EIGHTH REASON
PARADOXES
For myself, most excellent Sirs, when, choosing out of many heresies, I think over in my mind certain portentous errors of self-opinionated men, errors that it will be incumbent on me to refute, I should condemn myself of want of spirit and discernment if in this trial of strength I were to be afraid of any man’s ability or powers. Let him be able, let him be eloquent, let him be a practised disputant, let him be a devourer of all books, still his thought must dry up and his utterance fail him when he shall have to maintain such impossible positions as these. For we shall dispute, if perchance they will allow us, on God, on Christ, on Man, on Sin, on Justice, on Sacraments, on Morals. I shall see whether they will dare to speak out what they think, and what under the constraint of their situation they publish in their miserable writings. I will take care that they know these maxims of their teachers:—”God is the author and cause of evil, willing it, suggesting it, effecting it, commanding it, working it out, and guiding the guilty counsels of the wicked to this end. As the call of Paul, so the adultery of David, and the wickedness of the traitor Judas, was God’s own work” (Calvin, Institut. i. 18; ii. 4; iii. 23, 24). This monstrous doctrine, of which Philip Melanchthon was for once ashamed, Luther however, of whom Philip had learned it, extols as an oracle from heaven with wonderful praises, and on that score puts his foster-child all but on an equality, with the Apostle Paul (Luther, De servo arbitrio). I will also enquire what was in Luther’s mind, whom the English Calvinists pronounce to be “a man given of God for the enlightenment of the world,” when he wished to take this versicle out of the Church’s prayers, “Holy Trinity, one God, have mercy on us.”
I will proceed to the person of Christ. I will ask what these words, “Christ the Son of God, God of God,” mean to Calvin, who says, “God of Himself” (Instit. i. 13); or to Beza, who says, “He is not begotten of the essence of the Father” (Beza in Josue, nn. 23, 24). Again. Let there be set up two hypostate unions in Christ, one of His soul with His flesh, the other of His Divinity with His Humanity (Beza, Contra Schmidel). The passage in John x. 30, I and the Father are one, does not show Christ to be God, consubstantial with God the Father (Calvin on John x.), the fact is, says Luther, “my soul hates this word, homousion.” Go on. Christ was not perfect in grace from His infancy, but grew in gifts of the soul like other men, and by experience daily became wiser, so that as a little child He laboured under ignorance (Melanchthon on the gospel for first Sunday after Epiphany). Which is as much as to say that He was defiled with the stain and vice of original sin. But observe still more direful utterances. When Christ, praying in the Garden, was streaming with a sweat of water and blood, He shuddered under a sense of eternal damnation, He uttered an irrational cry, an unspiritual cry, a sudden cry prompted by the force of His distress, which He quickly checked as not sufficiently premeditated (Marlorati in Matth. xxvi.; Calvin in Harm. Evangel.). Is there anything further? Attend. When Christ Crucified exclaimed, My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken me, He was on fire with the flames of hell, He uttered a cry of despair, He felt exactly as if nothing were before Him but to perish in everlasting death (Calvin in Harm. Evangel.). To this also let them add something, if they can. Christ, they say, descended into hell, that is, when dead, He tasted hell not otherwise than do the damned souls, except that He was destined to be restored to Himself: for since by His mere bodily death He would have profited us nothing, He needed in soul also to struggle with everlasting death, and in this way to pay the debt of our crime and our punishment. And lest any one might haply suspect that this theory had stolen upon Calvin unawares, the same Calvin calls all of you who have repelled this doctrine, full as it is of comfort, God-forsaken boobies (Institut. ii. 16). Times, times, what a monster you have reared! That delicate and royal Blood, which ran in a flood from the lacerated and torn Body of the innocent Lamb, one little drop of which Blood, for the dignity of the Victim, might have redeemed a thousand worlds, availed the human race nothing, unless the mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus (I Tim. ii. 5) had borne also the second death (Apoc. xx. 6), the death of the soul, the death to grace, that accompaniment only of sin and damnable blasphemy! In comparison with this insanity, Bucer, impudent fellow that he is, will appear modest, for he (on Matth. xxvi.), by an explanation very preposterous, or rather, an inept and stupid tautology, takes hell in the creed to mean the tomb. Of the Anglican sectaries, some are wont to adhere to their idol, Calvin, others to their great master, Bucer; some also murmur in an undertone against this article, wishing that it may be quietly removed altogether from the Creed, that it may give no more trouble. Nay, this was actually tried in a meeting at London, as I remember being told by one who was present, Richard Cheyne, a miserable old man, who was badly mauled by robbers outside, and, for all that, never entered his father’s house.[2]
And thus far of Christ. What of Man? The image of God is utterly blotted out in man, not the slightest spark of good is left: his whole nature in all the parts of his soul is so thoroughly overturned that, even after he is born again and sanctified in baptism, there is nothing whatever within him but mere corruption and contagion. What does this lead up to? That they who mean to seize glory by faith alone may wallow in the filth of every turpitude, may accuse nature, despair of virtue, and discharge themselves of the commandments (Calvin, Instit. ii. 3). To this, Illyricus, the standard-bearer of the Magdeburg company, has added his own monstrous teaching about original sin, which he makes out to be the innermost substance of souls, whom, since Adam’s fall, the devil himself engenders and transforms into himself. This also is a received maxim in this scum of evil doctrine, that all sins are equal, yet with this qualification (not to revive the Stoics), “if sins are weighed in the judgment of God.” As if God, the most equitable judge, were to add to our burden rather than lighten it; and, for all His justice, were to exaggerate and make it what it is not in itself. By this estimation, as heavy an offence would be committed against God, judging in all severity, by the innkeeper who has killed a barn-door cock, when he should not have done, as by that infamous assassin who, his head full of Beza, stealthily slew by the shot of a musket the French hero, the Duke of Guise, a Prince of admirable virtue, than which crime our world has seen in our age nothing more deadly, nothing more lamentable.
But perchance they who are so severe in the matter of sin philosophise magnificently on divine grace, as able to bring succour and remedy to this evil. Fine indeed is the function which they assign to grace, which their ranting preachers say is neither infused into our hearts, nor strong enough to resist sin, but lies wholly outside of us, and consists in the mere favour of God,—a favour which does not amend the wicked, nor cleanse, nor illuminate, nor enrich them, but, leaving still the old stinking ordure of their sin, dissembles it by God’s connivance, that it be not counted unsightly and hateful. And with this their invention they are so delighted that, with them, even Christ is not otherwise called full of grace and truth than inasmuch as God the Father has borne wonderful favour to Him (Bucer on John i: Brent hom. 12 on John).
What sort of thing then is righteousness? A relation. It is not made up of faith, hope and charity, vesting the soul in their splendour; it is only a hiding away of guilt, such that, whoever has seized upon this righteousness by faith alone, he is as sure of salvation as though he were already enjoying the unending joy of heaven. Well, let this dream pass: but how can one be sure of future perseverance, in the absence of which a man’s exit would be most miserable, though for a time he had observed righteousness purely and piously? Nay, says Calvin (Instit. iii. 2), unless this your faith foretells you your perseverance assuredly, without possibility of hallucination, it must be cast aside as vain and feeble. I recognise the disciple of Luther. A Christian, said Luther (De captivitate Babylonis), cannot lose his salvation, even if he wanted, except by refusing to believe.
I hasten to pass on to the Sacraments. None, none, not two, not one, O holy Christ, have they left. Their bread is poison; and as for their baptism, though it is still true baptism, nevertheless in their judgment it is nothing, it is not a wave of salvation, it is not a channel of grace, it does not apply to us the merits of Christ, it is a mere token of salvation (Calvin, Instit. iv. 15). Thus they have made no more of the baptism of Christ, so far as the nature of the thing goes, than of the ceremony of John. If you have it, it is well; if you go without it, there is no loss suffered; believe, you are saved, before you are washed. What then of infants, who, unless they are aided by the virtue of the Sacrament, poor little things, gain nothing by any faith of their own? Rather than allow anything to the Sacrament of baptism, say the Magdeburg Centuriators (Cent. v. 4.), let us grant that there is faith in the infants themselves, enough to save them; and that the said babies are aware of certain secret stirrings of this faith, albeit they are not yet aware whether they are alive or not. A hard nut to crack! If this is so very hard, listen to Luther’s remedy. It is better, he says (Advers. Cochl.), to omit the baptism; since, unless the infant believes, to no purpose is it washed. This is what they say, doubtful in mind what absolutely to affirm. Therefore let Balthasar Pacimontanus step in to sort the votes. This father of the Anabaptists, unable to assign to infants any stirring of faith, approved Luther’s suggestion; and, casting infant baptism out of the churches, resolved to wash at the sacred font none who was not grown up. For the rest of the Sacraments, though that many headed beast utters many insults, yet, seeing that they are now of daily occurrence, and our ears have grown callous to them, I here pass them over.
There remain the sayings of the heretics concerning life and morals, the noxious goblets which Luther has vomited on his pages, that out of the filthy hovel of his one breast he might breathe pestilence upon his readers. Listen patiently, and blush, and pardon me the recital. If the wife will not, or cannot, let the handmaid come (Serm. de matrimon.); seeing that commerce with a wife is as necessary to every man as food, drink, and sleep. Matrimony is much more excellent than virginity. Christ and Paul dissuaded men from virginity (Liber de vot. evangel.). But perhaps these doctrines are peculiar to Luther. They are not. They have been lately defended by my friend Chark but miserably and timidly. Do you wish to hear any more? Certainly. The more wicked you, are, he says, the nearer you are to grace (Serm. de. pisc. Petri). All good actions are sins, in God’s judgment, mortal sins; in God’s mercy, venial. No one thinks evil of his own will. The Ten Commandments are nothing to Christians. God cares nought at all about our works. They alone rightly partake of the Lord’s Supper, who bury consciences sad, afflicted, troubled, confused, erring. Sins are to be confessed, but to anyone you like; and if he absolves you even in joke, provided you believe, you are absolved. To read the Hours of the Divine Office is not the function of priests, but of laymen. Christians are free from the enactments of men (Luther, De servo arbitrio, De captivilate Babylon).
I think I have stirred up this puddle sufficiently. I now finish. Nor must you think me unfair for having turned my argument against Lutherans and Zwinglians indiscriminately. For, remembering their common parentage, they wish to be brothers and friends to one another; and they take it as a grave affront, whenever any distinction is drawn between them in any point but one. I am not of consequence enough to claim for myself so much as an undistinguished place among the select theologians who at this day have declared war on heresies: but this I know, that, puny as I am, I run no risk while, supported by the grace of Christ, I shall do battle, with the aid of heaven and earth, against such fabrications as these, so odious, so tasteless, so stupid.
OCTAVA RATIO
PARADOXA
Ego vero, praestantissimi viri, quum de multis haeresibus quaedam apud me opiniosissimorum portenta reputo, quae mihi venient expugnanda; meipsum inertiae nequitiaeque condemnem, si cuiusquam in experiundo facultatem aut vires extimescerem. Sit ingeniosus, sit eloquens, sit exercitatus, sit omnium librorum helluo; tamen aridus et balbus appareat necesse est, quum haec tam “adunata” sustentabit. Disputabitur enim, si forte nobis annuent, de Deo, de homine, de peccato, de iustitia, de sacrimentis, de moribus. Videro an ausint asseverare, quae sentiunt, quaeque, rebus addicti necessariis, divulgant in scriptiunculis. Faxo norint ista suorum axiomata.
DE DEO.—”Deus est auctor et causa[75] peccati, volens, suggerens, efficiens, iubens, operans, et in hoc impiorum scelerata consilia gubernans. Proprium Dei opus fuit,[76] ut vocatio Pauli, sic adulterium Davidis, Iudaeque proditoris impietas.” Monstrum hoc, cuius Philippum aliquando puduit, Lutherus[77] tamen, a quo Philippus hauserat, quasi oraculum coeleste miris extollit laudibus, et alumnum suum eo nomine tantum non exaequat[78] Apostolo Paulo. Percontabor etiam, quid animi Luthero fuerit, quem Angli[79] calviniani “virum divinitus datum ad orbem illuminandum” pronuntiant, quum hunc versum demeret supplicationibus Ecclesiae.[80] “Sancta Trinitas, unus Deus, miserere nobis.”
DE CHRISTO.—Mox ad personam Christi progrediar. Quaeram ista sibi quid velint; Christus De Filius, Deus de Deo? Calvino:[81] “Deus ex sese,” Bezae:[82] “Non est genitus de Patris essentia.” Item: “Duae constituantur in Christo uniones hypostaticae,[83] altera animae cum carne, Divinitatis cum humanitate altera.” “Locus apud Ioannem:” ‘Ego et Pater unum sumus,’ non ostendit Christum Deum ‘homoousion'[84] Deo Patri.” Sed et ‘anima mea, inquit Lutherus,[85] odit hoc verbum ‘homoousion.'” Pergite: “Christus ab infantia non fuit gratia consummatus,[86] sed animi dotibus velut caeteri homines adolevit: usu factus quotidie sapientior, ita ut puerulus ignorantia laborarit.” Quod perinde est, ac si dicerent originis labe et vitio sordidatum. Sed cognoscite diriora: “Christus, quum orans in horto, sudoribus aquae manaret et sanguinis, sensu damnationis aeternae cohorruit:[87] vocem edidit sine ratione, sine spiritu, vocem doloris impetu repentinam; quam, ut non satis meditatam, cleriter castigavit.” Estne aliquid amplius? Attendite: “Christus, quum actus in crucem exclamaret:” ‘Deus meus, Deus meus, ut quid dereliquisti me?’ accensus est flammis inferni,[88] desperationis voceni emisit, non aliter affectus, quam si pereundum ei foret internecione sempiterna.”
His etiam, si quid possunt, addant: “Christus, inquiunt,[89] descendit ad inferos, id est, mortuus gehennam gustavit, nihilo minus quam animae damnatorum, nisi quod sibi restituendus erat.—Quandoquidem enim morte corporea nobis nihil profuisset;[90] anima quoque luctari cum morte debuit aeterna, atque hoc modo nostrum scelus suppliciumque dependere.” Ac ne quis forte suspicetur, istud Calvino per incuriam obrepsisse, idem Calvinus:[91] “Omnes vos, si qui doctrinam istam solatii plenam exagitastis, perditos” appellat “nebulones.” Tempora, tempora, cuiusmodi monstrum aluistis? Cruor ille delicatus et regius, qui de innocentis Agni corpore lacerato fissoque scaturiit, cuius cruoris una guttula propter dignitatem Hostiae mille mundos redimere potuisset, nihil humano genet profecit, nisi “mediator Dei et hominum (1 Tim ii. 5), homo Christus Iesus mortem quoque secundam (Apoc. ii. 11),” mortem animae, mortem gratiae, peccati solius et exsecrabilis blasphemiae sociam, pertulisset? Prae hac insania modestus videbitur Bucerus, quamquam est impudens, qui[92] infernum in symbolo sepulcrum accipit, per epexegesim valde praeposteram, ac potius tautologiam ineptam atque stolidam.
Anglicani sectarii, pars Calvino, idolo suo, pars Bucero, magno magistro, solent accedere; pars etiam submurmurant in hunc articulum, ne quid facessat ultra molestiae, quemadmodum sine tumultu penitus eximatur de Symbolo. Id veno etiant fuisse tentatum in conventiculo quodam Londinensi, memini narrasse mihi, qui interfuit, Richardum Chenaeum, miserrimum senem, male mulctatum a latronibus foris, neque tamen ingressum in paternam domum. Hactenus de Christo.
DE HOMINE.—De homine[93] quid? “Imago Dei penitus in homine deleta est, nulla boni scintilla superstite: tota natura quoad omnes animae partes ita funditus eversa, ut ne renatus quidem et sanctus quidquam sit aliud intrinsecus, nisi mera corruptio atque contagio.” Quorsum ista? Vt qui sola fide gloriam rapturi sunt, in omnium turpitudinum coeno volutati, naturam accusent, virtutem desperent, praecepta deonerent.
DE PECCATO.—Huc Illyricus, Magdeburgensium primipilus, illud suum adiecit immane placitum[94] de originis peccato, quod esse vult: “Intimam substantiam animarum, quippe quas, post Adami lapsum, diabolus ipse procreet, et in sese transformet.” Hoc quoque tritum est in hac faece: “Omnia peccata esse paria:”[95] sed ita (ne Stoici reviviscant), “si Deo iudice ponderentur.” Ac si Deus, aequissimus iudex, oneri nostro cumulum potius, quam levamentum faceret, et id, quod non est in re, quum sit ipse iustissimus, exaggeraret. Hac trutina non levius in Deum severissime iudicantem deliquerit ille caupo, qui gallum gallinaceum, quando non est opus, occiderit, quam infamis ille sicarius, qui plenus Beza, Gallum heroa Guisium, admiribili virtute principem, displosa fistula interemit; quo facinore nihil vidit orbis noster aetate nostra funestius, nihil luctuosius.
DE GRATIA.—Sed fortasse, qui tam sunt in peccati conditione tetrici, magnifice philosophantur de divina gratia, quae huic malo succurrere ac mederi possit. Praeclaras vero isti partes assignant gratiae, “quam neque infusam cordibus nostris, neque ad resistendum sceleribus validam esse latrant, sedextra nos in solo Dei favore[96] collocant: “qui favor non emendet impios, nec purget, nec illuminet, nec ditet; sed veterem illam sentinam adhuc manantem atque foetentem, ne deformis et odiosa putetur, Deo connivente, dissimulet. Quo suo plasmate tantopere delectantur, ut ne “Christus quidem aliter apud illos[97] gratia plenus et veritate dicatur, quam quod ei Deus Pater mirandum in modum faverit.”
DE IVISTITIA.—Quae res ergo iustitia est? Relatio.[98] Non enim ex theologics concinnata virtutibus, fide, spe, charitate, quae animam suo nitore convestiant; sed tantum “occultatio delicti, quam qui sola fide prehenderit, ille tam de salute certus est, ac si iampridem interminato coeli gaudio[99] frueretur.” Age, somniet hoc; sed unde constare poterit de futura perseverantia, qua qui caruit, exivit infelicissimus, licet ad tempus pure pieque iustitiam coluisset? Imo vero, “haec tua fides, Calvinus ait[100], nisi tuam tibi perseverantiam firme pronuntiet, ut hallucinari nequeas, tamquam inanis et languida sperneretur.” Agnosco discipulum Lutheri. “Christianus, inquit ille[101] etiam volens, non potest salutem perdere, nisi nolit credere.”
DE SACRAMENTIS.—Ad Sacramenta festino. Nullum, nullum, non duo, non unum, O Sancte Christe, reliquerant. Ipsorum quippe panis venenum est; Baptismus etsi adhuc verus, tamen ipsorum iudicio “nihil est, non est unda salutis, non est canalis gratiae, non derivat in nos Christi merita; sed significatio dumtaxat salutis est. Itaque nihilo pluris Baptismum Christi, quoad naturam rei, quam Ioannis facere caeremoniam. Si habeas, recte; si careas, nihil damni: crede, salvus es, antequam abluere.”[102] Quid ergo parvuli, qui nisi iuventur virtute Sacramenti, sua fide miselli nihil assequuntur? “Potius quam Sacramento Baptismatis quidquam tribuamus, inquiunt Magdeburgici,[103] demus inesse fidem ipsis infantulis, qua serventur, cuius fidei pulsus quosdam abditos intelligant” ipsi, qui vivant necne, nondum intelligunt. Durum. Si hoc adeo durum est, Lutheri pharmacum auditote: “Praestat, inquit,[104] omittere, quandoquidem nisi credat infans, nequidquam lavatur.” Haec illi quidem ancipites animo, quidnam enuntient categorice. Ergo Balthassar Pacimontanus diribitor interveniat; qui parens Anabaptistarum, quum parvulis motum fidei non posset affingere, Lutheri cantiunculam adprobavit, et paedobaptismum eiiciens e templis, “neminen nisi adultum fonte sacro decrevit abluere.” Ad reliqua Sacramenta quod attinet, quamvis illa bestia multiceps horrendas eiectet contumelias, tamen quia quotidianae iam sunt et callum auribus obduxerunt, hic praetereo.
DE MORIBVS.—Restant haereticorum de vita et moribus frusta nocentissima, quae Lutherus evomi in chartas, ut ex unius pectoris impuro gurgustio pestem lectoribus inhalaret. Audite patienter, et erubescite, et mihi date veniam recitanti: “Si nolit uxor[105], aut non possit, veniat ancilla. Siquidem res uxoria tam est cuique necessaria, quam esca, potus, somnus. Matrimonium est virginitate multo praestantius; eam Christus, eam Paulus dissuaserunt hominibus christianis.” Sed haec fortasse propria Lutheri sunt? Non sunt. Etiam nuper a meo Charco,[106] sed misere timideque defenduntur. Vultis ne plura? Quidni? “Quanto sceleratior es, inquit,[107] tanto vicinior gratiae. Omnes actiones bonae peccata sunt; Deo iudice, mortifera; Deo propitio, leviuscula[108]—Nemo malum suapte voluntate cogitat[109]—Decalogus nihil ad christianos[110]—Opera nostra Deus nequaquam curat—Soli recte participant coena Dominica, qui tristes, afflictas, perturbatas, confusas, erraticas apportant conscientias.—Confitenda crimina sunt, sed cuilibet, qui si te vel ioco absolverit, modo credideris, absolutus es.—Legere preces horarias non est sacerdotum, sed laicorum—Christiani liberi sunt a statutis hominum.” Satis superque lacunam istam commosse videor. lam finio. Nec vero putetis iniquiorem esse me, qui lutheranos et zuinglianos promiscue coarguerim; nam isti memores a quo proseminati sint, inter se fratres et amici volunt esse,[111] adeoque gravem interpretantur iniuriam, quum in ulla re praeter unam, discriminantur.
Equidem non sum tanti, ut vel mediocrem locum mihi sumam in selectis theologis, qui hodie bellum haeresibus indixere; sed hoc scio, quantuluscumque sum, periclitari me non posse, dum Christi gratia fultus adversum talia commenta, tam invisa, tam insulsa, tam bruta, coelo terraque iuvantibus, praeliabor.