Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	apostle_n	church_n	time_n	2,079	5	3.8715	3	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A08426	A true report of the disputation or rather priuate conference had in the Tower of London, with Ed. Campion Iesuite, the last of August. 1581. Set downe by the reuerend learned men them selues that dealt therein. VVhereunto is ioyned also a true report of the other three dayes conferences had there with the same Iesuite. Which nowe are thought meete to be published in print by authoritie	Nowell, Alexander, 1507?-1602.; Day, William, 1529-1596. aut; Fielde, John, d. 1588.; Fulke, William, 1538-1589. aut; Goad, Roger, 1538-1610. aut; Campion, Edmund, Saint, 1540-1581. aut; Walker, John, d. 1588. aut; Charke, William, d. 1617. aut	1583 (1583)	STC 18744; ESTC S113389	169,017	230

purpose is not to deale by discourse but briefely by Logical arguments according to the order of schooles c. After he had inquired D. Fulkes name Campion also spake after this maner Campion The disputation that I desire is yet behinde for I desire it might bee in the Uniuersities This may bee called a conference but it is not the disputation which I require Besides these conferences are vnequall both in respect of the suddainnesse of them as also for want of such necessary helpes as were fitte and conuenient I see that you haue some appoynted to note as if it were made a solemne matter I shoulde haue the like so shoulde I haue come better furnished and all these might haue bene better profited Besides I haue bene yll dealt withall already things heretofore spoken by me haue bene mistaken and published in print otherwise then I euer meant D. Fulke For the suddennesse it is all alike with vs. Master Lieutenant sent you worde by my request to chuse the question your selfe on Saturday last at noone so that you had knowledge of the question as soone as we and also the choyse and appointing thereof As for the noting it is not made so solemne a matter that it can preiudice you but to preuent false reportes that may bee spread of the conference iniurious as well to you as to vs. As for the disputation you require it is not at our appoyntment It must be ordred by them that are to appoynt both you and vs. We come by commandement c. but let vs goe to the matter You slaunder vs and Master Caluine likewise in the thirde chapter of your booke for defining of the Catholike Church as we do You say we make it a Platonicall Idaea an ayrie thing that is no where c. But I will proue that it is against the nature of the Catholike Church at any time to be visible Campion Where do I slaunder you or Caluine Reade my booke I wil maintaine my booke and euery part of it And as for the Catholike Church I will mayntaine that from the time of Adam to Christ and from Christ vnto vs the Church hath bene visible But because you say I slaunder you and Caluine shewe my wordes D. Fulke These are your wordes Non est ausus contrauenire sonitu videri noluit Ecclesiae quam toties Scripturae commemorant refragari nomen callidè retinuit rem ipsam funditùs definiendo sustulit c. And ye quote Cal. Institut lib. 4. cap. 1. Sect. 2. 3. Here you plainely slaunder Caluine and vs for defining the Catholike Church comprehending all the elect of God that haue bene are or shal be to be inuisible Camp The Catholike Church is considered according to her parts triumphant in heauen and militant on earth generally particularly and I am ready to maintaine that alwayes the militant Church in earth is visible euery 〈◊〉 in his mayer knoweth this who in their prayers pray for the Church militant therefore this is the poynt whether this be alwayes visible Fulke Wel then it appeareth in the very beginning that you swarue from the title of your owne booke sclaundering vs without cause for the definition of the whole Catholike Church and Sophistically you goe from the whole to a parte from the Catholike Church to the Church militant which is but a part of it when as the whole Catholike Church comprehendeth all the elect and is the full body of Christ that filleth all in all things as the Apostle sayeth and as we confesse in the articles of our faith We beleeue the Catholike church We deny not that the church militant sometime is visible but we affirme that the whole Catholike Church whereof our definition is giuen is not visible And what cause haue you then to exclaime vpon Caluine and vs for defining the Catholike Church to be inuisible This we are here ready to prooue Camp I haue sayd that vpon earth the Church is alwayes visible But I pray you let vs speake of the Church militant I am sure these gentlemen would heare not of a Church of Saints in heauen but of a Church in earth w●…etd they may ioyne themselues what shoulde we talke of the Church in heauen They would rather knowe I am sure of what Church they are here Aske them Fulke Wel then you are found recreant in this paynt openly to sclaunder our definition to be such as should take away the nature of the Church in that we make it inuisible and now when it commeth to the tryall you will not deale with the Catholike Church whereof our definition is giuen but with a part of it to witte that which is vpon earth which wee neuer denyed in some sense to be alwayes visible because it consisteth of men vpō earth although it be not alwayes seene because it is oftentimes hidden from the worlde and sometimes also from the true members thereof But this Church vpon earth you wil haue to be alwaies visible Seeing therefore you giue ouer y● defence of your slaūder of our definition of the Catholike Church which we came prepared to maintaine we are ready also to reason of the church militāt Campion The state of the question is that the Church militant vpon earth can not be hidden but it is alwayes knowen so that a man may vnderstand of what Church he is c. Fulke The case may be such as a member can know no more but himselfe what meane you by visible Campion I meane to be visible is to knowe one another to meete at Sacraments when I can tell that I am of this church and you of that I a Catholike and you a Protestant as I certainely know there is a Church in Fraunce a church in Spaine and in Flaunders though I be farre from it and we may knowe one another a member can say This is my pastor these are my prelates and gouernours This is playne I would to God I had one also to write for me I pray you let me not be mistaken for I haue had great wrong that wayes and thinges haue bene put in print that I neuer spake or meant Fulke If we haue this discoursing we shal neuer haue done I would you would be briefe I will prooue from a place of scripture that the church militant vnderstanding visible as you say is not alwayes visible in earth Elias complaineth that he was left alone c. Ergo the Church was not then visible Campion I deny the Antecedent further declare the meaning of the place which maketh altogether for me For Elias setteth out the schismatical church of the Samaritanes In this schismaticall church a member being driuen out as sometime it falleth out to be the worlde turning and changing he might not know the rest but yet knew there were 7000. that neuer bowed their knees to Baal Agayne you must not bring a particular to ouerthrowe a generall There were none there therefore

Rom. Chap. 3. verse 20. chap. 4. verse 13. Eph. 2. ver 8. and verse 9. 2. Tim. 1. 9. Tit. 3. 5. beside some other Camp I doe but request that I may answere them seuerally for not one of them proueth your assertion Charke If you answere any of them I will subscribe to your doctrine in this point Tush Camp you may not thinke to face out the matter with these bare words Dare you say our iustification is partly of workes when the holy Ghost saith so often plainely and exclusiuely Not of workes Without workes Not of the lawe but without the lawe Herein I challenge you that make challenge against the trueth will proue that this weightie and great cause which may worthily be called the soule of the Church is directly and plainely set downe in all these places Denie it if you can Camp Bring one of the eleuen places Charke What say you to the Apostles conclusion Rom. 3. verse 20 Therefore by the deedes of the lawe no flesh shall be iustified Camp Will you giue me leaue to answere and to speake somewhat generally to this Charke You haue a particular place make a particular answere plainely and to the issue roue not in generall discourses that come not neere the marke Camp The meaning of Saint Paul in such places is to exclude the Iewes Ceremonies For the Iewes asseuering the obseruation of the lawe the keeping of their sacrifices and ceremonies as Circumcision c. to be necessarie to saluation S. Paul informeth the Gentiles that these things were not so necessary but faith was sufficient This he vrgeth throughout the Scripture So that faith is vrged but not faith only Againe by faith is meant all Christianitie and the whole religion of Christians which is sufficient without any parcell of the Iewes religion This is one generall consideration why Paul so often vrgeth faith throughout the Epistle to the Romanes and else where Another generall consideration is for that the wise men of the Gentiles did alledge their moralities as a cause of their election which Paul in the same Epistle stoode specially vpon and meant to confute as is afore sayde Charke Whether of these two interpretations you will allowe it followeth by your owne exposition that the Apostle concluding for faith against workes concludeth that it is Faith only that iustifieth shutting out all such workes as are opposed vnto it Nowe whereas you say that the workes opposite to faith are onely either the morall workes of the Gentiles or the Ceremoniall of the Iewes I will easily ouerthrowe the distinction Camp Ouerthrowe it then Charke First there was neuer any such errour mainteined in the Church that the morall workes of the Gentiles shoulde iustifie therefore Paul neuer laboured so much and so often to confute that errour which did not trouble the Church As for the Ceremonial workes the Apostles writing to the Ephesians not iustified with the obseruation of Iewish ceremonies had no cause to barre ceremoniall workes from iustification Therefore he teacheth that all the workes of the faithfull euen of Abraham are excluded from being causes of iustification and not Ceremonies onely or the moralities of heathen men as you imagine against the Apostles argument and scope in those places Camp The generall scope of Saint Paul is to exclude all workes both of Iewes and Gentiles in that Epistle but in the way of discourse I denie not but incidently an other answere is to be giuen Charke This last part of your speach is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the first doeth graunt all that I desire Camp He excludeth the precedent workes of Abraham Charke The ende why works are secluded from iustification doeth proue for me for the Apostle in that place sheweth the finall counsaile purpose of the Lord to be farre otherwise then you suppose And to remember my promise of Syllogisme I will proue it by the very forme of the Apostles wordes The ende and the meanes differ not The ende of our iustification was to exclude all workes precedent or consequent from being causes of iustification Therefore the meanes also must exclude euen all workes precedent and consequent going before or comming after Camp The ende was not to exclude all workes consequent Charke Whatsoeuer it was wherein Abraham might glorie that was excluded from iustification But in workes consequent or following he might glorie Therefore they also and al other workes whatsoeuer first and last are secluded and can be no cause or piece of cause in our iustification Camp The example of Abraham proueth that Abraham was iust before the couenant of Circumcision and so before the lawe of Moses was giuen and therefore he inferreth that the Iewes must not glorie of iustification through their lawe and by the ceremonies thereof seeing their father Abraham was iust before circumcision and therefore circumcision not necessary to iustification But though workes voyde of Christ are nothing yet thorowe grace they serue to iustification Charke Is this your way to answere Syllogismes to tell a tale of your owne and expaunde newe matter leauing the question Answere shortly Abraham hath nothing left to glorie in Therefore all workes whatsoeuer are excluded and so faith onely iustifieth Camp That is another place Charke Answere it then be it another or the same Camp The Apostle meaneth to shewe that Abraham was iustified by workes done in grace and not by workes without expectation of Christ or voide of Christ. Charke An open contradiction to the holy Ghost note it The Apostle faith Master Campion proueth that Abraham was iustified by workes I reply against you with a double argument First Abraham had all his workes of Christ for hee was faithfull therefore the works excluded are works wrought in grace Secondly he speaketh not of him as of an infidel but as being the father of beleeuers Therefore the Apostle excludeth not workes without expectation of Christ as you speake Answere it Campion Camp I answere that no works of Abraham are excluded Charke And I haue proued that all are excluded and you can neither answere the syllogisme nor satisfie the place of Saint Paul The text and argument is cleare If Abraham were iustified by any workes he had wherein to glorie But he could not glorie in any thing for that were absurde by the Apostles reason Therefore there were no workes of merite or iustification in him Camp This is the Apostles reason All the good workes of Abraham were founded in Christ and by these good workes he was iustified therefore he was iustified by Christ. For if he had bene iustified by other workes excluding Christ he might haue gloried and not bene iustified by Christ. Charke I can goe no further in this argument For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is against you that is the plaine text and argument Also I aduow it and make all this companie witnesses that you haue vttered in these straytes plaine contradictorie propositions The Apostle proueth that Abraham was

Goade That is not to the point though some remained yet they were hidde All being persecuted and put to death that coulde be knowen or founde Campion The time of these persecutions was euen like to our times For then the Christians were exiled put to death driuē into corners as the Catholikes are nowe and yet there remained inough c. and they were knowen Goade Surely you make euill and vntrue conparisons you haue no such cause to complaine of bloody persecutiōs in the time of our gratious Queene and doe not wel to compare her highnes peaceable and milde gouernement with those tyrannical persecutions ye might better liken your crueltie shewed in Queene Maries time to those examples I had thought to haue founde more modestie in you Campion Well let the comparison bee of Q. Maries time then Protestants were put to death yet there remained many Goade The question is not whether they remained but whether they were seen But you said of those Emperours times that there remained many and they were not vnknowen They were vnknowen both to the faithles and faithfull ergo they were altogether vnknowen Campion I deny both partes of the antecedent Goade Then I must proue both distinctly and first touching the faithles The faithles could not knowe the Church therefore they did not knowe it Camp They knew it not by faith but by sense they knewe it Goade Iohn 3. The worlde knoweth not vs because it knoweth not him Campion I tolde you they did not knowe him as they ought to know him to saluation They knewe but not fruitfully and effectually As I knowe you are a Protestant but yet beleeue not your religion And a man that saith Masse is knowen and yet you doe not beleeue in it Goade But though the persons were knowen yet they knewe them not to be of the Church I will come to the other part of the antecedent As is the whole so are the partes But God onely knoweth the whole Ergo he onely knoweth the partes For the members of Christ are knowen to Christ alone By reason of many hypocrites men are not able to iudge who are truely faithfull There are many wolues within and many sheepe without Deus nouit qui sunt sui 2. Tim. 2. God knoweth who are his therefore the true members of Christ can not be knowen but to God alone Campion I knowe not who is elect but I knowe who is a Catholike I knowe not whether the Bishop of Rome bee elect or no c. Goade Onely the elect are of the Church whereof Christ is the head Camp I say that both good euill are of the visible Church Goade Christ hath no dead members of his body therefore the reprobate can not bee of the Church I will helpe you with a distinction They may be in the Church but not of the Church Campion The distinction is Caluins and therefore I refuse it But you answere your selfe for euill men may be viua membra Christi the liuely members of Christ in respect of faith but not in respect of charitie A man may be a member of the body of Christ as it is here in earth being a wicked man but onely the godly are members of his body as it is in heauen Your own argument doth confound you It is impossible to knowe the elect therefore it is impossible the Church should be inuisible Goade It is your parte to answere not to oppose you vse many words graunt absurdities Your argumēt doth not folow Campion You cannot know any particular man to be elect you cannot pronounce it of your selfe therefore you cannot measure the Church by election then it remaineth the Church must be visible because it must be knowen Goade To be elect or true members of Christ is one thing to be in the visible Church is another Campion This was Wickliefes error that onely the electe were true members of the Church but as I haue sayde no man can knowe who is elect and therefore you teache that no man can knowe a member of the Church nor no man can knowe that he shall be saued Goade Particular electiō is not so vnknowen as you would make it for a man may haue knowledge of his owne election by vndoubted testimonies and see the signes of election in others Fulke You saide before that visibilitie was an inseparable qualitie of the Church whereupon I reason thus If it be an inseparable qualitie it is an inseparable note But it is not an inseparable note Ergo not an inseparable qualitie Campion I deny both the Maior and the Minor both may be doubted of Fulke I will proue both Campion Giue me leaue A note is more then a qualitie The qualitie is to goe right to goe the neerest and gainest way the safest way A note is a marke that may be remoued that teacheth to turne on the right hand or on the lefte by this crosse or by that windmill or marke c. Fulke I graunt there is a difference betweene a note and a qualitie and you needed not so many wordes to haue shewed that but I speake of an inseparable note and an inseparable qualitie That qualitie which is inseparable being also a note must needes be an inseparable note Also of that your selfe haue saide that it is an essentiall qualitie I will proue the Maior Whatsoeuer marke is of the essence or nature is inseparable The visiblenes is a marke which is of the essence and nature of the Church Therefore it is an inseparable marke Campion It is an inseparable qualitie but not an inseparable note but after a sorte for a qualitie must euermore stande but a marke may be taken away Fulke The question is whether it be an inseparable note of the Church that cannot be taken away Campion I say it may be in a sense Fulke I know not what sense you speake of but this is euident by your owne confession the visiblenes of the Church is a marke and it is of the nature Ergo it is inseparable so my Maior is plaine Campion Proue your Minor Fulke There was a time when visiblenes was no note of the Church ergo it is not an inseparable note Campion I deny the Antecedent Fulke There was a time when the Church was only knowē by the Scriptures therefore there was a time when visiblenes was no note of the Church Campion I deny both the Antecedent and the consequent Fulke I will proue both and first the Antecedent Cam. Nay proue the consequent first then the antecedēt Fulke Why the other is first both in order and nature Campion Nay Whensoeuer the consequent is denied you must straight proue the argument Fulke That is if the consequent onely be denied but seeing you deny both I will first proue that which in nature order is first and afterward I will proue the other if it neede It is but a sory shift of you to decline from the point of the question Chrysostome

sanctiss Patriarcha dixit Animaduertamus dictum patris quod illic Samaritae imagines Domini seruatoris nostri item intemeratae eius matris subuerterunt hic vero Gentiles Ostendit autem pater quod Angelos pingere oportet quando circumscribi possint vt homines apparuerint Sacra Synodus dixit Etiam domine Concerning Angels and Archangels and the powers of them vnto whome also I adioyne our soules the Catholike Church her selfe doeth so thinke that they are in deede intelligible but not altogether voyde of bodies and inuisible as you Gentiles do say but that they haue a thinne bodie either of ayre or of fyre as it is written Which maketh his Angels spirites and his ministers a burning fire And so we haue knowen that many of the holy fathers haue thought among whome is Basill surnamed the great and blessed Athanasius and Methodius and them that stande with them Onely God is without body and shape but the intelligible creatures are not altogether bodiles and they are such as may be portraicted in picture Wherefore they are in place also and haue a circumscription although they be not bodily as we are as of the foure elementes and that grosse matter Yet no man may say that Angels or deuils or soules are without bodies for they haue bene often seene in their proper bodies but of them to whome the Lord hath opened their eyes Therefore we do paint and worship them not as God but as intelligible creatures and the ministers of God but yet not as truely being without body But that they are painted in the shape of man the cause is that they haue bene seen in that shape if at any time they did execute the ministerie of God amōgst mē Tharasius the most holy Patriarch saide Let vs marke the saying of the father that there the Samaritans did ouerthrowe the images of our Lord and sauiour and also of his vndefiled mother but here the Gentiles The father also sheweth that wee ought to paint the Angels seeing they may be circumscribed and haue appeared as men The holy Synode said Yea my Lord. Campion You haue answered your selfe Fulke That is your common answere when you can coyne no better Camp I answered then and so do nowe Assumunt corpora They take bodies vpon them they haue none of their owne Fulke He saith they may be circumscribed Camp That is they may be painted Fulke Nay he saith plainely they are not Expertes corporis voyde of body and defineth of what bodily matter they consist namely of ayre or fire and for that he alleageth the scripture also he sayth they are not inuisible Campion Looke in what bodies they haue appeared in such they may be painted they did appeare as men they bee not men neither haue they bodies of their owne Fulke He saith expressely they haue bene seene in their owne proper body Campion The iudgemēt of the Councill is that the Angels may be painted that is all Fulke That is not all for it affirmeth that they are circumscriptible and visible as I said before Campion You haue proued no error of the Councill Fulke We might haue brought the Epitome of the Councils gathered by one Bartholemew Garanza a Spanish Fryer which noteth it for an error in that Councill contrary to the Lateran Councill vnder Innocentius the third who thought him selfe as well learned as you Campion It is no matter Fulke Yes it is a matter when Papistes agree not amongst them selues Campion You should haue brought it I woulde haue answered him also Fulke Well let them that bee wise and learned peruse the Councill at their leasure Further in reasoning of Peters reprehension you said his error was a matter of facte and not of faith for the Pope you say may so erre and bee reprehended of a poore Priest who may say vnto him Sir why do you so To this I replied that so to reprehend the Pope was against your owne Canon lawe which now I proue out of the decrees Parte 1. Distinct. 40. cap. Si Papa suae fraternae salutis negligēs deprehenditur inutilis remissus in suis operibus insuper a bono taciturnus quod magis officit sibi omnibus nihilominus innumerabiles populos cateruatim secum ducit primo mancipio gehennae cum ipso plagis multis in aeternū vapulaturos Huius culpas istic redarguere praesumit mortalium nullus qui cunctos ipse iudicaturus a nemine est iudicandus nisi deprehendatur à fide deuius Pro cuius perpetuo statu vniuersit as fidelium tanto instantius or at quanto suam salutem post Deum ex illius incolumitate animaduertit propensius pendere If the Pope be found negligent of his owne and his brethrens saluation vnprofitable and remisse in his workes and also holding his peace of goodnesse which doeth more hurt him and all men neuertheles he leadeth with him innumerable people by heapes to the chiefe slaue of hell with whome hee shal be beaten with many stripes for euer No mortall man doeth here presume to reproue his faultes because he him selfe being to iudge all men is to bee iudged of no man except he be founde erring from the faith for whose perpetuall state the vniuersitie of faithfull doeth pray so much the more earnestly by how much it perceaueth their saluation after God to hang more readily of his health Againe by the Extrauagant De concessione prebendae titulo 4. cap. 2. ad Apostolatus in the Glosse where hee sheweth that the Pope may doe that which to all others is forbidden Nec est qui audeat dicere Domine cur ita facis And in the marginall note Papae nullus audeat dicere Domine cur ita facis No man may be bolde to say to the Pope Syr why do you so Camp Reade the decree againe Fulke Si Papa c. Campion The meaning of the decree is that no man may iudicially reprehende him I say so Fulke Both the decree the Extrauagant speake generally that the Pope must not be reprehended of any man except he be an hereticke whereof it followeth that Gratians Decree and the Glosse thought not but that he might erre in faith Camp Mine answere is he may doe it soberly as a man may with humilitie reprehende his prince but not iudge him Fulke Let other men iudge I haue shewed as much as I promised out of the Canon Law You charged me to affirme in mine answere to Bristow that so a man holde the foundation of faith it is no matter what errors he holde beside Here is my booke shewe these wordes or any wordes to that sense as you promised Camp You say that the true Church may erre in matters of great weight so they retaine the foundation Fulke I say that so long as a man holdeth the foundation though he erre in small matters he may be saued Cam. You say the fathers erred in inuocation of Saints which is a great matter with Gods

Augustine Camp The words are forcible of bread is made flesh Sermo Christi est operatorius The word of Christ is of power efficacy Goade That is of common bread is now made Christes body appointed to be a sacrament of his body And although this be a wonderfull chaunge by the force of Christes word and Institution that common bread should be chaunged to a spirituall vse yet Ambrose doeth not say that the substance of breade is chaunged but rather the contrary that the substance doeth still remaine as appeareth by diuers examples of miracles he alleadgeth in the same chapter and also by his wordes Vt sint quae erant in aliud commutentur That they should remaine and be as they were also be chaunged touching the vse Now you haue vrged what you can out of Ambrose I will returne againe to followe mine argument drawen from the wordes of the Institution as they are explaned by S. Paul 1. Cor. 10. 16. Panis quem frangimus c. The bread which we breake is it not the partaking of the body of Christ Whereby appeareth that after sanctification remayneth bread for he sayth the bread which we breake and breaking followeth after blessing or sanctifying It can not be vnderstoode the body of Christ for that can not be broken So by this place after consecration remaineth bread still Campion It reteineth still the name of bread in diuers respects first because it was bread before and secondly because it hath the shew of bread as Moyses rod being turned into a serpēt keepeth still the name it had before Goade You are nowe wandring into discourses I will not followe you The Apostles plaine wordes taketh away your answere It followeth in the text We are all partakers of the same bread he sayth not the same that was bread before and it is consecrate before it commeth to participation And the same Apostle in the next chapter oftentimes repeateth and calleth it breade when it commeth to be receiued after sanctification Campion I haue giuen you two causes why it is so called I will adde the third because of the analogie betweene the bread and that which feedeth our soules Make a Syllogisme Goade I vrge the wordes of the Apostle there needeth no Syllogisme answere plainely and directly Campion I haue giuen three causes why it is called bread Goade Your causes can not stand For touching your comparison of the rod turned into a serpent there appeared a sensible chaunge as is vsuall in miracles but here is no such thing in the sacrament and therefore the comparison holdeth not And for the analogie it maketh directly against you For euen as the bread receiued feedeth the body so ●…eth Christ the soule But if when it commeth to be receiued into the body there be no bread in deede as you say then where is your analogie Campion It suffiseth that it was bread before and so appeareth the analogie by the feeding of our soules Goade What doeth the bread feede our soules Camp Yea Christ that is the bread of life feedeth our soules Make a Syllogisme and then we shal see whether your argumēt hath any face or force Goade Wee are come to the wordes and authoritie of the Scripture If the wordes of Christes Institution and all these manifest places of the Apostle be of no force then I confesse mine argument to be nothing I leaue you to iudgement Fulke Your answere is taken away by the worde breaking The breade which wee breake c. The bodie of Christ is not broken but the breade and not that which appeareth to bee breade Campion The bread is broken by qualitie and not by substance Can substance be broken Bulke Bread is broken And bread is substance Therefore substance is broken When stickes are broken shal we say that the subance of them is not broken but the accidents this is foolish Sophistrie But I will reason thus with you There is something in the Sacrament materiall which goeth the way of all meates Ergo there is bread and wine Campion Whatsoeuer becommeth of all those qualities the colour the taste the quantitie c. it happeneth to them as to accidentes for it is certaine there remayneth neyther bread nor wine Fulke The taste goeth not that way nor in deede any of the accidentes vnaltered but heare what Origen sayeth in Matth. cap. 15. Quod si quic quid in os ingreditur in ventrem abit in secessum eijcitur ille cibus qui sanctificatur per verbum Dei perque obsecrationem iuxta id quod habet materiale in ventrem abit in secessum eijcitur Caeterum iuxta precationem quae illi accessit pro portione fidei fit vtilis efficiens vt perspicax fiat animus spectans ad id quod vtile est Nec materia panis sed super illum dictus sermo est qui prodest non indignè comedenti illum Et haec quidem de typico Symbolicoque corpore Camp The quantitie is auoyded and other accidents Fulke It is monstruous that you speake Origen sayeth the materiall part of the Sacrament and the matter of bread I will reade his wordes in Englishe If whatsoeuer entreth into the mouth goeth into the belly and is cast out into the draught euen that meate also which is sanctified by the worde of God and by prayer according to that which it hath materiall goeth into the belly and is cast forth into the draught But according to the prayer which is added vnto it after the portion of faith it is made profitable causing that the minde may be made cleare of sight looking to that which is profitable Neyther is it the matter of bread but the worde spoken ouer it which profiteth him that eateth it not vnworthily And these things are spoken of the typicall and symbolicall body Campion I haue answered The accidents go the quantitie qualitie and such like Fulke The place is playne Origen acknowledgeth a materiall part of the Sacrament which is substance In what praedicament is Materia Campion In none Materia taken indefinitely is in no praedicament for it is in all praedicaments The matter of substance is in substance of quantitie in quantitie c Fulke Wel then the matter of substance is substāce The matter of bread is the matter of substance therfore the matter of bread is substance Then it is substance and not accidentes which is auoyded by Origens iudgement Campion He sayth not the matter of bread is auoyded Fulke He sayeth that meate which is sanctified according to that which it hath materiall is auoyded Meate is that which feedeth accidents feede not Therefore accidents are not called meate Campion Accidentes doe feede and that I will stande to prooue Fulke Philosophie Physieke and Diuinitie are much beholding to you It was neuer heard of before that bare accidentes without substance could feede or nourish Campion He meaneth the matter of the sacrament and not the materiall substance of bread which is

iustified by workes he leaueth nothing for Abraham to glorie in but you leaue wherein he may both glorie and iustifie him selfe You haue also said the precedent workes of Abraham were excluded and which is the contrarie that no works of Abraham were excluded These things are very bad which I the rather repeate to lay open your contradictions for some that I thinke are present and looke for no such weakenesse in their Champion Camp What neede you aduowe I aduowe the contrarie And I say that Abraham was iustified by good workes in Christ. Charke There is no such worde in Paul but the contrary very often Therefore your affirmatiue is contrarie to the holy Ghostes often repeated negatiue Not of workes Without workes Camp I say you must repent before you die or else you shall finde what it is to charge me with that which is not true A particular example must haue a particular answere His workes be not to his glorie because his works were foūded in Christ therefore Christ must be all to his glorie Ahraham was alreadie iust and in the fauour of God before these things were sayde and so being iust he was made more iust and so first iust and afterward iustified and was not iustified by workes that went before his iustification but being alreadie iust was made more iust by works And this was one of his good workes Credidit deo he beleeued in God and to say the Creede is a meritorious worke and the worke of faith is a worke Charke These discourses you might well haue spared and framed a short answere to my argument For yet you answere not the Apostles negatiue which ouerthroweth both your affirmatiue your distinction contradictorie to the Apostles wordes For to be iustified without workes as the Apostle saith and to be iustified by workes as you say are contradictorie if your words be true the Apostles are false But seeing I can haue nothing for answere but indirect speaches or wordes ful of contradiction I will giue place a while Walker We that be the children of Abraham and Christians are iustified by the same faith that Abraham was iustified But Abraham was iustified by faith onely and by nothing else Therefore we are iustified by faith and by nothing else that is by faith onely Camp I answere to the Maior As Abraham being a iust man was made more iust by a liuing faith so the children of Abraham being alreadie iustified eucrease their righteousnesse by a liuing faith Walker Doe you thinke that we are borne of our parents as the sonnes of Abraham or as the sonnes of Adam Are we iustified by the fame meanes that Abraham was or no Camp Yea by the same meanes Walker But Abraham was iustified by faith onely therefore we Camp I denie the Antecedent Walker Paul saith Sed robustus factus est fide c. Rom. 4. Imputatum est illi ad iustitiam And whether did faith giue credite to the promise of God whose proper and onely office it is Campion To giue credite to the promise is the proper office of faith but to giue credite to the office of God effectually is the office both of faith and charitie Walker In the office of giuing credite you adde that which is not in the text Camp It must needes be vnderstoode because the Apostle speaketh of Abraham alreadie iustified which had not bene possible if he had not had faith and charitie Walker What made him giue glorie to God Robustus factus fide dedit gloriam deo Being made strong in faith he gaue glorie to God Camp The good worke gaue glorie to God For it was a good worke in Abraham Charke I will vse another Argument Whosoeuer is iustified is iustified according to the tenour eyther of the first or of the seconde couenant for there are but two couenants But no man is iustified according to the tenour of the first couenant which is by the workes of the lawe Therefore by the forine or tenour of the seconde which is by Faith onely Camp I graunt all in this sense By Faith onely not as Faith is distinct from charitie but as faith is distinct from the olde lawe so that the worde onely doeth exclude all things impertinent to faith and include all things inherent to faith Charke Wordes I will proue them to be but wordes following my argument The charter or stipulation of the first couenant is Doe this and thou shalt liue of the seconde The righteous man shall liue by Faith Therefore this forme of speach in the Couenant excludeth your implication and all ioyning of workes with faith Camp I answere that the Formula of the second couenant is Christ. Charke You vnderstande not then what Formula is Camp Teach me then Charke I will teach you Christ I graunt is the cause and authour of the couenant of saluation but the forme or tenour of a couenant are concepta stata verba the set and standing wordes whereby the condition and issue of the couenant is expressed For example of the first couenant published in Sinai this is the forme Hoc fac viues Doe this and thou shalt liue of the second out of Sion this Iustus ex fide viuet The iust shall liue by faith which is in effect Beleeue this and thou shalt liue Camp The seconde couenant is all the religion of Christ which includeth fayth hope and charitie For otherwise the Eucharist were excluded Hee meaneth therefore by fayth all obedience Charke This is expressely against the Apostles doctrine and argument Galat. 3. vers 11 12. who there proueth that faith and workes are opposite causes of saluation Camp The second couenant is that we shall be saued by doing those things that Christ commanded and the first couenant was by doing all that Moses commanded And this is the very interpretation and meaning of the Apostle The righteous shal liue by fayth that is by fayth of Christ. Charke A false position I pray you is obedience the faith of Christ Is it faith to fulfull that which Christ commādeth or not rather to beleeue that he hath promised and performed Camp Yea that it is Charke How can that be seeing the Apostle Gal. 3. vers 12. doth not onely set downe the two couenants in Sinai and Sion with their seuerall forme of words but addeth plainly The lawe is not of fayth and maketh workes and fayth opposite causes of iustificatiō teaching that he that is iustified by Christ is not iustified by works and he that is iustified by workes looseth the benefite of Christ. Your wordes therefore must haue a third couenant that the righteous man liueth partly by fayth and partly by workes or else they cannot stand Camp I answere to this The law is not of fayth that is the law as it is a naked commandement is a burthen and so it is not of fayth that is it doth not giue the iustice which we haue by fayth of Christ. Charke You haue giuen

not vouchsafe the Doctours an answere shall they be sent away before they haue receiued their answere Camp They wrote vpon occasion against an heretike hauing affiance in workes Charke Be it so then they write aswell against Papists hauing affiance in workes Camp They had affiance in workes done without Christ and are therefore reproued by the Fathers Charke This is onely sayde to shake them all off with one false distinction Agayne it was a straunge occasion you speake of that made the Fathers write an vntrueth But rather you are straunge to expounde them directly against their wordes saying Faith onely doeth iustifie I could here helpe you with a better answere which the better learned on your side vse to this obiection Camp It was the heresie that most troubled Christians in the Primitiue Church Charke This is a newe question and in doubt But howe will you euer bee able to proue that the Apostle disputing for iustification by fayth against iustification by woorkes excludeth onely Paganisme Answere this Camp I haue answered Charke In deede you haue stil somwhat to say but not to answere that point of the argument which most woundeth your cause Therefore a Syllogisme against your shift The Apostle excludeth the morall Lawe from iustifying Therefore your distinction is wast Camp But he excludeth not charitie and good workes Charke What a But is that Is there any charitie or be there any good workes not conteyned vnder the morall and eternall Lawe of God If the deedes of the morall Lawe be shut out from the causes of our iustification by S. Paul what doore can you open to let them in againe Camp I say charitie and good workes are not excluded Charke And I say this is still to begge the question and not to answere the Argument So your doctrine is sufficiently ouerthrowen Walker Besides a great sort of places that master Charke hath brought Sadolet one of your owne hath a plaine place in Epist. ad Rom. Abraham attulit tantum fidem non sua opera And againe Quantum quisque affert de sua iustitia tantum defert de diuina beneficentia c. Camp It is but lost time that you you alleadge Sadolet Hee was but a man of late yeres whose credite is not to be set against the determination of the whole Church besides his meaning was that man should not trust in his owne workes Walker You will allowe no man neither those that are against you nor with you But if he had dealt as soundly in other things as in this he had bene to be striued withall He sheweth by an apt similitude that if a man take a Potte hauing some troubled water in it and goeth to the cleare water to fill it the troubled foule water in the potte doeth not become cleare but rather troubleth and defileth the water which was cleare Euen so the more we bring of our owne the lesse we attribute to God and the lesse we receiue from God Wee must bring nothing of our owne to God It is troubled water when we mingle our workes and righteousnes with Gods Camp Let the similitude be rehearsed It is an apt similitude He that commeth to be iustified by Christ must not bring troubled water but cleare that is those good workes that he did before and those prayers that he made before his morall deedes his almes his fasting c. For all the morall workes that are done before they are troubled water but those we doe afterwards they are made cleare in the Passion of Christ although they be not in all respects perfect Charke I wil so proue that good workes haue no place in iustification that you shall not be able to answere and because the Doctors can haue no answere I will returne to Scripture Sanctification and iustification are two sundry things Therefore good workes the fruites of sanctification haue no place in iustification Camp Make your Syllogisme Charke Whatsoeuer is an effect of sanctification that followeth is not a cause of iustification that went before But charitie and other good woorkes are effectes of sanctification which followeth Therfore they be no causes of iustification which goeth before Answere if you can Camp I deny that they are onely of sanctification they are of both Charke They be disparata handled by the Apostle as diuers things also the one some degrees before the other Therfore you doe euil to confound priora posteriora the effectes of the latter with the causes of the former Camp Is this the argument that can not be answered I say whosoeuer is iustified is also sanctified and so good workes proceede from both Charke Let all men marke the absurditie of this speache If good workes proceede from sanctification and sanctification from iustification howe can good workes goe before them both as a cause seeing they come after both as an effect Thus you are entoyled Here was an open misliking of the answeres and some speach of making an ende Then M. Charke saide I woulde faine vse one argument more to turne Campion out of all his shiftes and to let the company vnderstand his weakenes and especially the weakenes of his cause Campion Let vs heare what argument this is whereof you make such bragges Charke The authoritie and trueth of scriptures for my cause maketh me so confident Therefore marke the argument well We are iustified by Imputation onely Therefore by faith onely Camp Nego Maiorem I deny your Maior Charke I proue the Maior if you so call it Christ died onely by Imputation Therefore we liue onely by Imputation and are consequently iustified by faith onely Camp I deny the argument Charke I proue it by Analogie Christ died onely through the imputation of our sinne Therefore if we liue we liue onely by the imputation of his righteousnes And therfore to say that we liue by any imputation of our owne good workes is asmuch as to say that Christ died by imputation of some of his owne sinne For this analogie and proportion betwixt the causes of Christes death and the causes of our life doth necessarily hold and must diligently be obserued Camp I answere to your similitude Charke If it be a similitude it is by good analogie and demonstration of trueth out of the scripture It is you that abuse the hearers with similitudes that are not similia my argument is demonstratiue Camp I answere then to your analogie So farre as the scripture doth intend it holdeth like as Christ did beare our sinnes so we haue in vs the iustice of Christ. The righteousnes that we haue is giuen vs by Christ. Christ had our sinnes by imputation onely because hee was not capable of sinnes inherent But we are capable of iustice inherent which Christ doth giue vs and therefore in vs we haue the iustice of Christ both by imputation and also inherent giuen by him And therefore it is called the iustice Non qua ipse iustus est sed qua nos iustos fecit Not