Selected quad for the lemma: body_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
body_n	blood_n	break_v	shed_v	10,145	5	9.7147	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A15057	An ansvvere to the Ten reasons of Edmund Campian the Iesuit in confidence wherof he offered disputation to the ministers of the Church of England, in the controuersie of faith. Whereunto is added in briefe marginall notes, the summe of the defence of those reasons by Iohn Duræus the Scot, being a priest and a Iesuit, with a reply vnto it. Written first in the Latine tongue by the reuerend and faithfull seruant of Christ and his Church, William Whitakers, Doctor in Diuinitie, and the Kings Professor and publike reader of Diuinitie in the Vniuersitie of Cambridge. And now faithfully translated for the benefit of the vnlearned (at the appointment and desire of some in authoritie) into the English tongue; by Richard Stocke, preacher in London. ...; Ad Rationes decem Edmundi Campiani Jesuitæ responsio. English	Whitaker, William, 1548-1595.; Campion, Edmund, Saint, 1540-1581. Rationes decem. English.; Stock, Richard, 1569?-1626.; Whitaker, William, 1548-1595. Responsionis ad Decem illas rationes.; Durie, John, d. 1587. Confutatio responsionis Gulielmi Whitakeri ad Rationes decem. Selections.	1606 (1606)	STC 25360; ESTC S119870	383,859	364

changed so that it is no maruell if the custome of the Church at one time interpret the Scriptures after this manner another time after that Was there euer the like bouldnes heard of that men would wrest the eternall and immutable word of God which euer hath but one and the same sense to serue the will of the Church that is of the Pope of Rome Thom. 1. ● 1. art 10. besides this you haue made so many h DV● The Fathers and Antiquity haue euer made these foure senses of the Scriptures WHIT. pag. 163. To faine such foure senses in euery sentence differeth not much from a learned kind of madnes Allegories I confesse many are in the Scriptures but such as the holy Ghost himselfe hath made but to make other Allegories when the words may be vnderstood without a Trope or when the Grammaticall sense is not absurd and repugnant to sound doctrine I thinke is too great bouldnesse and temerity A Tropologicall sense is not a new sense differing from the Grammaticall but one ●s it were with it Finally if the Fathers as men haue erred must we needs follow their errors The Fathers reiected the errors and false interpretations of their predecessors why may not we deale so with them senses of euery place to wit an allegoricall a tropological an anagogicall sense that by your Ledgerdemaine you haue abolished the true and natiue sense Now Campian since you know that this is the manner of your Church in the interpreting of the Scripture than which what can be more corrupt how dare you presume to reprehend our manner of interpretation But we follow no other course then that which the Fathers haue prescribed and which the thing it selfe argues to be most fit For that is our course which Augustine aduised we interpret obscure places by those which are plainer we obserue the phrase and stile of the Scripture we weigh circumstances we compare scripture with scripture we go not one iot from the Analogie of faith They who take this course adioyning their harty prayers that the Lord would open this sealed booke vnto them and teach them the true sense of the scripture shall neuer need to runne to Rome and enquire of that sacred Oracle of the Pope who himselfe neither vnderstandeth the true sense of scripture neither is able to expound them to others But to returne now to Campian what is the vsuall fault he finds in our dealing with the scripture and what be the arguments by which he doth confute vs Let vs demaund saith he for example sake of our Aduersaries what caused them to deuise this new opinion whereby Christ is excluded out of the mysticall Supper We Campian do not i DVR If you place Christs body and your supper so farre asunder how do you not exclude h m from i● WHIT. pag. 168. It is true if things that are seuered could no way be ioyned but by a corporall ouching but without it it may fitly be as all beleeuers are ioyned together though they be farre distant and distracted one from another as Iewes Grecians and all other godly make but one body with Christ what is that bond of this vnion but the power of the spirit Such an vnion is this in the Sacramēt and it hath the some bond exclude Christ out of the Supper neither do we otherwise thinke of the Sacrament then both Christ hath taught vs and the old Church hath prescribed We certeinly affirme that the faithfull in the supper receiue whole Christ God and Man we beleeue and teach that they eate his body and drinke his blood Neither doubt we to affirme but that he that comes to the supper and doth not in the supper partake of Christ that he is in danger of condemnation Doe we now exclude Christ from the supper But whosoeuer includeth Christ in the supper as you doe he faineth and forgeth a new Christ to himselfe he confoundeth heauen and eart● together he offereth violence to nature and mu●● needs admit innumerable absurdities Wherfore we following the scripture as our schole-masters not taking vp any new opinion place the naturall and humane body of Christ in heauen for so the Apostle Peter speaketh whom the heauens must conteine vntill the time that all things be restered Act. 3.21 yet the k DVR The● is Christ as present in Baptisme and in the word and wheresoeuer your faith seekes for him as in the supper yea as present to the Father● in the old Testament as now to vs. WHIT. pag. 169. So quest●onlesse he is vnl●sse all men be without hope of life and saluation who are depriued of the Supper For John 6.53 yea all Christians communicate of Christ alike as well such as come to the supper as they who cannot partake in it And that he was present to the Fathers it is proued 1. Cor. 10.3.4 vertue the communion the benefit of this body we exclude not from the supper but stifly maintaine that in the supper whole Christ is present to each mans faith This is the summe of our opinion which I no lesse doubt to be the true sense of the scripture then that Christ is Christ or that to be scripture which is scripture This opinion out of all others which we hold haue you made choice of as an example to impugne and gain-say Let vs see now how scholler-like you acquite your selfe If they name the Gospell say you we ioyne with them The very words make for vs. This is my body this is my blood I acknowledge the words do but I enquire now for the sense of them whether they should be so expounded as your Church teacheth that the bread is Transubstantiated into the bodie and the wine into the blood of Christ or by a Trope and in a mysticall sense that the bread is the Sacrament the signe and symboll of the body and so the wine of the blood of Christ as we interpret them Whether opinion hath more truth in it we will now discusse As for that which you tell vs of Luther I suppose you will not expect any answere from me and vndoubtedly in this thing Luther was farre more opposite to your opinion then ours For he euer condemned your Transubstantiation as it is for an accursed inuention and fiction of Satan Luther we acknowledge was a man who though he saw the truth in many things yet he might erre in some things his good things wee embrace but wee are bound by no law to defend his errors But how shal we find out the meaning of this saying Let vs trie out this say you by the words thereto adioyning Nothing can be spoken more truly nothing more fitly nor more ingenuously And verely I could wish you would alwaies doe as you pretend in this place to doe sist out the meaning of the scripture by the circumstances of the words But what are the words adioyning My body which is giuen for you my blood which is shed for you

Campian you are too sparing and scant in the point repeate and say that which goeth before As they did eate Christ tooke bread he blessed it he brake it and gaue it to his disciples and said Take eate this is my body and he tooke the cup and gaue thankes and gau● it to them saying Drinke yee all of this for this is my blood c. So now Campian I will deale with you from the words which are now adioyning What was it Christ tooke you will say bread what brake he bread what gaue he to his disciples bread wh●● did he bid them take and eate bread what said he was his bodie was it any other thing ●hen the very same bread which he tooke into his hands brake and l DVR He tooke bread but he gaue not bread to his disciples but his bodie WHIT. pag. 183. Then one body of Christ is made two one sitting among them another deliuered vnto them yea as many bodies as there were Communicants And the disciples did receiue chaw and eate him whom they saw s●ting with them but whē was the chāge made for before he had spoken these operatiue words This is my bodie he brake it gaue it ●o his disciples either these words make not the change or he ga●e to his disciples bread vnchanged DVR ●f there was no change then the blessing wa● without profit WHIT. pag. 185. As if all blessings were without profit if they change not the nature of things God blessed our first parents Gen. 1.28 Noah and his Sonnes Gen. 9.1 Christ his disciples at his departure Luk. 24.51 was their blessing without profit because they changed not their natures and substance Besides to blesse is nothing else but to giue thankes as Luke hath it which was done by words before not by those This is my body gaue to his disciples Therfore that when Christ saith This is my body this is my blood is as much as if he said This bread is my body and this cup is my blood But the bread and the body of Christ the cup and the blood of Christ are they not differing and wel-nigh contrary Then tell vs how they can affirme or be spoken one of another vnlesse you will admit a Tropicall speech Yet Campian to vse your owne words the matter gocth hard on your side and maketh very plainly and manifestly for vs. For Christ saith plainly that the bread is his body which cannot be true without a figure that bread made to eate should be properly Christs body And this is that figure which we find so often in the Scriptures specially when any Sacram●nt is spoken of So in Genesis cap. 17. the Lord saith of Circumcision m DV● This is neither heere nor any where else to be found in the Scriptures WHIT. pag. 173. Ma●ke well This is my couenant which you shall keepe that euery manchild be circumcised what I pray you is This but that euery man-child be circumcised and ●o you haue it in this place directly but see Gen. 17.13 My couenant shall be in your flesh what is this but circumcision reade Act. 7.8 DVR This signifieth not circumcision but agreement or couenant betwixt God a●d Abraham touching circumcision WHIT. That agreemen● was it the couenant or not ●f it was then see what a goodly sentence you haue made This my couenant is my couenant But if it was not thē you must needs acknowledge a Me●●nymy that is that the name of th● thing is giuen to the signe howsoeuer then it must be vnderstood by a figure This is the couenant betwixt me and Gen. 17.10 you Yet Circumcision was not the couenant but the signe of the couenant Now tell vs I pray you what difference betwixt these two This is my couenant this is my body The former you cannot deny but must be vnderstood by a Metonymy and can any man make doubt but that the latter likewise is to be so expounded The like we reade of the Lambe Exod. 12.11 n DVR These words are not to be found there WHIT. pag. 174. Obserue the words Thus shall you eate it for it is the Lords Passouer That which was to be eaten is called the Lords Passeouer Now they we●e cōmanded to eate the Lambe reade Exod 12. ve●se 27. 〈◊〉 is the Lords Passeouer And yet the Lamb was not the Passeouer but a memoriall of it like to this is that of S. Paul o DVR There is no figure in the word Christ but in rocke for the rocke was the signe of Christ WHIT. pag. 175. Then you acknowledge a Metonymy in the word● because the rock was the Sac●amen● of Christ And if heere there be a Trope then why not in these words of this Sacramēt The rocke was Christ. 1. Cor. 10.1 Now as the rocke was Christ so is this mysticall bread the body of Christ Thus as yet you see the matter is neuer the better on your side haue you any thing else The Gospell say you makes for vs S. Paul accordeth also Nay S. Paul vtterly ouerthroweth your opinion 1. Cor. 11. for when he speaketh of this Sacrament in one continued speech he vseth the word p DVR S. Paul call●th it so because it vvas novv Christ vvho vva● the liuing bread WHIT. pag. 188. many of your fellowes interpret it far otherwise yea your sh●●t S. Paul ouerthroweth 1. Cor. 10.16 The bread vvhich vve breake is it not the Comunion of the body of Christ Now not Christ was brokē but the bread bread foure seuerall times and that after Consecration so that it appeareth ●earely to haue the proper nature of bread though it be said to be the body of Christ But yet you adde The words the sentences the whole conuection of Scripture doe often most reuerently repeate the bread the wine a notable miracle heauenly food his flesh his bodie his blood In good earnest you discourse of these things with great reuerence and shamefastnes For you would proue that in this Sacrament there remaineth neither bread nor wine but certeine qualities of these things hanging in the ayre and void● of the things themselues And for any notable miracle I acknowledge none but answere you with Austen They may be honoured as religious things De Trinit lib. 3. c. 10. but they cannot be wondred at as q DVR Augustine speaketh of thes● miracles which are made of a bodily substanc● and so are sensible novv no such thing is seene in the Eucharist WHIT. pag. 191. But if there were a true miracle it would be sensible and haue the witnesse of the senses as all oth●r miracles of the Scriptures haue For thing● that are hid saith Augustine are not miracles He writ three bookes of the miracles of the Scriptures in which he hath not spoken one word of this miracle Therefore he knew not the Popish Transubstantiation minacles No man euer denied but that in the Sacrament heauenly food is both

prepared and offered to all the godly But those heauenly and holy banquets whereby our soules are nourished vp to eternall life you make prophane and common when you imagine that Christ may be receiued and eaten like other meates aswell of the r DVR Not vve but the Scripture the Fathers and reason it selfe doth affirme it but speciallie S. Paul 1. Cor. 11.27 Whosoeuer eateth this bread WHIT. pag 195. None of these affirme it and least of all S. Paul for he saith not vvhosoeuer eateth the body of Christ but vvhosoeuer eateth this bread wicked as of the most deuout men in the world which is an horrible opinion senselesse and vnsound For that you adde of flesh body and blood I confesse for being the Sacraments of these things they haue their names giuen vnto them for signes of things saith Augustine are said to be the things of which they are signes But say you heere is nothing figuratiue nothing obscure by doubtfull speeches True it is there is neuer a riddle in the words no obscuritie For the obscurity that is is not in the words but in your interpretation of them which ten Apolloes cannot so vnfold and open that things might agree and answere fitly one to another What resteth yet is it not that at length wee find out some certeine and true sense of these words I hope say you Antiquitie may be heard I verily in this controuersie will reiect no Antiquitie no Councell no auncient Father neither will I refuse any monument of true Antiquitie For that same reuerend hoarie head of Fathers which you speake of could neuer come to the knowledge of this new doctrine of Transubstantiation lately hatched If those holy Fathers and reuerend Elders did now liue they would neuer acknowledge this mōster nor indure the sight of it but iudge it worthy to be abandoned into the vtmost parts of the world Whereas then you say They cannot away with that They say then they are betrayed You trifle and say nothing to the purpose for we can away well with this triall and feare no treachery in it But will call you very willingly to this reuerend Antiquitie as to a barre of triall Therefore if you please we will demaund of those reuerend Fathers what they iudge to be the meaning of those words which you haue produced for example sake And seeing there is no necessity to collect all their sayings some few of them shall speake to giue vs a tast of the rest ſ DVR Tertullian speaketh not of that bread vvhich Christ in his last supper made his body but of another bread vvhich vvas the figure of his body vnd●r the lavv WHIT. pag. 2●0 The pla●e sheweth very plainly that he speaketh of no other bread then of tha● which Christ had said this is my body and which in the night he vvas betrayed he tooke brake and gaue to his disciples Tell vs where vnder the law Christ euer said thus or did thus with any bread DVR Bread wine in the old Testament vvere Figures of Christs body blood therfore in the nevv Testament of the bread must the true body of Christ be made of the v●ine his blood WHIT. pag. 202. It will well follow frō this that Christ must haue in the new Testament a true body true blood but it cannot be inforced hereupō that it must be made of bread wine As if because their Sacramen●s were figures the●fore ours must be trāsubstantiated into the things themselues Then will it follow that because the flood the ●edsea the cloud were types of our Bap●isme therefore it should not be a figure or a signe but be turned into th● very blood of Christ Tertullian saith Tertul. lib. 4 contra Marc. Christ professed his desire to eate the Pass●ouer as his owne and hauing taken bread and distributed it to his disciples hee made it his bodie by saying this is my body that is the figure or signe of my body You acknowledge both Tertullians words and his meaning t DVR Augustine signifieth the Sacramēt by the name of figure WHIT pag 204. It is true Christ gaue the Sacramēt to his di●ci●les but Augustine vseth not the word Sacrament but figure to shew that as no figu●e or signe is the thing wherof it is a fi u●e so the bread is not properly the body nor the w●ne the blood of Christ Augustine saith August in Psal 3. Christ admitted Iudas to that banquet in which he commended to his disciples the figure of his body and blood In another place also u DVR Augustine disputeth in this p●ace against the Ma●●chees carp●ng at Moses vvords The blood is the soule of the beast And saith it is so spoke as the Sacramēt of the body of Christ is called his body the blood is called the soule because it is as the signe of the soule which lieth hid in the blood as the Sacramet is the signe of the body of Christ vvhich is conteined in it WH T pag. 206. Nay I infer the cōtrary as the soule is not the blood whē it is o●● of the vaines may be eaten so Christ is not in the Sacrament And as the blood is the signe of the soule which is not in it so is the Sacrament of the bodie which is not conteined in it The Lord verily doubted not to speake thus Contra. Adimant cap. 12. This is my body when he gaue the signe of his body And that you may vnderstand that this was Augustines perpetuall tenor in interpreting of these words and that he determined farre diuerse to you touching the eating of Christs flesh heare what he saith in his bookes of Christian Instruction where he giueth diuers precepts for the vnderstanding of the phrase of the Scriptures If saith he any sentence there seeme to cōmaund any impious act De doctr Christ. lib. 3. cap. 16. or to forbid any duty tending to the profit or good of others it is a figuratiue speech vnlesse saith Christ you eate the flesh of the Son of man and drinke his blood you haue no life in you It seemeth to inioyne an * DVR Augustine did not thinke that it vvas an heynous thing to eate the flesh of Christ but to cate 〈◊〉 as the Capernites thought that is torne and rent in peeces WHIT. pag. 209. You answere somewhat as touching the fact but nothing for the figure But Augustine saith there is a figure which cannot be if the flesh of Christ be either eaten as you say whole or chopt in peeces as the Capernites affirme And if it be an horrible fact to eate the smale parts of Christs bo●ie is it not a more beastly bloody thing to deuoure the whole body of Christ at one mor●el● DVR It is no more heynous for a Christian to eate the flesh of Christ whole then it was for the blessed Virgin to conceiue to nourish it in her wombe WHIT. pag. 211. What is this

in corners that Christ is reproched when wee say he was tormented with so great griefes of minde But it is so farre off Campian that I doe either denie or dissemble those things which you now obiect that I doe teach and auow them openly and freely And though the whole nation of Iesuits should set vpon me yet I will neuer be ashamed to celebrate Christs mercie which I see to bee violated by them with vnspeakable iniuries For what thinke you was it that Christ felt which brought so great sadnes and vexation to him that it wrung from him a bloody sweate was it only death 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which takes away life and sense Doe you thinke that Christ could be broken so with the feare of that death that he should conceiue so much griefe in his minde to make him sweate water and blood for the desire he had to escape tasting of that cup which hee came to drinke of Did Christ so much abhorre this death which the Martyrs haue gone vnto ioyfull and cheerefull That were indeede to cast a greater reproch vpon Christ while ye would auoide the lesser Wherefore that which raised so great horrors in Christ was the most bitter wrath of God against mankinde which Christ must needes haue suffered for a time For the whole weight of our sinnes was imposed vpon Christ which brought with it a most heauie remembrance of Gods wrath Seeing therefore Christ our Mediatour being laden with our sins did suffer the greatnes of Gods displeasure and did alone endure the punishment of our sinnes certainly he did quake as man and did expresse those incredible sorrowes of his minde many waies Hence came that speech vpon the Crosse My God my God why hast thou forsaken me which he vttered not fainedly but from his heart not despairingly as you wickedly write but vpon the consideration of Gods wrath which then he was to be subiect vnto m DVR Christ truly was the Sonne of God who knew nothing in himselfe worthie of wrath and so could not feare the paines of hell WHIT. pag. 558. You dispute wittily as if he were not the Sonne of Man also and sustained the person of sinfull men Neither did he so feare hell as you imagine but when the punishment of vs all was vpon him alone he must needs as a man be greatly affected and moued with it For God was exceedingly incensed against vs for our sinnes Christ interposed himselfe and he alone vn●erwent the greatnes of that wrath powred vpon him he therfore that saith Christ felt nothing diminisheth the greatnes of sin the iustice of God and the merit of Christ I hat he was not swallowed vp of those torments it must be imputed to the power of his diuine nature DVR But how could hee thinke himselfe forsaken of God vvho offered himselfe vvholy to God WHIT. pag. 559. If be did nor feele this defection why did hee say vainely and rashly that he was forsaken he o●●ed himselfe by his eternall spirit that is his Diuinity Hebr. 9.14 Therefore this freewill offering did not hinder but that he might feele in his mind those sorrowes which men should haue suffered This is that Hell of which Christ while he was aliue and not as you obiect against Caluin after he was dead did taste And certainly this vexation which Christ endured at that time did equall after a sort the very paines of hell But these things are reproued by you because they bee not vnderstood For the Papists with their dull hearts cannot conceiue what Christ performed for vs by his death and what paines hee endured for the satisfying of his Father Therefore they thinke wrong is done to Christ when we say he suffered those things which hee both would and ought to haue suffered for vs. For it was necessarie not onely that Christ should die in n DVR Christ being God and man satisfied the diuine iustice not by the greatnes and multitude of his punishment but by the weight of his actions euerie one of vvhich is sufficient to be a full price of mans redemption Neither vvas it necessary that Christ should vndergoe the same punishment vvhich man should haue suffered as if any man vvould free another from prison vvho is cast into it for debt it is not necessary that be go into prison for him Besides who will say that the body of man aid sinne it is man that sinneth not the bodie WHIT. pag. 562. See I pray you what followeth vpon your defence that it was needlesse that Christ should die at all for if any action of him being God and man would haue satisfied Gods iustice and wrought mans redemption in vaine did hee shead his blood and suffer death But if this be contrary to the decree iustice of God and not euery punishment but extreame sufferings both of body and soule was to be vndergone as Christ suffered in his body the most b●●ter ●eath so did he in his soule exquisite and extreame sorrowes And out of your similitude it will follow ●s well that he need not to haue descended from heauen to haue been made man or to haue suffered any sorrowes and yet who knoweth not that not only the debtors themselues but their su●●ies must be cast into prison till the creditor be sa●●fied And seeing that in such a suerty as this not the bare payment of money but a reall suffering of grieuous paines was necessary why should we doubt but Christ hath most truly accomplished the part of a suertie Lastly if the bodie doe not sinne why should it suffer the punishment of sinne for is it equall that the body which in your iudgment doth not sinne should be grieuously and eternally punished for sinne And if it bee as you say that the man doth sinne then must the body haue a finger in it for the soule of it selfe is not a man And if Christ tooke mans sinne vpon him it was certainly the sin of the whole man because he hath redeemed the whole bodie but also in his soule wrastle with death because not onely mans bodie but also his soule had offended God and deserued euerlasting death And they that speak against this doctrine being very full of diuine comfort if Caluin doe prosecute somewhat eagerly no good man ought iustly to bee displeased with him for this cause But that you cannot abide and therefore you cry out Oh wicked daies oh monstrous times It may be you haue seene a monster at Rome or rather many monsters which trouble you now with furious thoughts and vrge you to make an outcrie But we Vniuersitie men are not woont much to bee moued with the clamours of mad men For he ouercomes in the Schooles not who can crie out most shrilly but who cā dispute most sitly vnto the truth But I pray you Campian spare your voyce a while and gather your wits together and then I trust you will be somewhat milder anon when you haue rested you a

learne from him many new and excellent points This your first reason seemed very iust in your conceit to maintaine your glorious challenge of disputation with some of the learned of our Vniuersities But Campian you had delt a great deale wiser for your self if either you had neuer conceiued thes● reasons or streightway vpon the birth smothered them For before by your great challenge you begat a maruelous and wonderfull conceit of your selfe in euery mans mind and now when they shall read● those slender reasons of yours they will easily perceiue there is no cause why you should take so much vpon you and they wil tontemptuously deride you as you well deserue hisse you out of their scholes Therefore the counsell which Archidamu● gaue to his Sonne headily venturing to right with the Athenians the same doe our Vniuersitie men giue to to you Either adde to thy might or abate of thy mind for no man Campian euer tooke more vpon him and performed lesse than you haue done But let vs see what other things you bring vs. EDMVND CAMPIAN The second Reason which is the right sense of the Scriptures ANother matter that prouoked me to vndertake this enterprize and that enforced mee little to feare these my aduersaries slender armies is the vsuall inclination of my enemie in expounding the Scriptures full of deceite and void of wisdome These things you Philosophers would quickely finde out and therefore I was desirous of your audience Let vs demaund for example sake of our aduersaries what caused them to deuise this new opinion whereby Christ is * This is false for we doe not exclude Christ from the Supper excluded out of the mysticall supper If they name the Gospell we ioyne with them the very words they are for vs. a Matth. 26 Mark 14. Luk. 22. This is my bodie this is my blood which words seemed to b Luther in epist. ad Argen Luther so forcible that when he earnestly desired to be of Zuinglius mind because by that meanes he might haue wrought the Pope most displeasure yet notwithstanding he yeelded being ouercome and vanquished by the most plaine text of Scripture and as vnwillingly confessed that Christ is truly present in the most holy Sacrament as the c Matth. ● Marke 1. diuels in time past being ouercome with miracles with outcries confessed that Christ is the sonne of God Goe to then the written word doth fauour vs the controuersie is about the true meaning of the written word Let vs trie out this by the words thereunto adioyning d Luk. 22. Mattb. 22. Corpus meum quod pro vobis datur sanguis meus qui pro multis e●lundetur that is My bodie which is giuen for you my blood which shal be shed for many Yet the matter goeth hard on Caluins side and maketh very manifestly and plainely for vs. What say they else Conferre say they the Scriptures together Agreed The c Iohn 6. Matth. 16. Marc. 14. Luc. 22. Gospels make for vs f 1. Cor. 10. 11. S. Paul accordeth also The words the sentences the whole connexion of Scriptures doe often most reuerently repeate the bread and the wine a not able miracle heauenly foode his flesh his bodie his blood Here is nothing figuratiue nothing obscured by doubtfull speeches yet notwithstanding the aduersaries stand stiffely in their opinion and neuer cease wrangling What shall we then doe I hope antiquitie may be heard and that the reuerend hoare head of Fathers of all former ages to Christs time more nigh farther off from the time of these controuersies may be their iudgement determine this debate which we cannot end amongst our selues being suspected one of another * This is false for in this cōtrouersie we willingly admit Antiquity as witnesse They cannot away with that they say then they are betraied They crie out for the sincere and pure word of God they vtterlie reiect all mens commentaries trecherouslie and witlesselie done We will vrge them with the word of God they darken it we call the Saints in heauen for witnesses they refuse them In few words this is their drift that vnlesse thou wilt stand to their owne iudgement that are guiltie there is no iudgement to be had And so they behaue themselues in euerie controuersie betweene vs. As concerning grace powred into vs from heauen inherent iustice the visible Church the necessity of Baptisme Sacraments and sacrifices meritorious works of good folke hope and feare inequality of offences the authoritie of S. Peter the keyes vowes Euangelicall counsailes and other like controuersies we Catholikes in sundrie of our books in our mutuall conference in churches in schooles haue brought forth many and waightie places of Scripture and haue both tried and applied the same They haue scorned at this We haue alledged the interpretations of the auncient Greeke and Latin Churches they haue refused them What say they then marry that M. Doctor Martin Luther or else M. Philip Melanthon or certainelie M. Zuinglius or without doubt M. Caluin and M. Beza haue faithfullie entreated vpon these matters Can I imagine any of you to be so stuffed in the nose that being forewarned cannot quicklie smell out this subtile iugling wherfore I confesse plainlie that I am desirous to haue audience in the Vniuersitie scholes that after I haue called these Ruffian-like knights out of their dark dennes into the open and plaine field I may before your eies discomfite them not by my owne strength which am not to bee compared with the worst of an hundred of our side but by the puissance of the cause and certaintie of the truth which we maintaine WILLIAM WHITAKERS The answere to the second Reason WHat could be said touching the Scriptures wee haue heard wee must proceed to heare what can bee said for the interpretation and exposition of them for our vsuall inclination in expounding the Scriptures saith Campian hath encouraged and incited him earnestly to desire this encounter And we also Campian haue long ago desired to buckle with you herein And at length the Lord hath brought you out of your lurking holes into the broad light that we might trie it out with you but what is our disposition you speake of It is full of deceit say you and void of wisdome Thus you being a man of small reach and lesse discretion do conceite our inclination Assuredly the matter you haue now in hand is a cause of great waight for the force the substance and as it were the soule of the Scripture consisteth in the meaning very well said Hierome The Scriptures are not in the letter but in the vnderstanding Contra Lucifer in 1. cap. ad Gila and in another place a DVR Then Luther and Caluin obtruded a new Gospell vpon the Church when they brought in a new sense of the words such as the whole Christian ●orld knew not yea it had a far other sense of the Scriptures WHIT. pag. 138. If this last

any do denie to be good and holy he may well be held blasphemous against the holy Ghost As for that you both faine that we speake these things and also expresse for what cause wee speake them you bewray your wonderfull wisedome which for those things that are not at all can set downe a reason wherefore they be But we doe willingly preach faith and doe easily permit it to bee contemned of you For you that defend nature against grace and doe trust rather to your owne power than to Christs mercie and doe make voide the promises by precepts cannot haue an honourable opinion of faith You neuer keepe your standing Of Sinne. Campian and you begin the battaile like a runnaway For you haue a wandring and vnstable wit as it seemeth You oppose Illyricus to vs againe in the same cause whose testimonie ought not to be of force against vs. For herein I professe my selfe no lesse an aduersarie to him than your selfe I had almost said than to your selfe For what an vniust and vnreasonable thing is it that you should taxe that opinion as defended by vs which your selfe knoweth to be condemned by our Churches Obiect our owne opinion to vs Campian if you can obiect any wee are not such as that we should thinke whatsoeuer Illyricus could as being a man erre in did any whit concerno vs. But either Illyricus must needes be drawne into this taxation or else this place was quite to be left voide by you For beside Illyricus I thinke you haue no man that thinkes so If you desire to know our opinion of this matter I confesse indeed that that defence of Illyricus did seeme euer very absurd to me For it both smels of the follie of the Manichies and it maketh two soules in a regenerate man and which is a greater matter it destroyes the soule That was alwaies the iudgemēt of the Catholike Church which I professe to be ours that the substance of the soule was not quite slaine by sinne but onely charged and infected with vitious qualities and that sinne is no inward substance of the soule but an r DVR The Catholike Church neuer beleeued that sinne was an accident or qualitie but only a priuation for if it were an accident God should be the cause and author of it WHIT. pag. 573. But this priuation is it not an accidentall thing vvhy then make you a scruple in vvords vvhen you vnderstand the sense An accident is commonly called that vvhich is in some substance but is no part of it vvhich may either be absent or present without the corruption of the subiect and such a thing euery man knovveth sinne is And though I confesse that the nature of sinne consisteth in a priuation yet it is not a bare priuation as you may learne ou● of your Thomas For. 1.2 quaest 82. art 1. he saith sinne is not a meere priuation but a corrupt habit like vnto a disease vvhereby not only health is taken avvay but bad humours are brought vpon the bodie And the Schoole men vvhen they make priuation of originall iustice to be the forme of originall sinne and the matter to be concupiscence or a corrupt inclination of the faculties of the soule vvhat doe they teach but that in sinne there is some positiue thing as Thomas vseth to call it But vvhy do I endeuour to refell you for vvhom Physike is fitter then a refuration As for your reason it hath no force for God is not to be accounted the author of all accidencies but indirectly and by accident Basil saith That the roote and cause of sinne is in our selues euen our freewill accident ſ DVR Basil saith not that sin is an accident or a quality but an affection cōtrary to vertue WHIT. pag. 575. Then must it be somevvhat for nothing cannot be contrarie to vertue Basill writeth truly in that hee denieth that sinne is any liuing substance or indued with a soule Basil i●ub●●p hons 2. August de nuptijs lib. 1. cap. 25. but a qualitie contrarie to the vertue of the soule Augustine t DVR Augustine vvill accuse you for slandering him because he spake not of sin but of concupiscence vvhich he accounted to be no sinne WHIT. pag. 576. Doth Augustine account concupiscence no sinne vvhy then calleth he it an affection of an euill quality vvhy doth he compare it to a disease vvhy doth he demaund the question hovv concupiscence should remaine in the regenerate vvhose sinnes are all remitted if it vvere not a sinne his ansvvere proueth it yet more fully For he saith concupiscence is remitted in Baptisme not that it should be no sinne at all as you vvould haue it but that it should not be imputed for a sinne If it vvere no sinne hovv could it be imputed for a sinne Finally August cont ●ulian lib. 5 cap. 3. affirmeth that it is a sinne and a punishment of sin and a cause of sinne and that in the regenerate It is manifest in the place that he speaketh of that concupiscence against vvhich the spirit lusteth and vvhich in vvithout the consent of the vvill It at any time he denie it to be a sinne it i● not simplie but in opposition to actuall sinne for hovv should that be nothing vvhich is remitted in Baptisme vvhich Christ satisfied for by his blood or is God angry vvith vs for nothing It must therfore needs be sin Originall sinne saith he remaineth not substantially as it were some bodie or spirit but it is a certaine affection of an euill qualitie like a disease Finally Ambrose most plainly Ambros in Rom. 6. c. 7. u DVR Ambrose his vvords refell your error WHIT. pag. 577. Nay they refell your error For hee saith it is a straying from good Novv this straying is an action and not a meere priuation And you your selues earnestly defend that sin is an action If it be an action then an accident then no meere priuation thē not nothing How dwelleth sin in the flesh seeing it is no substance but a straying from good Therfore let vs if you please send away the suspition of this error imposed by you vpon vs to the author himselfe As for that you adde that it is a thing commonly held by this filthie sect that all sinnes be equall verily nothing could be spoken more impudently Pardon me Campian if I answere you somewhat sharpely for your vnmodest and intolerable impudencie wrung that terme from me Are you so far spent that you are not able to charge vs with any true crime but shamelessely to obiect those things against vs from which we of all others are farthest off For who did euer more vehemently disallow or more strongly confute this paradoxe of the Stoiks than our Diuines whom you now pursue All records of these times may be witnesses hereof our bookes Churches and Schooles be witnesses as also both the ciuill and Church Discipline may be a witnesse Did you thinke that you could creepe