Papist, Campian. These Nimrods & Church-robbers came not out of Luther's school; those that made greatest spoil of the Church came from you, not us.

Against this Tyrant you oppose Constantine, and make a needless digression in his commendation, rather to fill up room, then frame a reason. For to what end rehearse you these things; Constantine quieted the Church, was baptized by Sylvester Bishop of Rome, used the sign of the cross, had Helen to his mother, joined himself to the Fathers of Nice, commended himself to the prayers of Anthony, chose the lowest place in the Synod, ergo, what will you infer? From this loose ware cannot you evince your Church to be the true Church, unless you strain them very violently. Constantine •• indeed brought peace unto the Church in her most troublesome time, and adorned and honored it with all the preferments and possessions he could, and since his time, as she increased in wealth, so she decreased in piety. Whereas you say, that Constantine sent for Sylvester from Soracte, that he might be baptized by him with our baptism, you might better have said, that Sylvester was fetched from heaven to baptize Constantine, for Sylvester died many years before Constantine was baptized, as is manifest out of Eusebius, Socrates, Theodorus, Z • zomen, who have recorded the baptism of Constantine to have been not whiles he was young, but in his age, not by Sylvester of Rome, but by Eusebius of Nicomedia, an Arian Bishop. Now Sylvester was extreme old when Constantine was a young man. He used the sign of the cross which he had seen in the air as an Ensign, declaring himself thereby the soldier of Christ, and an enemy of Tyrants. But that he worshipped or adored this cross, you shall never approve. As concerning his place in the Council it skilleth not greatly: for what if he chose the lowest seat amongst the Bishops? but you think he did it rather forced by necessary duty then moved by voluntary humility: mark then what Eusebius writes. When he was come to the chief place, he stood up in the midst of the assembly, and there, when a little seat made of gold was brought for him, he sat down. Here you see that Constantine sat in the highest place, a seat of gold, which was the chiefest, and above all the rest, as Z • zomen relates. But these your proofs are passing strange, they strengthen the cause of your Pope excellently well.

Now you pass forward unto the Turks, wherein you do too manifestly bewray your ignorance in history. For the Turkish government never less prevailed, then since Luther began to publish the Gospel: Before he did over-run, and like a troublous sea break into all Countries, with a furious and vnresisted violence. But since Luther like a good husbandman began to sow the seed of the Gospel, this raging sea hath as it were retired or stood still, and contained it self within his own bounds. Vicuna was kept by the Lutherans, and assaulted by Suleiman, but he returned with loss and with shame; and prove if you can, that ever the Christians became weak, or the Turks stronger by their default. The Letters which you pretend, as written from Suleiman to Luther, might with better reason have been sent to the Pope: for the Turks are beholding to none more then your Pope, as they well know; and unless they will be unthankful, they will ever acknowledge it. For if as our Savior Christ saith, a kingdom divided against it self cannot stand, then the breaking of the strength of the Empire, and weakening the power of Christians, and consequently strengthening the Turks, all must be imputed to him which rent and divided the Roman and Christian Empires, and of one kingdom made two: As long as the provinces and dominions of the Empire were united, we were strong enough against the Turks; but after Pope Leo the 3. divided the Empire, the Emperor of Constantinople which before had much ado to resist the Turk, was now no longer able to sustain the burden, wanting the greatest part of his Empire. There is then no reason why the Turk should thank Luther, but the Pope rather, as he hath good cause. It were too long to rehearse all the intercourse which hath passed betwixt the Pope and the Turk: let us now hear the conclusion. They are (say you) only professed enemies to us. Certainly they have infested them of the Greek church more then the Latin. So that if they be the best Christians that are most persecuted by the Turks, the Grecians must go before you. Whereas you add something of Altars and Images, know you that the Idolatry of your Church is so great, that the Turks themselves are ashamed, and therefore they break, and evil entreat your Images and Idols wheresoever they find them.

Now you come to Heretics, the lees, bellows, and fuel of hell fire. As long as there wants no Papists this fire will want no fuel. The first you meet with is Simon Magus. Indeed your Church is something more indebted to this Simon then the other: but what of him? He denied freewill unto man, and bragged of faith alone. Where find you that? tell us Campian, for this is not affirmed by Irenaeus or Clemens in the places alleged; he thought that all things came to pass by destiny, and an inevitable necessity, whereby he utterly abolished man's freewill: We hold no such opinion. Neither did he boast of sole faith (as you say:) but this was his opinion, that from the doctrine of Justification by grace and faith, he let loose the rains to all impiety & dishonesty: where do we defend any such things? Nouatianus would himself be Bishop of Rome, and opposed himself to Cornelius the lawful Bishop, hoping by force to get the Bishopric. What is this to us? But he was an enemy to the two Sacraments of penance and extreme unction. He denied pardon and repentance to them that fell in persecution. Herein he was an enemy of repentance. Our case in far different, which exclude no true penitent from hope of pardon. Manos wholly rejected baptism, as vnprofi • able and not necessary. Do we affirm any such thing? We deny (indeed) that baptism confers grace to the unbeliever by the work wrought: he denied it to be profitable at all: are we like him? Agustine and Epiphanius accompt Arius for an Heretic, so did few of the ancient Fathers besides these. And if to condemn prayers for the dead, and make equal a Priest with a Bishop be heretical, what shall be Catholic? Jerome was altogether of Arius his mind, about equality of Priests; for he determines them to be equal with Bishops by God's law. This was not that Arius, whom they usually called Atheist, but another, Aetius; the likeness of the names deceived you. To that you objected concerning Vigilantius and Jovinian, an answer is formerly given; for my part, I neither mean to defend them, nor can I greatly accuse th • m. If they were heretics, convince them of some error they held against the scriptures: Jerome's passions can make no man an heretic. Now you bring in the swarm of heretics, Macedonians, Pelagiās, Nestorians, Eutychians, the M •• otholites, and Iconomachs. These first we hate as hell it self; those last have committed nothing deserving the name of heretics. To set up and worship Images is heretical, but not to overthrow them. What you judge touching Luther and Calvin • is nothing material: whiles they lived they nothing regarded you, now they are dead they despise you, what will you conclude at length from this heretical company? A •• these (you say) forsook the government of your Church, and were overthrown by them. Nay Campian, these were your forefathers, and you their progeny and successors: for your monster of Popery hath been hatched by the impure commixtion of all heresies.

But you now appear out of hell, and are come to land, and wheresoever you cast your eyes or thoughts, All is your own (as you say) all subject themselves, and subscribe to your religion. Me thinks I see that brainsick Merchant, who standing by the sea, and beholding the ships, cried out, all he saw was his own; otherwise such senseless dreams could not proceed, but from a wit and judgment exceedingly weakened. For (say you) the Roman succession witnesseth, in which Church (as Agustine speaketh) the Primacie of the Apostolic chair hath always had the preeminence. Many causes there were, why special accompt in times past should be made of the church of Rome, especially for that Rome was the seat of the Empire, as approved in the Council held at Constantinople. I grant therefore tha • • his Church was accounted the supreme, chief, greatest, and the principal, preferred before other Churches. Trow you hence to conclude, the Bishop of Rome is the chief and principal Bishop or head of the Church? Agustine himself forbid it in the Council of Carthage, viz. that the Bishop of the chief Sea should not be called Prince of Priests, or any like title. Although then the holy Fathers for diverse respects gave the preeminence to the church of Rome, yet •• d they never acknowledge that infinite p ••••• •• ll authority which he now challengeth, neither •• d other Apostolic Churches, whether they were founded by the Apostles themselves, or by some of their scholars, yield any testimony of truth to the church of Rome. Here you stick in a quagmire, and •• e fain by entreaty to beg that which by strong reason you should prove and cannot.

But you urge further, and recompt the Pastors of several countries, to wha • end I pray you. The remainder • , say you, of the labors of all those that have published the Gospel in all nations farrs and wide, all, present unto us this same religion which Cathol • kes at this day profess. What could be affirmed more weakly? for the Greeians are opposite unto you, which unto this time have their succession of Bishops not interrupted. And further, the spy • which you send in your new found lands, have found in the furthest coasts thereof many monuments of that faith which we maintain, neither may you prefer us before them, at least afore all, you ought to prefer the truth, as the Philosopher saith. But if you think your Popes and other glorious titles more ancient then the Gospel, what can you allege why Christ should not deny you to belong to him, seeing you value anything more then him. Here you tell us of Princes, Kings, C • sars, Emperors, and make a goodly show of names, as your manner is. At length you mention our noble Queen • Elizabeth, and will needs teach her, her duty. But she, Campian, needs no such Masters, or instructiors. She knoweth her self to be the nursing mother of the Church, and that by divine dispensation, and accordingly doth she with all watchfulness and care procure the good thereof, and labors by all possible diligence to prevent all dangers intended by you and your adherents. You say of Calvin and these Princes, 〈◊〉 you have spoken, th •• 〈◊〉 heaven can no • contain thē. But it pass • h your skill to pronounce certainly hereof, nay your Pope himself cannot with all his might pull Calui •• out of heaven, not any of them whom Christ hath made witnesses of his truth. As for you and your fellows, we wish you not the gallows, but salvation. I desire to hope the best of you; and I doubt not but you might attain to the knowledge of the truth in controversy betwixt us, if for the time you could lay aside all prejudicate opinions, and consult with the word of God, and the holy Fathers of the Church. As for the society of Jesus, whereunto you are admitted, it braggeth that it is wholly at the Popes dispensation, and loves Gregory the 13. too well, to love Queen Elizabeth anything at all, who is so far differing from him. You proceed, and produce the utmost coasts and countries of the world to testify for you: you should distinguish ancient and later times. For grant that the whole world had conspired with the Pope against Christ (which it hath not) that is no advantage to you, nor prejudice to us: whosoever forsakes the Gospel, he is necessarily divided from the Church. To put to silence the oracles of the heathen Idols, and carry the name of Christ unto the Gentiles, was no doubt a great work, and a divine work: but that is none of your work, for you have filled the world with Idols, and as much as in you lay, overturned the kingdom of Christ. The Idols of the he ••• en have been o • e ••• own, and the kingdom of God enlarged by the Apostles and Apostolic men; ••• e •• e o • e Papist, or one Ies • ite amongst these. For the Jesuits, which assay to make new kingdoms amongst the Indians, serve not Christ, but the Pope: not do they enlarge the kingdom of Christ, but they prepare for the Pope a kingdom far from the Lutherans, where he may reign after he shall be banished from these countries. You ask, is Christ divided? I answer, you Jesuits have divided him, else why have you separated Jesus from Christ, and leaving the ancient ordinary names of Christians, which you scorn as too common, you desire rather to be called Jesuits, a new name of your own framing, then Christians? As though there were some society of Jesus appropriated to one kind of men separated from other Christians; If there be, then is Christ divided, if not, then you Jesuits are too impudent to devise a new society.

You say either we or he preach a wrong Christ. This of necessity must be so. But Luther preached the true Christ, storm the Pope never so much: look then what Jesus, what Christ you have amongst you? the true Christ it is not. I beseech you, Campian, for Christ's sake consider well whom you have forsaken, to whom you have betaken you, into what danger you have cast yourself. But you will tell us who is the true Christ, I listen to hear it: let him b • true Christ, and on their side, by whose bringing in Dagons neck was broken. With a good will. Christ by us preached, hath within these few years thrown down an infinite sort of your Dagons: for so soon as Christ accompanied with his Gospel got footing in any place, your Dagons out of hand fell down, and had not only their arms and legs broken, but necks also. Patrick in Ireland, and Palladius in Scotland, what they were I mean not to search. We Englishmen, I grant, received much good by Agustine the Monk, and much evil also and superstition which he brought in with him. It is plain that we had received the Christian faith in Brittany many ages before his coming hither. How it was by him increased or hindered, I will not say. But he lived six hundred years after Christ; which as I judge was not the purest time of the Church, but as others affirm, the age was most corrupt.

Now to conclude, because to prosecute all were infinite, you gather a heap of witnesses together, the Universities, written laws, the common fashions of all people, choice of Emperors, kingly rites, orders of Knighthood, habits, church windows, coins, gates, houses, all things great and small, unto all which I answer in a word, if an Angel from heaven should preach unto us another Gospel then that which Christ hath taught, the Apostles published, our Churches now profess, we would reject and detest it, much less do we stand upon these toys of yours, and ma •• ers of • o • om • nt. The flourishing University • , ancient law • , and i • all kinds, monuments of great antiquity, all these afford unto us an open testimony of the truth we profess. Thus have we heard your ten-fold Apollogy, wherein I perceive you have bestowed no small diligence; how you have therein prevailed, I leave the judgment to others. If you have satisfied none more therein then our University men, I can assure you, you have lost your labor, and are disappointed of your hope. For my own part though in this case I profess myself your adversary, yet your person (Campian) I love as far as a Christian may love a Jesuit. And I pray God the Father of Jesus Christ, that he would open the eyes of your mind, and direct you in his ways, least you cast away that silly soul so dearly bought which you desire to save. Therefore leave off to resist the truth, and wittingly to • ick against the prick, you cannot by force stop the waves of the sea, you cannot darken the beams of the sun, nor restrain the arm of God. Falsehood driven back shall give place, and truth at the length (resist while you will) shall have the victory.

The Conclusion unto the University men.

CAmpian (most worthy men) would present this gift of his unto you, which of what worth it is you can best judge. I will not go about to turn or allenate your affections from him, whom I know more firmly resolved, then that any such slender reasons can any whit move you. He may (I grant) make some show, and get some applause from the unlearned multitude; but that he should be able to beguile you, or cast a mist before such and so great judgments, if I should suspect it, I should be too in •• tio • s to the Universities. Therefore I a • well content that Campian have such place is your conceits and affections, as he can procure, and refer the censure of the matter most willingly unto you. This work he composed at vacant times us he traveled, if we may believe him of his word. He would not seem to write anything purposely and ••• rately, wherein he both apparently distrust his cause, and bewrays the vanity of his disposition. For whereas before he had prepared it with great deliberation, and brought it into England from Rome, he would seem to us to have penned it on a sudden, at idle times in his travail, which plainly shows the badness of his cause, and argues more then ordinary arrogancy. But this is ordinary with our Papists, to pretend all their writings are done of a sudden, and ex tempore, hoping thereby to be easily excused in their errors: besides they will hereby make us believe, that when they write more deliberately, and take greater pains, then their writings shall be unanswerable. After Bishop Jewel that famous preacher of the truth, had challenged all Papists, and called them to the trial of antiquity, some years ago, certain books were published by men of great name, Harding, Rastall, Dorman: but observe their notable policy. When they had been full three years in preparing their answer, and at length had finished somewhat, fearing they should be but lightly respected by the learned and circumspect reader, they dissembled their intent, alleging that they were written in hast, not with purpose of publishing them, but only to satisfy the particular request of some private friends, what could they have feigned more foolishly, or affirmed more featefullie? But Campian thought good to follow their politique example, affirming this work of his was made by the way 〈…〉 hours, when he at great leisure had prepared is beyond the seas. And yet the matter of the book, the manner of his style, and his whole gift (as he calleth it) is such, as I easily believe it was rather done in great hast, then by mature deliberation. For what 〈◊〉 these his • en reasons, but a little sum of slanders, laid, and drawn together out of the books and lectures of Lindane, Sanders, Canisius, Melchior Cano, Bellarmine, in composing whereof, Campian might easily make hast, especially seeing his greatest care was not how true, but how slanderous all things were that he should set down. For I doubt not, but you that are the learned of the Universities, perceive by this time that those things written in this book by Campian, are such, as for the matter are most untrue, for the style, spiteful and malicious. I testify before God, and I call heaven, earth, and whatsoever creatures in the world to witness, that either there is no truth, or those things thus by Campian propounded are most false. View it well, search it, and know it altogether, Campian is an adversary, and deceitful, trust him not, he is deceived himself, and laboreth to deceive you. By him none can be deceived, but such as willingly will be entangled with error. Al things he hath, are common, only his audaciousness, in affirming, and feigning anything, it is strange and incredible. If it were fit that he should be respected more then Luther, then Calvin, then Christ himself, the teacher of truth, then he had some cause to hope: but seeing this is unmeet and unreasonable, he can prevail nothing at all with you, by his reasons. Night remains till the day be light, but the Sun rising darkness is dispelled; and the truth appearing, falsehood vanisheth.

God the father of lights, the only teacher of heavenly wisdom, vouchsafe us his spirit, that ignorance and deceive •••• error being 〈◊〉 we may hearken to the voice of that g •••• Shepherd, avoid the inti •• ments and b •• tes of Antich •••• , and may know God the Father in Christ Jesus, to whom with the holy Spirit, be all praise and glory as ••• ed forever.