it was straight answered Master Sherwin you may see that the Apostle speaketh there of faith in working of miracles euen by the wordes of the Apostle him selfe who saith If I should haue all faith so that I could remoue mountaines and haue not charitie I am nothing And when he cryed still omnem fidem all faith and that therefore it must conteine our faith also els we had none at all It was answered by vs If you will not beleeue vs yet let Saint Chrisostomes exposition be of some authoritie with you who calleth it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 faith not of doctrine but of miracles saith Saint Chrisostome euen as we also do say which faith the wicked may haue as our Sauiour Christ teacheth and therefore all faith to worke miracles doeth not conteine that true faith which doeth iustifie him that hath it Further they obiected Saint Pauls wordes in his Epistle to the Galathians Faith worketh by charitie We answered that vnlesse faith doe worke by charitie it is no faith at all but that made nothing against our iustification by faith onely But here they reasoned against vs thus If faith onely iustifie then it iustifieth without charitie But that was contrary to the text of the Apostles Therefore onely faith doeth not iustifie We answered this Syllogisme consisteth of foure termes For it is one thing to say that faith onely doeth iustifie and another that faith is not without charitie For when we say that onely faith iustifieth we meane not to denie that charitie is ioyned with that faith which iustifieth being inseparably vnited vnto it but that onely faith and not charitie is the meanes by which we imbrace Iesus Christ our iustification and righteousnesse And this we indeuoured to make manifest by an example The fire quoth we hath heate and light which qualities can not bee seuered in that subiect yet the fire burneth by heate onely and not by light Nowe if any will reason thus If the heate of the fire onely burne then it burneth without the light of the fire but that it can not doe Therefore it burneth not by heate only They should shewe them selues to be absurd that so woulde reason sayd we And such is your reason against the iustification of faith only because it can not be separated from charitie Likewise though the parts of mans bodie be ioyned together and one is not without another in a perfect bodie yet doeth the eye onely see and the eare heare onely and euery part hath his distinct office Then Master Sherwin alleaged out of the Epistle to the Ephesians Ipsius sumus factura creati in Christo Iesu in bonis operibus That is We are his workemanship created in Christ Iesus in good workes We looked in the Greeke Testament and found 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ad opera bona vnto good workes and so answered that Saint Paul saith not we are the creatures of God in Christ thorowe good workes but that we are created of God in Christ to do good workes which Master Sherwin looking vpon the greeke Testament coulde not denie Further we told Master Sherwin that if he tooke that place in that sense that we were created in good workes he was contrary to Master Campion who graunted that good workes doe come after the first grace and not to be ioyned with our first creation in Christ Iesus as Master Sherwin would haue it And besides that we did admonish him that the place by him alleaged did of all others most effectually make against theÌ„ and for vs. For immediatly before the wordes by him alleadged Saint Paul sayth thus Gratia enim estis saluati per fidem hoc non ex vobis Dei enim donum est non ex operibus ne quis glorietur That is You are saued by grace through faith and that not of your selues it is the gift of God not of workes least any man should boast himselfe In this sentence of Saint Paul euery parcell quoth we maketh for vs and against you The cause of our saluation is the grace of God the instrument whereby we receiue it is faith the false cause alleadged by you is here excluded that is our workes Master Campion alleadged Qui instus est iustificetur adhuc He that is righteous let him be more and more righteous And thereupon he sayde he would not refuse to subscribe that we be iustified by faith onely so that we would subscribe that being so iustified we ought afterward to walke forward more and more in the workes of righteousnesse We graunted that we would so subscribe But M. Sherwine said vnto M. CaÌ„pion Take heed what you do Then sayde Master Campion If you will so subscribe and graunt withal that those good workes are meritorious or do merite I will subscribe to faith onely Doe you nowe come in with your merite sayde we we will none of it neyther will acknowledge any merite quoth we in respect of our iustification or of the kingdome of heauen but only the merites of Christs passion And so our subscribing was dasht by master Campions addition of merite to that which before he promised without any mention thereof But you doe knowe well sayde master Campion that often mention is made in the scripture of this worde merces that is of rewarde for our good workes And that at the last iudgement it shall be sayde Come into the kingdome ye blessed For I was bungrie and ye fed me c. So that these good workes are mentioned as a cause or a meane at the least of entering into the kingdome of heauen We deny not sayd we but the worde merces is often mentioned in the holy Scriptures and that God will rewarde our good workes farre aboue our deseruing but that merces is ex misâ—…ricordia Domini dantis non ex merito hominis accipientis That reward is of the mercie of God giuing it and not of the merite of man receiuing it For when it is sayd He that giueth a cuppe of colde water shal not loose his reward if you take that reward to be the kingdome of heauen and the lande of the liuing to be giuen for the merite thereof surely you make it to be of more easie purchase than any land in this worlde can be be it neuer so little And concerning the last iudgement the wordes of our Sauiour Come possesse the kingdome prepared for you before the beginning of the worlde may giue you to vnderstand that it is not giuen for the merite of any their good workes which they coulde not doe before they were any thing And the worde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Take ye the inheritance of the kingdome sheweth that it is giuen to vs in Christ as inheritaunce which the Father giueth to his children freely and is not purchased by our good workes Besides that though our Sauiour Christ will of his speciall grace and fauour remember those almes done to the poore in his name and
pray all indifferent readers to consider of these maner of dealings For Saint Augustine in that place writeth against the wicked opiniō of those who mistaking Saint Paules wordes of Iustification by sayth without workes do by an euill securitie neglect to liue well not seeking by true faith the helpe of God to the ouercomming of their owne euill concupiscences but doe despise the workes of righteousnes by a dead faith do promise to them selues euerlasting life These be Saint Augustines expresse wordes in that place truely translated which they haue most vntruely and malitiously alleaged against vs against the heresie as they terme it of iustification by faith onely which they woulde haue the simple people to mistake as though wee woulde exclude all things vniuersally sauing faith onely and did vtterly cast away all care of good workes godly life yea and all desire of Gods grace to assiste vs as did they against whom S. Augustine in that place did write But we protest before God and all good men that we neuer meant to make faith the chiefe and onely cause of our iustification but that the grace and mercie of God by our sauiour Iesus Christ promised to the faithfull in his holy worde is the principall and originall cause and very fountaine of our iustification and that faith not a dead faith as they thought against whome S. Augustine doth write but a liuely faith being wrought in our hearts by the said word of God and by the operation of the holy ghost beleeuing Gods promise of his mercy in Christ is the instrumentall cause in vs whereby onely wee receiue our iustification without the merite of our workes and yet being iustified we are most boundē to walke in all good works as much as it shall please God to giue vs grace thereunto for the which we ought to sue by cōtinuall most heartie prayer Which our doctrine you may see to bee most contrarie to the wicked opinion of those against whom S. Augustine writeth in that place and that therefore it is most falsely and malitiously alleaged as against vs who by faith onely iustifying vs meane not to exclude the doing but the merites of our good workes which is no heresie wherewith these men would charge vs but the very truthe it selfe taught in the holy Scriptures and by the auncient godly fathers and learned doctors set down in the very same wordes which we do vse as hath bene before at large declared Of the conclusion of our conference the Pamphleters write thus At the last the Protestantes did make a doe as though some thing had bene wonne when in my soule I protest there was not but in any indifferent audience the aduerse Protestants had bene quite confounded For Master Campion and Sherwin too would haue sayde much more in defence of their cause but one of them by his Commissioners authoritie suddenly made an ende cutting them off from all further speache Thus they do write In deede when we had continued very long and the sunne shining vpon our faces in at the South windowes and the throng being very greate and by occasion of both the heate so intollerable that some of vs were fayne to go out of the chauncel to take breath and to returne againe and Master Campion and wee being nowe come to a very neare point of agreement in the question of iustification as is afore noted in the end of our conference we turning to Master Lieutenaunt sayde If it shall so please you let vs here make an ende With a good will sayd he and so we brake off And here is all the Commissioners authoritie which they speake of that wee or any of vs did take vpon vs. And thus ended our conference with Campion the iudgement of the trueth of their or our reportes whereof wee doe leaue vnto God and to those who were present thereat Surely we by our notes set downe whiles our cōference was yet fresh in memorie and by sundry conferences amongst our selues sithen and with other also who were there present yea and by diligent perusing of the pamphlets written against vs haue endeuoured to set downe all poyntes that were dealt with in our sayd conference with as much trueth concerning the substance of the matter as our diligence and memory and the remembrance of other also could possibly attayne vnto Alexander Nowell William Daiie ¶ The three last dayes conferences had in the Tower with Edmund Campion Iesuite the 18 23 and 27. of September 1581. collected and faithfully set downe by M. Iohn Feilde student in Diuinitie Nowe perused by the learned men themselues and thought meete to be published Ianuarij 1. 1583. ⧠To the Christian Reader grace and peace THou hast here gentle Reader a true report of the whole substance of the conferences had in the Tower the last three dayes faythfully gathered out of the notes of diuers that wrote there and afterwarde perused by the learned men them selues and nowe lastly published by authoritie If any man be inquisitiue why they were set forth no sooner he may vnderstande that being priuate conferences it was thought not much requisite to make thē publikely knowen neither had they bin now set forth if the importunitie of the aduersaries by their sundry vntrue and contrary reportes made and scattered amongst their fauourites had not euen perforce drawen thē forth If Campions answeres be thought shorter thē they were thou must knowe that he had much wast speach which being impertinent is nowe omitted although I protest nothing is cut off from the weight and substance of the matter for of that I made conscience and had speciall regarde Againe if the repliers speaches seeme to be more ample it is because their authorities then alleadged onely in Greeke or Latine are nowe at large put downe both in Greeke Latine and English But for the arguments and answeres I was euen religious faythfully to reporte them as they were Wherein I appeale to all the hearers in Gods sight to whose grace I commit thee Iohn Feilde ⧠A remembrance of the conference had in the Tower with Edmunde Campion Iesuite by William Fulke and Roger Goade Doctours in Diuinitie the 18. of September 1581. as followeth AFter that Master D. Fulke had made a godly prayer for direction in that action that it woulde please God to confirme the faithfull and to confounde the obstinate and wilfull that Campion denying to pray with them had superstitiously all to be crossed himselfe Master D. Fulke beganne with this preface in effect D. Fulke Where as there hath bene some proceeding with you before and we are come by order to the thirde chapter of your booke where you slaunder our Church of Englande the whole Church of God for the definition of the Catholike Church for that we define it so as it shoulde be inuisible we come to prooue both by the Scriptures and Fathers that it is inuisible But this I woulde haue knowen vnto you that our
our selues to shewe that it is no righteousnes cleauing in vs but in Christ is made ours by imputation euen as our sinnes were imputed to Christ consider the place hereafter with your selfe Fulke Marke here his absurdities First he holdeth that he can keepe the lawe in such perfection as God requireth and he can loue God with all his heart with all his soule and with all his strength and his neighbour as himselfe Secondly he affirmeth that though he haue a lust to steale yet if he bridle that lust hee loueth his neighbour as himselfe Thirdly he holdeth that we are iustified by inherent righteousnes which he thinketh to colour by the grace and gift of God But neuerthelesse ye are in the case of the Pharisee Luke 18. which trusteth in his owne righteousnes yet ascribeth all to the grace of God saying I thanke thee c. He boasted not before men but humbly gaue thankes vnto God acknowledging his righteousnes to be Gods gift and yet Christ tolde this parable against him and such as he is which trust in themselues that they are righteous that is by iustice inherent although they confesse they haue it by the grace and gift of God Campion But this was of pride that he gloryed in his righteousnes and therefore the parable is told against himselfe Fulke I graunt that he was proude and so are all iusticiaries that trust in themselues that they are righteous howsoeuer they would cloke their pride by ascribing it to the gift of God but he is condemned for trusting in himselfe that he was righteous that is for inherent righteousnes which neuerthelesse he ascribed not to his owne strength but to the grace of God saying I thanke thee God c. But I will go to another argument Campion I pray you let me answere this argument first for it shal be reported that I sayd this and that and my wordes shal be depraued I say therefore there are two wayes of iustification one in vs another without vs. Christ is a cause of iustification by his grace and merite without vs and so we are iustified by baptisme and we are iustified by the giftes of God in vs faith hope and charitie how say you were not these my words And why then do you challenge me for saying we are iustified by Gods righteousnesse saith hope and charitie which is within vs. For how say you are we not iustified by faith and is not faith within vs Fulke I challenged you for blasphemous absurditie in saying you could loue God with all your heart with all your soule and strength And albeit hope and charitie follow that same faith by which we are iustified in the regenerate that are the children of God yet we are not iustified by them no nor by faith otherwise then instrumentally as by apprehending the righteousnesse of Christ which is without vs and is no otherwise ours then by imputation And howe can you loue God with all your heart c. when you can not giue him an entire loue according to his lawe Campion I said a man may loue God with all his heart in this life according to his lawe when he doeth preferre God before all the thinges in the worlde as when a man doeth chiefely preferre him c. Fulke But can you loue God onely Campion A man loueth God onely when hee loueth him chiefely c. Fulke Chiefely and only is all one write that Campion Why thinke you the lawe was giuen to no purpose I am sure it was giuen to be fulfilled and we are notbidden to keepe it if it were impossible Fulke The lawe was giuen for another cause then that we should be iustified by fulfilling it namely to shew vs our infirmitie that we may be conuicted of sinne Campion That is a wise cause in deede Belike a father cōmandeth his children not that they should do his will but because he would haue them to see that they can not do it Fulke As though almightie God can haue none other ende of giuing commaundements then mortall men vse to haue But this is not to the question I would goe forward with another argument if you would suffer me Campion You will giue me leaue to declare my meaning Fulke Belike you haue an yll opinion of the auditorie that they can vnderstand nothing except you tel it them twenty tunes ouer If you will not suffer me to proceede I must desire Matter Lieutenaunt to commaunde you If a generall Councill may erre then the Church may erre But a generall Councill may erre Therefore the Church may erre Campion I deny the Minor Fulke A generall Councill may be corrected as Augustine sayth therefore it may erre Campion It may be declared or explaned but not corrected by a contrary decree Fulke Will you heare the place it is Tom. 6. lib. 2. contra Donatistas cap. 3. Quis autem nesciat sanctam Scripturam canonicam tam veteris quà m noui Testamenti certis suis terminis contineri eamque omnibus posterioribus Episcoporum literis ita praeponi vt de illa omnino dubitari disceptari non possit vtrum verum vel vtrum rectum sit quicquid in ea scriptum esse constiterit Episcoporū autem literas quae post confirmatum Canonem vel scriptae sunt vel scribantur per sermonem fortè sapientiorem cuiuslibet in ea re peritioris per aliorum Episcoporum grauiorem auctoritatem doctiorumque prudentiam per Concilia licere reprehendi siquidem eis forte à veritate deuiatum est Et ipsa Concilia quae per singulas regiones vel prouincias fiunt plenariorum Conciliorum auctoritati quae fiunt ex vniuerso orbe Christiano sine vllis ambagibus cedere ipsaque plenariasaepe priora posterioribus emendari cum aliquo experimento rerum aperitur quod clausum erat cognoscitur quod latebat sine vllo typho sacrilegae superbiae sine vlla inflata ceruice arrogantiae sine vlla contentione liuidae inuidiae cum sancta humilitate cum pace catholica cum charitate Christiana That is to say Who knoweth not that the holy canonical Scripture both of the old new Testament is cōteined within her certaine boūdes and that the same is so preferred before all latter writings of Bishops that of it there cānot be any doubt or questiō at all whether it be true or whether it be right whatsoeuer is certaynely knowen to be written therein But that the letters of Bishops which since the canō cōfirmed either haue bin writtē or be nowe in writing may be reprehēded both by the saying which is perhaps more wise of any man that is more skilful in that matter also by the more graue auctoritie wisdome of other bishops that be better learned if any thing in them perhaps be declined out of the way of trueth And that euen those Councils which are held in euery region or prouince without al doubt must giue place to general
away our sinnes and heale all our diseases through the righteousnesse of Iesus Christ our onely saluation Open our eyes we beseech thee that wee may at this time beholde and so frame our hearts that we may gladly embrace thy most holy trueth as thou hast left it vnto vs by thy holy seruants the Prophets and Apostles Graunt this knowledge and loue of the trueth with dayly increase not onely to vs O Lorde who through thy grace alreadie make profession thereof but also vnto all those that yet set them selues against the same that they acknowledging the trueth of thy word may cleaue to it forsaking all superstitious vanities and seeing the all sufficient righteousnes sacrifice of thy only sonne may lay hold of it denying them selues renouncing their own merites falsly named righteousnes Graunt vs these things O heauenly Father for thine onely sonnes sake Iesus Christ our alone sauiour redeemer in whose name we aske the praying as he hath taught vs Our Father c. Walker We haue in the forenoone entreated of the Canonicall scriptures and of their sufficiencie Now we haue to entreate of fayth God graunt vs grace that we may see the trueth and hauing fayth may rest in it to our endelesse comfort Let vs before we enter into the matter declare somewhat concerning the state of the question We holde therefore that we are iustified by fayth onely and that freely no other woorkes concurring for that purpose And yet we set not downe a bare and naked fayth as our aduersaries charge vs. For we confesse that fayth hope and charitie are coupled and lincked together and that loue is the greatest But we affirme that fayth onely is that instrument whereby we lay holde vpon the loue of God which is the onely foundation of our saluation By that title therefore wee exclude all mens workes and vertues as meritorious and onely looke to the merits of Christ. Camp I will declare to you my meaning also Wee are agreed that God doeth iustifie and for Christs sake onely through his grace and through his mercie alone through his Sacraments and through baptisme Thus farre we agree but herein we disagree For we say that when God doth iustifie he doth giue vs of his grace three distinct giftes fayth hope and charitie and these are as three causes of iustification and charitie a principall cause which frameth the first act in vs. We say therefore that as grace is put in vs in iustification so also our righteousnesse is enlarged through good workes and is inherent in vs. Therefore it is not true that God doeth iustifie by fayth onely Charke Campion you are not to vse your old sleight in running from the matter and loading one thing vpon an other The question is whether we be iustified by faith onely that is now that which is in question to be decided 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and you are not to change the state of the question Walker Well let your declaration stande for defence although we agree not For there are sundry causes of iustification finall and middle But faith is the first thing in vs that receiueth iustification and yet it is not of vs. Camp I grant that there are mo causes then one Walker Well though I be an olde man and haue bene long from the vniuersitie I meane yet to examine you in the grounds of these things and to go with you from poynt to poynt and so we shall find out our disagreement best I pray you what is the Etymon of fayth Camp It is called fayth Quia fit quod dictum est Because it is performed that is spoken as I take it Walker That is true Dicitur a fiendo quia Dominus fidelis est Because the Lorde is faythfull standing to his worde and keeping his promise with vs. But in vs fayth is a certaintie or sure perswasion and therefore it is called by the Apostle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or elenchus foundation or argument It is therefore the ground and before all other things that come after it as the foundation is before the building Camp I grant it But what inferre you hereof Walker This I inferre Fayth is the grounde and before all things that come after it Ergo it is before hope and charitie Camp In nature it is before them but it doth not iustifie before they do come Walker Prius and posterius First and last bee taken diuers wayes It is not before Tempore but Dignitate ordine Not in time but in dignitie and order Camp That is contrarie to S. Paul For he sayth Charitas est maior Loue is greater Walker You must vnderstand what Paul meaneth therby It is Maior duplici respectu It is greater in a double respect In respect of God and in respect of men and so extendeth further Camp Uery well I like your causes well but it is simplie greater and more excellent Walker Let me proceede then It is greater in that it is more necessarie to the life of man and also in diuturnitie because it neuer dieth nor hath any ende Camp I grant you all this But what are those to the matter of iustification But let me adde a thirde also that it is digâ—…ior because faith and all good workes are nothing without loue But let vs heare your argument Walker The ground is before that which is grounded vpon it and in all good order we vse to set the most worthie first Thus therefore I reason Faith is the foundation ergo before the other Camp If you meane in dignitie it is not true It is before in order but not in dignitie For the roote is not more worthie then the tree though it be afore it Walker Paul sayth Fundati radicati in fide speaking of the assuraÌ„ce they had in their saluation And it was necessarie they should be thus grounded and rooted in the faith before they could bring forth the fruits of faith The fruits were good works which were not the cause of their iustification but the effects of men engraffed in Christ iustified already this root was before the fruit Camp I grant as before In order but not in worthinesse For the fruit is more worthie then the roote Walker Omnis causa efficiens est dignior effectu Euerie efficient cause is more worthie then the effect Camp I deny that faith is the efficient cause of good works It is a cause antecedent but not efficient But we are agreed vpon this Let vs go to another argument Walk Uerie well it is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a sure argument of things that are not seene a thing vndoubted Camp Where is the place It is called the foundation of euerlasting life and an argument of things not seene because I knowe it is by no other argument but by fayth But what inferre you Walker You shall heare anon What is Subiectum fidei the subiect of fayth and what is Obiectum fidei the obiect of fayth In quo
take them as done vnto himselfe yet were it an intollerable arrogancie for vs to say We fed thee when thou wast hungry c. Or to say Giue vs the reward of our cuppe of colde water which thou promisedst we should not loose Wherefore as we sayd that merces and rewarde or hire is of the grace and mercie of God giuing it and not of the merite of man receiuing it which is according to y◠true doctrine of y◠holy scriptures that not flesh or man doe glorie or reioyce but that he who doeth glorie or reioyce in his iustification and saluation may glorie and reioyce in the Lord onely For Saint Paul sayeth Where is then thy reioysing It is excluded By what lawe of workes Nay but by the lawe of faith Therefore we conclude that a man is iustified by faith with out the workes of the lawe And againe If Abraham were iustified by workes he hath wherein to reioyce but not with God For to him that worketh the wages is not counted by fauour but by debt But to him that worketh not but beleeueth in him that iustifieth the vngodly his sayth is counted for righteousnes And againe Now if by grace then not of works for so grace is not nowe grace c. Thus farre Saint Paul Whereby you may see that if iustification and saluation shoulde be attributed to the merites of mans good workes it would occasion boasting and glorying in the fleshe and chalenging of our iustification and saluation as due vnto the merite of our works so much abate abase the glorie of Gods grace that grace should then no more deserue the name of grace But if iustification and saluation be as it ought to bee giuen wholy vnto Gods grace and mercy promised vnto vs in Christ Iesu which we doe apprehend and lay hold of by fayth onely as the onely instrumentall cause vnder Gods grace then is all the glorie and honour of our iustification giuen vnto God onely without any merite of man And so we conclude as we sayd before that we meane not by faith onely to exclude the doing but the meriting of good workes One of them alleadged the wordes of our Sauiour He that beleeueth and is baptized shal be saued And hereupon he saide We grant that n◅ merite doth preceede this fayth Whereunto one of vs sayd when he was baptized and obtayned that first grace and iustification which Master Campion speaketh of he may safely graunt that no good workes doe preceede or go before that iustification which hee had in his infancie the which no worke at all doe or can preceede but for his parte sayde he when he doth consider howe after that first grace hee hath most vngratiously broken the vowe made to God in Baptisme and how fewe and small good workes he had done towards the atteyning of any second iustification which Master Campion speaketh of howe many and great euill workes hee hath done how much of his life his time and goods he had mispent howe little he had spent in the seruice and to the honour of God howe late he came to the Lordes vineyarde and howe loytering a labourer he had bene in that short time Surely quoth hee for my part when I doe looke vpon my righteous workes so fewe and so imperfect and on the other side vpon my vnrighteous deedes so many and so sinnefull I can not but thinke it to be a most damnable arrogancie to chalenge any part of that seconde righteousnesse or of the kingdome of heauen by so fewe and small good workes and do see how great occasion I should giue therby that God should condemne me for my so many and great euill workes in respect of which I cannot but dispaire of any desert or merite towardes that seconde iustification that you doe speake of Here Master Campion to shewe belike that he was no Pharisee I must confesse also sayd he that I haue bene most defectiue in all good workes and in deede a loytering labourer as you tearme it in the Lords vineyarde What remedie then quoth the other The remedie quoth Master Campion is the mercie of God in Christ Iesus That is quoth the other that I beleeue and this my beliefe onely in his mercies thorowe Christ and not in any late and loytering worke is that faith that shall saue me and you too I trust and therefore quoth he here as in some good hope of our agreement in this poynt of iustification by faith onely without any merite of workes which we trust we haue by the holy Scriptures and by the ancient Doctors both Greekes and Latines by examples yea and by our consciences sufficiently proued if it shall so please Master Lieutenant let vs make an end and so we ended our conference A briefe recitall of certaine vntruthes scattered in the Pamphlets and libels of the Papists concerning the former conferences with a short answere vnto the same WE thought it not amisse here in the ende to note some of the principall poynts vntruely set downe by the authors of such Pamphlets as haue hitherto come to our handes concerning this conference First they leaue no circumstances of Master Campions imprisonment his racking sicknes lacke of his note bookes of his librarie our sodaine cōming vpon him c. vntouched But they that will consider his bragging chalenge made in his booke and prompt readines to dispute with all protestants howe lately his booke was before by him set out and howe fresh in his memorie and howe we dealt with him onely in his owne booke and in a fewe pointes in the verie beginning thereof and did bring with vs all those bookes which he himselfe had noted and alleaged and gaue them into his handes and our selues also hauing made ready the places in the said bookes by him noted to ease his trauell in seeking of them who will I saye consider these things may hereby easily vnderstand their allegations of sodaine taking of him and his lacke of bookes to be most vaine And hee himselfe by his lowde speaches and bolde and busie gestures shewed no token of any either sicknesse or weaknesse neither did him selfe then complaine vpon those difficulties which the Pamphleters hath so diligently largely noted sithē They do charge some of vs and specially one with vncourteous wordes and vncomely for professors of the Gospell as they saye spoken to Master Campion and others But they shewe not vpon what occasion by Master Campion and others of his companions offred these wordes were spoken For when Master Campion did rise vp from the forme whereon he fate did cast vp and fling with his handes and armes did knocke and beate vpon his booke at euery other worde with an exceeding lowde voyce and sharpe countenance affirming that all our printed bookes were false and that he would procure true copies to be sent from the Emperours Maiestie from the Duke of Bauaria and from another prince whom we remember not vnto the
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
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 wâ—…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 vpoÌ„ 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 yâ— defence of your slauÌ„der of our definition of the Catholike Church which we came prepared to maintaine we are ready also to reason of the church militaÌ„t 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
labijs charitatis meae And againe Verte sermonem meum in fraudem Do you thinke this speach proceeded of the holy Ghost Nay rather howsoeuer it displease you to heare of the matter it proceeded froÌ„ a prophane spirit as I haue said to charge the holy ghost with fraud to pray for such an effect that Holofernes might be taken with her loue snared with her kisses Camp There be no such wordes in the booke Charke Here you are manifestly ouertaken for they are worde for worde in the 9. Chapter and after your translations the vulgar and Vatablus Camp Is that to be esteemed fraude which the holy Ghost deuiseth Is it fraud to deceiue the deuill blame you her who did that she did to a good end and for the deliuery of the Church Char. What dealing is this Euen now he denied the words now finding them strong against his cause he would auoid them with a distinction of good intents to iustifie bad parts Thus you Papists hold against the word of God that we may do euill that good may come of it No Campion Gods spirit is alwayes like it selfe It is not agreeing with the maiestie of the spirit of God for any woman to pray that a stranger should be taken with the snare of his eyes looking vpoÌ„ her or that she may deceiue by lies This story therfore this practise proceded not froÌ„ the holy ghost Camp It is a shame for you to bring that example She desireth God that it will please him to turne the wickednes of Holofernes to the deliuerie of his people She prayeth not as you say that he should sinne Charke She doth pray for it in plaine words and set out her selfe in sumptuous apparell and ornaments to that purpose It is a shame for you Campion to mainteine any such absurditie and againe to deny and misconster the manifest wordes of that you would haue Canonicall scripture We stand before the face of God for the maintenance of his truth and giue such honour therunto that we acknowledge with our harts coÌ„fesse with our mouths that it is perfect full and sufficient and that there is no prophanation in it but you would haue that to be matched with holy scripture which is far vnworthy that honor What say you to the argument the place Let him be taken with the snare of his eies in me turne my speach into deceit or fraud This is a praier for successe in a matter of sinne most vnseemly for the holy ghost Camp I receiue this booke first because the Nicene couÌ„cill hath allowed it then I say further that this was her meaning that whereas God had giueÌ„ Holofernes ouer to fleshly lust that he might be taken with the loue of his eies towards her to be besotted with her yâ— she might the better performe her determinate purpose she prayeth that God will turne his sinne to the deliuery of his distressed people And what doth she commit worthy of blame in this Charke This is not only worthy of blame but also to be condemned as sinfull and sauouring of a prophane spirite that shee prayeth God to blesse her lyes and falshood her tentations and allurements to lust For the Lord hath appointed good wayes for good purposes and for the performance of that his worke he needed not her deceit For as Iob saith God needeth not any mans lie or any mans fraude Which is also true of the fraude and dangerous allurements mentioned in that chapter Camp What Chapter what Chapter Charke The ninth Chapter Reade and acknowledge the words you haue denied Here Campion read in his owne booke saying he perceiued we builded vpon our owne tâ—…slation Camp Well this is mine answere It was not truely and formally fraude but materially in the formall act fraude as for example when the people of the Iewes were commanded to steale from the Egyptians it was in the act theft but not formally theft So Abrahanis intent to kill his childe was to do murther in the act but formally it was no murther Charke You woulde nowe in steade of a short and schoolelike answere drawe me to a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the place in hande to the examination of newe matters Therefore to take you where you will needes be I say the Hebrewe worde hath not that signification that it shoulde import theft but a spoyle which was iust and commanded of God as after a victorie or for a rewarde of their labours seruice in Egypt therefore no theft But this fraude is another thing So the first example is vnlike proueth nothing no more do the rest For Abrahams act was no murther nor intent of murther but a duetiful obedience and seruice to God who had expresly commanded it Lastly you can not thinke that the Magistrate in taking the life of a transgressor or taking away yâ— head of a traytor is a murtherer No this duetie of iustice is layd vpon him by his office from God and can not but ignorantly be called murther And such was the warrant for Abraham in his office Camp I meane killing as it respecteth the taking away of life and no otherwise Charke How do you confound the speciall with the general All murther is the taking away of life but all taking away of life is not murther To kill and to take away life from the wicked by the sworde of iustice is iust and in no respect to carry the name of murther which is euermore euill Walker Concilium Laodicenum The Councill of Laodicea hath left out Toby Iudith the booke of Wisdome Ecclus Baruch Maccabees Esra the third and fourth and in the newe Testament Luke the Apocalyps these are the wordes Quae autem oporteat legi in authoritatem recipi haec sunt Genesis Exodus c. But those which ought to be read receiued for authenticall are these Genesis Exodus c. Where the forenamed bookes are omitted Camp The Laodicene Councill was particular and not generall And againe it reckeneth vp those bookes that were vndouted and not douted of in that part of the world But what maketh this to proue that they were douted of of that Catholike Church They were douted of in that Church or in that part of the Church Ergo they were douted of of the whole Church How holdeth this Therefore it is plaine that these bookes were not doubted of in that whole Church For the same Nicene Council accepteth Iudeth as Hierome testifieth in the preface to Iudeth Further because the Church of Rome approueth them it followeth not that we should dout of them Walker Then you confesse that the Council set not downe al that we should receiue And where you make the Councill particular it was prouinciall and further was confirmed by the sixth generall Councill holden at Trullo Constantine being president as Bartholomaeus Caranza writeth fol. 71. and therfore we may with them leaue out of the Canon Tobie Iudeth the
versatu◅ fides circa quod In what and about what is fayth occupied Camp Subiectum fidei The subiect of faith is man to whom God hath giuen the gift of fayth and thereupon man is denominate faythfull Walker Doth man consist of one part or more Camp Man doth consist of bodie and soule Walker Whether doe I receyue fayth into my bodie or soule chiefly Camp Fayth is receyued into the soule by the instrument of the bodie Walker What part of the soule is it receyued by For the soule hath diuers potentias faculties Receyue we it per memoriam voluntatem or intellectum by the memorie will or vnderstanding Campion I answere the soule doth receiue it per intellectum by vnderstanding illumined by fayth because that part was properly corrupted by errour Walker Why then Intellectus humanus is subiectum fidei in quo versatur and so intellectu nos cognoscimus deum Mans vnderstanding is the subiect in which faith is and so by the vnderstanding we know God Camp Intellectu illuminati per fidem cognoscimus I grant we know God our vnderstanding being illumined by fayth Walker And what now is obiectum fidei The obiect of faith Camp Obiectum fidei is truth inspired from God Walker Whether it be inspired or no Truth is Obiectum still Aeterna veritas est deus ergo Deus est obiectum fidei promissio Euangelij Gods worde and his trueth is the obiect of fayth and so sayth Thomas of Aquine one of your owne doctours Camp It is no obiect to me till I looke to it God as he is to be knowen is the obiect of fayth and as hee is to bee loued of charitie Walker It is true but God is incomprehensible and wee knowe so farre of him as he hath reuealed of himselfe as in creating to be Almightie in gouerning to be wise in preseruing to be true and helping to be good and in his promises to be sure and true and so much he hath reuealed of himselfe And this to apprehend is sufficient to saluation Camp To apprehend these things effectually so that we also obey his commandements and not onely to grant them to be true but also to apply these things to our selues through the passion of Christ this is saluation and sufficient Walker Hact enus conuenit Hitherto we agree But Paul Rom. 4. writeth Non haesitans fide nititur promissione Not doubting in fayth and leaning vpon the promise So that there were two things the promise which must be beleeued that it is true and the power of God that he is able to performe Camp Concedo I grant it And that made the fayth of Abraham to be fruitfull and meritorious Walker What meritorious But that is Perergon I will come neerer to the matter You will graunt likewise that hope hath suum subiectum obiectum her subiect and obiect Camp Yea that I will that it is in the same soule of man but more properly in voluntate affectu then in Intellectu in the will and affection then in the vnderstanding Walker That is verie true Nowe tell me what is Obiectum spei The obiect of hope Camp The good of the life to come Walker But what was the obiect especially of Abrahams hope Camp The same that is common to all other men but seorsum the comming of Christ the Messias promised to him and his seede after him Walker What commoditie is promised to vs in Christ Campion Saluation which is to haue eternall life with Christ. Walker This promise being beleeued and knowen by faith is looked for by hope euery Christian mā hath a great desire to this saluation promised Either he hath or shoulde haue as Saint Paul Cupio dissolui esse cum Christo I desire to be loosed and to be with Christ. Camp When God hath enlightened his heart by charitie then he hath that desire stedfast Walker Well then I wil leaue the obiect of hope and come to the subiect of charitie What is the subiect of charitie Camp The affection of man Walker What is the obiect Camp It is God as he is beloued quatenus appetitur propter se. Walker Uery good then you see the foundation and causes with the whole order of our iustification what neede all the worlde haue any more but first to beleeue these things next to looke for that which we hope for thirdly to loue him who hath made vs this promise and hath giuen vs these great benefites Nowe see whether we are iustified by faith alone or faith hope and charitie But I leaue the persecuting of this to Master Charke Camp I graunt that this is the order of our iustification wherein these doe ioyntly con◅re and worke together Charke You may not auoyde the point and issue of the question as you did in the forenoone which is that Faith only iustifieth It is a chiefe question and you can not carry the matter so vprightly betwixt the olde popery and the newe but we shall easily finde you out you say faith onely doeth not iustifie but with faith hope and charitie also are requisite as causes and merits of our iustification This is your cunning and newe Poperie to mention onely hope and charitie yet vnder these wordes you carry the olde Poperie which addeth popish shrift penance pilgrimages and other satisfactions all which you would match with the death of Christ if you might recouer your kingdome But I haue to proue against you that Faith onely doeth iustifie without these merits and workes which you adde as though the righteousnesse of Christ were not inough Camp I denie it for you haue it not in all the word of God that faith onely doeth iustifie Charke Surely if you acknowledge any doctrine to be true in all the Scripture this of iustification by faith onely will be proued most trus if any plaine this will appeare most plaine And thus I proue it Euery doctrine the substance and sense whereof is conteined in Scriptures is true But the substance and sense of this doctrine Faith only doeth iustifie is conteined in Scriptures Therefore this doctrine Faith onely doeth iustifie is true Camp I answere that this proposition Faith onely doeth iustifie is not to be founde in all the worde of God and therefore I denie the Minor Charke I haue affirmed in my Minor that the substance and sense of this proposition Faith only doeth iustifie is conteined in the Scriptures For proofe hereof I haue in the worde of God eleuen places all negatiue excluding works in the matter of our saluation Namely Rom. chap. 9. verse 11. where the Apostle saith Not of workes Againe chap. 11. ver 6. Not of works Also Galat. 2. ver 16. Not of workes Moreouer Rom. 4. 6. Without workes Chap. 3. ver 21. Without the Lawe And so in the rest Camp Let me answere them Here the rest of the places were demaunded by them that wrote and by others Charke Turne further to these places
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
a false and grosse interpretation and thus I proue it If your distinction be good then there is either a third couenant or the couenant of the lawe is mixed with the couenant of the Gospell But no man will say that there is a third couenant and the Apostle proueth that in the work of our iustificatiō the couenant of the law doth no way participate with the couenāt of fayth therefore your distinction saying as it is a burden is not good and your interpretation absurd and false Camp I answer to the Minor that the law is considered two maner of wayes The couenant of the lawe as it is of the lawe is no way mixed with the couenant of the Gospell but as it is the couenant of the lawe eternall of the lawe morall of the lawe of nature it is mixed with the new testament Christ hath renued it in the lawe of charitie Moses gaue it one way and Christ another Moses the lawe maker and Christ the law giuer Praeceptum nouum do vobis vt diligatis inuicem I giue you a newe commandement that ye loue one another Charke What absurde speaches are these to make a substantiall distinction of the lawe in regard of the minister or of the time The morall lawe and commandement of God is euermore the same in substance Camp I vnderstand not what you meane I say it is mixed but as it is mixed it is not called Moses law but y◠law of Christ who gaue it more perfectly c Charke Againe I say this is absurde for the lawe of God was alway the lawe of God and therefore the same and exacteth the same obedience which because no man can performe no man can liue thereby Camp You are still gathering absurdities Charke I must gather them where you scatter them For what materiall difference can there be made of one and the same thing The second couenant offereth life onely by faith in Christ the former onely by workes and these cannot be confounded as you confound and huddle them together Thus your answeres are from the arguments Camp My answeres are to the purpose What is it that you would haue more of me Charke Is your answere to the purpose that mixeth confoundeth the two couenants which are so opposite by the Apostles place alledged that he which cleaueth to the one can receiue nothing by the other For the couenant of the lawe can beare no transgression and to iustifie vs the couenant of fayth needeth no satisfaction or workes on our part Christ hauing most fully wrought and satisfied for vs. Therefore it is the pride of man to thinke and the errour of man to teach that the righteousnesse of Christ is not sufficient without addition of our righteousnesse Camp Well shewe me but that negatiue sola onely in all the Scriptures Charke This is a new matter I woulde haue the olde first satisfied Camp Shew it me can you not shew it Charke Seeing you would shift off the former argument by crauing a newe I am contented to proue that exclusiue tearme which you call negatiue Whatsoeuer excludeth all other causes in iustification that remayneth a sole cause Fayth excludeth all other causes in iustification Faith therefore remaineth a sole and onely cause Camp Proue your Minor Charke The absolute negatiues so often repeated in the Scripture Not of workes Without workes Not of the law Without the law do plainly exclude all other causes Camp Will you by this argument exclude al causes besides fayth Then with good workes you will also exclude the mercy of God What is your meaning Charke What a vanitie is there in this question Understande you not that I speake onely of causes in vs excluding no former causes as the eternall decree and loue of God the obedience and righteousnesse of Christ Camp Proue that Sola fides onely fayth is in the scripture Charke I haue proued it and why doe you not answere the argument Camp What argument would ye haue me answere Charke The last All other causes in vs are excluded by the worde of God where it is sayde so often Not of workes Not of the lawe therefore sola fides fayth onely remaineth by many testimonies of the Scriptures Campion This fides is Christian obedience and hath good workes Charke I graunt as the good tree hath good fruite necessarily so fayth hath good workes but these good workes though they be not separated from fayth are yet separated from being any cause of iustification with fayth As light though it bee not separated from fire yet it is separated from the force of burning for the heate burneth and not the light of fire Campion But where proue you that sola onely is in the Scripture Charke My argument hath fully and plainly proued it you neither will nor can answere it Therefore to proue it againe because the text Deut. 6. hath the negatiue Thou shalt serue no strange gods Christ Mat. 4. addeth the worde ONELY Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him ONELY shalt thou serue So we by the same warrant and worde do in this question of iustification take these words Not by works Not by the law to import as much as faith onely for al works whatsoeuer being excluded by these negatiue speaches faith alone remaineth Camp Why doth he say Thou shalt worship by fayth onely Char. I had hedged you in before that you should not leape ouer to run at large in your bie questions I sayd Christ Mat. 4. thus alledged against the tempter Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serue This negatiue ONLY is not in Moses yet added by Christ for interpretations sake to expound words importing it as I haue said before so do we in the matter of iustification finding all righteousnes by workes or by the lawe so oftentimes excluded doe conclud thereupon that fayth onely doth iustifie Camp The word adorabis doth of necessitie infer so much and therefore Christ doth well to expound it by onely But the worde iustifie doth not necessarily inferre the excluding of workes And therefore you do not well to inferre Faith only iustifieth Charke What do you not blush to bring this strange false distinction against a cleare truth of God Or wil you ouerthrow a maine pillar of Poperie for auoiding the force of one poore argument Doth the word adorabis exclude all other creatures and necessarily inforce that God alone must be worshipped Thē Cāpion condemneth al images all adoration of the crucifix all inuocation worshipping of saints For to adore or to worship sayth he importeth that adoration worship is due to God only so he excludeth all creatures frō worship euen the crucifix that they say must haue the adoration done to it which is due to Christ himself Camp What needeth all this it foloweth not which you say There is much differēce betwene to adore to reuerēce or serue For latria or to adore
is due to God onely and dulia to serue is that which I may yeeld to any Saint or creature Charke Yes the speach needeth and the argument foloweth For your verball distinction of Greeke wordes to deceiue English people is vnlearned and impious to saye 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is for God onely which yet as I sayde you allowe to the bare image of Christ and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for Images Can all knowe and keepe a iust weight and measure in their deuotions giuing no more but iust 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to saintes To bee short the errour and vnlearnednesse of your distinction appeareth that not vnderstanding the vse and proper signification of the worde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 you haue allowed it to be giuen to Images being a worde that noteth as base and as slauish bondage as any worde in the Greeke tongue so by your distinction the worshippers of the Church must be as bondmen to their Images Thus you see onely is gathered fitly of the negatiue and that your distinction is both false and also against your owne doctrine of Image worship Campion I saye it is gathered from both and the negatiue not sufficient alone but because of the matter speaking of God Charke Why then I perceiue you will borrowe of me for a neede Before you said Adorabis included onely nowe you come to me and say it is gathered also of the negatiue This is al I can desire Camp Fayth onely as it is a good worke ioyned with hope and charitie doeth iustifie Charke I woulde not haue you to abuse the companie in graunting fayth onely and yet you will expounde it Fayth not alone It is a straunge onely that is not alone Furthermore Fayth as it is a good woorke doeth not iustifie being alwayes imperfect but as it apprehendeth the righteousnesse of Christ which is perfect That is as it is a piece of obedience to the promise of God it doeth not iustifie but as it apprehendeth the precious promises Campion You are still charging mee with abusing the companie but if you will giue mee leaue I will declare howe fayth is a woorke There is an habite which is called Fides and the act of this habite within a man is credere to beleeue an act interior proceeding from this habite An act exterior proceeding from this habite is to professe this fayth consonant to the Apostle With the heart I beleeue and with the mouth I confesse Nowe I saye to beleeue is fyrst a good woorke and to professe this fayth is also a good woorke As to giue an almes to fast to doe penance c. and this fayth Abraham had And your saying is contrary to Saint Iames. Abraham pater noster nonne ex operibus iustificatus est offerens filium suum Deo Abraham our father was he not iustified by woorkes offering vp his sonne Charke My saying is not contrary to Saint Iames but your obiection is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 farre from the question in hande Wee dispute what be the causes of saluation and you runne out to the notes and effects of him that is iustified Campion Let me oppose Is it not reason that I shoulde oppose Charke Yes when you are thereto appoynted and you shall fynde enowe to answere you Yet because you haue so often chalenged vs to answere you an argument though I come not with any commission to suffer you to proue your erronious doctrine I will notwithstanding suffer you to oppose and make an argument in this matter First giuing the companie to vnderstande that you woulde deceiue them with an opinion that our aduantage is great in replying but it is not so If your cause were good and your skill great you might make it harder to reply then to answere For the answerer may with a worde deny the proposition and so soone take from the replyer all his weapons But make your argument Here Campion paused long before he coulde frame his argument Whereupon Master Charke sayde a Syllogisme Campion a Syllogisme Yet staying longer Master Charke sayde We shall haue it anone Camp He that was iustified for beleeuing was iustified by a good worke But Abraham was iustified by beleeuing Ergo Abraham was iustified by a good woorke The Maior is out of Saint Iames Chapter 3. Suppleta est Scriptura dicens c. Charke Proue your Maior in the sense we dispute of and I wil answere you to two other Syllogismes Camp It is easely proued Charke Howe can you proue it out of Saint Iames that fayth is a good woorke When Saint Iames sayeth Abraham was iustifyed by good woorkes his meaning is that Abraham is declared and knowen to be iust according to that phrase Wisedome is iustified of her children Againe all the people and Publicans iustified God Campion I will none of your interpretations the question is cleare with me Charke I woulde fayne haue of your answeres so they were to the purpose of the argument Campion Proceede and proue somewhat for your cause Charke I haue proued more then you can answere And because you generally slaunder vs that our doctrine concerning this and other principall poyntes of religion is against the Doctours although the Scriptures bee large full and sufficient ynough and are the onely touchstone for the tryall of sounde and true doctrine yet I will not sticke a little to followe you in this Cyprian Basill Ambrose Theodoret Hierome Gennadius all these Greeke and Latine Fathers doe flatly and fully teache that we are saued by fayth onely Campion Bring mee one of them and I will answere you Charke There is a notable place out of Basill 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where of purpose disputing of humilitie among other notes hee sheweth that wee must attribute all to the grace and ryghteousnesse of God who alone is our glorie our wisedome and our iustification Thereupon falling into this question hee sayeth a man must acknowledge him selfe voyde of true righteousnesse and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is a man must knowe that hee is iustified by onely fayth in Christ. I English it to your hande because you deale not with the Greeke Campion I acknowledge your places and yet your doctrine is vtterly newe For the Fathers when they vrge that doctrine they dyd it in respect they had to deale with Iewes and Infidels and Pagans And further by faith they meant Christian religion excluding Paganisme and not excluding charitie and good workes Charke Our doctrine newe and yet the auncient Doctours teache it I aske with what conscience or iudgement you can saye it Dyd the Apostle writing to the Romanes to the Galathians to the Ephesians Churches so effectually called and reclaymed from Gentilisme that he termeth thē Saintes and brethren and affirmeth that they are no more darkenesse but light in the Lorde Did the Apostle I say writing to them deale as against Iewes and Pagans I maruayle you blush not at so fowle a shift and so palpable an errour But will you
whereby he is iust but whereby he hath made vs iust Walker Sinnes inherent in vs and righteousnes inherent in Christ Camp Nay I say righteousnes inhereÌ„t in vs giueÌ„ by Christ. Charke Campion ye answere not the argument but in place of answering you lay downe newe positions Your inherent righteousnes is not graunted you if it were yet it followeth not that it should bee a fellowe cause in our iustification with Christes righteousnes Camp I say we haue inherent righteousnes and Christ had not inherent sinne Charke What answere is this to my argument If we had it yet it followeth no more that it should iustifie vs then the inherent sparke and light of nature which is leaft should make vs able of our selues clearely to behold the hidden mysterie of the grace and mercie of God reuealed onely by fayth in the Gospell Camp Will you not admitte an answere Charke You are graueled It is no answere to bring a newe and false position that not applied to the argument But I will not let you rest in this starting hole you shall haue Syllogismes Our sinnes alone were of full sufficient force by imputation to condemne Christ vnto death Therefore his righteousnes alone is of full and sufficient force by imputation to iustifie vs vnto life Againe and shortly In Christ there was no inherent sinne to be any cause of his condemning Therefore in vs is no inherent righteousnes to be any cause of our iustifying Camp I dispute not how he might haue iustified but by what meanes he doth iustifie vs. Charke This is plainely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to say the least Answere the reasons Doe my arguments proue howe he was able or rather proue they not most manifestly howe he hath iustified vs But as the Scribes Pharisees supposed some inherent sinne in Christ so you their successors suppose some inherent righteousnes in vs and we shall as truely liue by this as he iustly dyed for that Campion I deny the argument because his will is otherwise Charke Here againe is a newe proposition brought in place of an answere But I haue proued that GOD hath done it and therein reuealed his will which is most holy and most perfect in al proportion of iustice Camp I deny it For we haue inherent righteousnes Charke I would you would so answere as men might see with what iudgement ye vse so many denials But I will followe my argument and proue there is no inherent righteousnes in vs whereby we are more or lesse iustified If we haue any inherent righteousnes as a fellowe or helping cause of our iustification then the righteousnes of Christ is not alone without vs so full and absolute to our saluation as were our finnes to cause his condemnation But Christs righteousnes alone without our inherent righteousnes is de facto as full and perfect euery way Therefore we are aswell de facto iustified onely by the imputation of his righteousnes as he was condemned onely for the imputation of our sinne Camp I deny the Minor Charke You deny it manifestly against the doctrine of the Apostle Rom. 5. teaching that there was more force in the righteousnes of Christ to saluation then was in our sinne to condemnation Whereupon you are turned out of your shiftes and must confesse that as Christ was condemned onely for the imputation of our sinne without any inherent sinne of his owne so are we iustified onely by the imputation of his righteousnes without any inherent righteousnes of ours Which who so denieth he shal be found to match mans supposed righteousnes with the righteousnes of God and to exalt flesh and blood against the almightie Here Master Lieutenant signified the time was past Let vs conclude with prayer ALmightie GOD and most mercifull Father we giue thee humble and heartie thankes in the name of Iesus Christ for all thy goodnes especially for the alone and all sufficient sacrifice of Iesus Christ beseeching thee that renouncing all opinion of any righteousnes of our owne we may by faith lay holde of his righteousnes to our euerlasting saluation Also wee thanke thee for the inestimable treasure and armour of thy holy worde whereby thou makest thy children rich in all spirituall and heauenly wisdome inhabling them euen the weakest of them to triumphe against proud and bold ignorance against the deceitfull and lying spirits gone out into the world in these last times to deceiue those that receiue not the knowledge and loue of thy trueth Moreouer good Lord as it hath pleased thee to vouchsafe some blessing vpon our labours this day for which we likewise giue thee thankes so we beseech thee yet further to blesse them that the trueth may be more and more precious to thy children and that they which are yet without may either acknowledge the power and light of thy Gospell if they belong to thee or being none of thine may stand conuicted in their owne conscience as children of darkenesse and haue their mouthes stopped which they so open against the light and trueth of thy most holy word Graunt vs these things O Lorde and whatsoeuer else may serue to thy glory and our saluation through Iesus Christ our onely Lorde and Sauiour Amen Io. Walker W. Charke Imprinted at London by Christopher Barker Printer to the Queenes most excellent Maiestie Anno 1583. Flagitiosus Apostata Contentiosam tumidam aridam stramineam Lutherus in praefat in epist Iacobi Hanc epistolam S. Iacobi laudo pro vtili ae commodo habeo S. Aug. in his booke of retractations S. Hieromes wordes Euseb. lib. 3. cap. 25. Euseb. lib. 2. cap. 23. Adulterinam August contra Faustum li. 28. cap. 2. lib. 33 cap. 6. Distinct. 19. cap. In Canonicis Ad normâ—… Hieronimi August De Doctrina Christian lib. 2. ca. 8. Euseb. lib. 3. cap. 25. dubia ficta adulterina August de Ciuit Dei lib. 15. cap. 23. contra 2. Gaudent Epist. lib. 2. cap. 23. Testes Domini Distinct. 19. cap. In Canonicis S. Augustines wordes The report of them Distinct. 19. Cap. de Canonicis Hierom. Prolog Galeat epistola ad Paulinum Distinct. 20. Cap. De libellis The Pamphleter here saith that M. Day meaning the Deane of Windsor hauing belike of olde store an other Canon to reade c. But the trueth is their affirming the word Canonicall to make all writings so named to be of equall authoritie occasioned vs to reade that Canon before Distinct. 19. Cap. In Canonicis The Decretall Epistles are together numbred with the Canonicall Scriptures To the which if you ioyne the saying of Pope Agatho Distinct 19. Cap. Sic Oâ—…es which is neere to it All the Sanctions of the Apostolique Sea are to be taken as established by the deuine voyce of Peter him selfe sayeth Pope Agatho To the which if you ioyne this which Pope Leo magna voce with a great voyce saith here woulde you not thinke that Sathan or Beelzebub bellowed out most horrible