Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	justification_n	justify_v	sanctification_n	1,666	5	10.7958	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

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

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

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 dig●…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 assurāce 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

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

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

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 quàm 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

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