Selected quad for the lemma: lord_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
lord_n	blood_n	body_n	soul_n	10,399	5	5.2639	4	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

a sacramentall speache vsuall as hath bene saide in the Scriptures to giue the name of the thing to the signe for the similitude betweene both and therefore must be sacramentally expounded propter similitudinem signi rei signatae Campion That maketh for me that the signe hath the name of the thing Goade Doth it make for you that y● signe is so termed Secūdū quendam modum after a certaine maner as Augustine saith before and yet simply is not for The Sacrament is not the thing it selfe but in a kind of speach sacramentally as Circumcision is said to be the couenant which was not the Couenant it selfe but a signe therof Campion Make your argument Goade Seeing ye will haue me draw it into an argument thus I reason It is vsuall in the Sacraments for the Scripture to speake figuratiuely calling the signe by the name of the thing signified as in Circumcision Gen. 17. the Pascall Lambe Exod. 12. and the rocke in the wildernes 1. Cor. 10 Therefore the like in this sacrament of the Lordes supper Campion I denie your argument they are not alike Goade I proue it The same reason of Augustine from the analogie to take the name of the thing holdeth in all sacraments Ergo in this And for example he bringeth this Sicut ergo secundum quendam modum Sacramentum corporis Christi corpus Christi est Therefore as the Sacrament of Christes body after a certaine maner is sayd to be the body of Christ c. Also the very maner of speach in the other Sacraments is like viz. of circumcision This is my Couenant of the Pascall This is the Passeouer of the rocke The rocke was Christ. Camp I say they are not like for Christ was not naturally present in those sacraments of the olde Testament as he is in this Sacrament Goade You bring an instance by Petitio principij but I ouerthrowe your particular instance by the generall The like vsuall speache is vsed in all Sacraments both of the olde and newe Testament Ergo in this sacrament of the Supper Camp The speache sense is this in the sacrament Hoc est corpus meum This that I see is my body as the quātitie colour Goade You answer not mine argument I haue said inough for the true vnderstanding of these wordes it must haue a sacramentall sense I leaue it vnto iudgement Camp I graunt a sacramentall sense so farre forth as goeth to colour The fathers you alleadge but those that I bring can not be answered Fulke They haue bene and may be as time and occasson will serue but nowe your lot is to answere I will take away your common and onely answere Campion I haue answered already Fulke Your answere sheweth that you vnderstande not the scope and purpose of Saint Augustine which is to proue that this saying Anima est sanguis is such a kinde of speach as this of the sacrament This is my body For these are his words Nam ex eo quod scriptum est c. For of that which is written that the blood of a beast is the soule of it beside that which I said before that it perteineth not vnto me what becōmeth of the soule of a beast I can also interpret this commandement to be made in a signe for our Lord doubted not to say This is my body when he gaue the signe of his body Here you see Augustine hauing disputatiō with the heretique Adimantus which helde that the blood of a beast was the soule thereof affirmeth that the blood is but a signe of the soule as the sacrament is a signe of the body of Christ and yet is called the soule as the other is called the body of Christ. Campion You are answered already Fulke This is your common answere You are answered already and you haue answered your selfe when you haue none other shift You vnderstand neuer a place of the Doctors that hath bene yet alleadged Campion Twentie yeres agoe I haue read this booke Fulke I do not beleeue that euer you read it you are so ignorant of the argument of it But sure I am that xx yeres agoe you had not read it You would seeme to be an older student in Diuinitie then you are by a great deale M. Norton Where were you Campion twenty yeres agoe were you not a poore boy in the hospitall Camp I was two and twentie yeeres olde and then I was Bacheler of Art Fulke You might reade that place noted out by some other but the whole worke of the autor you read not Camp I did not say that I had then read his whole worke Fulke It is not a dosen yeres agoe since I heard you at Garbrandes staule in Oxenforde aske for Irenaeus Epistles wherein you shewed that you were but a yong reader of the Doctors at that time Campion Peraduenture I might aske for Irenaeus workes Fulke Nay you asked for Irenaeus Epistles and namely that to Victor Campion Why might I not hauing read in Eusebius of his Epistle to Victor aske of the Stationer whether that Epistle were extant Fulke I deny not but you might but yet that argueth that you were but a yong man in the Doctors that knewe not what workes of Irenaeus were extant But howe answere you to Saint Augustine Campion I answere Saint Augustine sayth that Sanguis is a signe of the soule present as the bread is a signe of the bodie of Christ being present Fulke Saint Augustine sayth that the blood doth onely signifie the soule and is not the substance of the soule but you vtterly destroy his argument and so helpe the heretique very well Camp The heretique thought it was an absurditie that Sanguis being eaten anima is eaten Augustine sheweth because Sanguis is a principal part of life it is called the vitall blood c. Like as this Sanguis is a token that Anima is neere so the signe of the bread is a token that Christ is neare Fulke You goe quite from the matter The question was not whether the blood be a signe of the soule but whether it bee the soule it selfe Campion Let it be noted why is blood called Anima but because Anima is neare it because it exerciseth his functions therein So he gaue bread that was a signe of his body present The question was neuer whether the blood were the substance of the soule but whether the blood being eaten the soule were eaten Therefore in that saying of Saint Augustine Christ doubted not to say he gaue his body when he gaue a signe of his body there signe is a token of his presence Fulke That is a meere fallacion signe a token of presence as blood a signe that anima is neere Augustine is cleare that the blood is not the soule but a signe thereof as that which Christ gaue was not his body but a signe thereof Or els the heretique had his purpose in saying that eating of blood is eating of soules Campion I must not eate

Church though you call it a small matter and yet you wil not teach the people that it is a smal matter Fulk I said that inuocation of Saints as it was held by some of the latter sort of auncient fathers was but a small error in comparison of such grosse heresies which the Popish Church doeth now holde and in comparison of such inuocation of Saints as is now mainteined and practised by the Papistes but your accusatiō of my booke was written therefore you can not alter it Camp Lend me your booke that I may charge you The booke being deliuered after a litle turning he sayde This is not the booke that I meant Fulke This is the booke that you named Camp I meant your answere vnto Doctor Allens articles because Bristow hath confuted it Fulk This is a poore shift whē you haue slandered my booke and named one to flie to another so would you do with that booke you name now For I am sure that neither in that nor any other that euer I wrote your slander can be founde Goad There is an other thing ye were desirous to see touching the Councill of Constantinople and the Councill of Nice one of them being alleaged to be cōtrary to the other about setting vp of Images in the Church the Councill of Constantinople disalowing Images and the second Councill of Nice allowing thē and condemning the other Councill as erroneous Camp That of Constantinople was not a generall nor lawfull Councill but a certaine Iconomachy and may rather be called a conuenticle then a generall Councill and therefore no contrarietie hereby proued betweene generall Councils Goade It appeareth it was generall and solemnely gathered in the chiefe citie heare the wordes in the title of the Councill Sancta magna uniuersalis Synodus quae iuxtagratiā Dei per pium deuotorum orthodoxorum nostrorum Imperatorum Constātini Leonis decretum in hac diuinorm●… studiosa regia ciuitate congregata est c. The holy great and vniuersall Synode which by the grace of God and the godly decree of our godly Emperours Constantine and Leo is gathered in this holy and royall citie This Councill did confute by the Scriptures the setting vp of Images in the Church out of Deut. 20. Thou shalt not make to thy selfe any Image nor likenes of any thing c. and Deut. 4. For which cause saith this Counsaile you heard the voyce of wordes in the middest of the fire but you sawe no image Contrary to this the Councill of Nice doth accurse those that will not worship images in these words Qui venerandas imagines non venerātur Anathema Accursed be they that worship not holy images So it appeareth that these two Councils were contrary and therefore one of them did erre But I will proceede to the next place You doubted also whether it were to be founde in Saint Augustine that there is no Miracle in the Sacrament Now you may heare his owne wordes To. 3. De Trinitate lib. 3. cap. 10. Sicut panis ad hoc factus in accipiendo Sacramento consumitur Sed quia haec hominibus nota sunt quia per homines fiunt honorem tanquam religiosa possunt habere stuporem tanquam mira non possunt As the bread ordained for this purpose is consumed in receauing the Sacrament But because these things are knowen vnto men are done by men they may haue honour or reuerence as holy things but they can not be wondered at as things strange and miraculous Here you haue Augustines wordes against miracle in the Sacrament Camp In deede there is no such euident miracle visibly appearing as when Christ cured y● lame the blinde c. but yet there is a great miracle which our faith doeth acknowledge Goade Augustine speaketh simply against miracle so that whether it be visible or inuisible both is excluded Beside it is perpetuall in all miracles that there must bee some outward sensible signe Further you doubted of Inhaerens iustitia righteousnes inherent in our selues which I auouched to bee erroneous doctrine set forth in the late Council of Trent The wordes are these Concil Trident. cap. 7. Verè iusti nominamur sumus iustitiam in nobis recipientes vnusquisque suam secundum mensuram quam spiritus sanctus partitur singulis prout vult secundum propriam cuiusque dispositionem cooperationem Et cap. 16. Quae quum iustitia nostra dicitur quia per eam nobis inhaerentē iustificamur illa eadem Dei est quia a Deo nobis infunditur per Christi meritum We are called and in deede are truely righteous receiuing in our selues euery man his own righteousnes according to the measure which the holy Ghost doth deuide to euery one euen as he will according to euery mans own proper disposition cooperation For that righteousnes which is called ours because we are iustified by it inherent in our selues the selfe same is the righteousnes of God because it is powred into vs from God by the merit of Christ. Camp I did not doubt of inherent righteousnes in our selues whether it were in the Council of Trent for I defend mainteine it as the Councill teacheth it you saye it is by imputation of Christes righteousnes being without vs whereby wee are iustified and I say wee are iustified by that righteousnesse which is within vs though it be not of vs. Goade The place which I vrged against you the other day beside many other in the scripture is direcly against this doctrine 2. Cor. 5. 21. He hath made him to be fin for vs which knewe no sinne that we should be made the righteousnes of God in him Fulke Well nowe we are to come to the question You holde that the natural body blood of Christ is contained in the Sacrament of the Lordes supper Your wordes are Christ is present in the Sacrament substātially very God man in his natural body Camp I say there is really present in the Sacrament the naturall body and blood of Christ vnder that bread and cup. Fulke What meane you by these wordes vnder the bread and cup that we may agree of termes Campion You knowe in the bread is whitenes c. that is not in his body make your argument Fulke So I will The cup is not the naturall blood of Christ Ergo the other parte is not his naturall body Campion There is present in the cup the naturall blood of Christ. Go to my wordes Fulke Well The naturall blood of Christ is not present in the cup Ergo the naturall body is not present in the other part Campion The naturall blood of Christ is present in the cup. Fulke Thus I disproue it The wordes of Christes institution be these This cup is the new testament in my blood But the naturall blood of Christ is not the newe testament in his blood Ergo the naturall blood of Christ is not in the cup. Camp The ward Is is neither in the

properties though the same be not alwayes put in practise Goade Then sometime Christ may haue many or rather infinite bodies in many places at one time when the propertie of a true body ceaseth Campion Nay it remayneth still one and the same body though in many places at one time Goade When Christ deliuered his body in his last supper I pray you were there not by your opinion two sundry bodies namely Christ himselfe the author and actor in the supper was it not the one and the bread transubstantiate as ye wil haue it into Christes body was it not the other Camp Christ the actor in the Institution yet was then present in the same body in the Sacrament if he will haue it so who can let him I say he is miraculously in many places at once Goade Nowe we come againe to his will But I deny that he will haue it so and you can not proue it Saint Augustine is flat against you in the forenamed Epistle writing against the like heretiques of his time that would take from Christ the properties of a true body after his glorification as to bee circumscribed in one place c. Cāp Ye vrge me much with Augustine Let me shew for my selfe Augustine Chrysostome others of y● fathers if you dare Goade This is not to answere Come you to dare This is like your bolde challenge Campion You may if ye list procure leaue that I may oppose Catholiques could easily obtaine a greater matter then this of their princes and can not you obtaine this of your Prince Fulke We see it is to no purpose Whatsoeuer you cā bring is knowen and answered already Heskins Allen and others of your side who are farre your betters I haue already answered Well I will go to another argument If Christ be present in his naturall bodie he is receiued not onely of the godly but also of the wicked But he is not receiued of the wicked Ergo he is not present in his naturall body Campion I denie your minor Fulke I proue the minor out of S. Augustine de ciuitate Dei lib. 21. cap. 25. Nec isti ergo dicendi sunt māducare corpus Christi quoniam nec in mēbris computandi sunt Christi vt alia taceam nō possunt simul esse membra Christi mēbra meretricis Denique ipse dicens qui manducat carnem meam bibit sanguinem meum in me manet ego in eo ostendit quid sit non Sacramento tenus sed reuera corpus Christi manducare eius sanguinem bibere Therefore neither is it to be sayd that these vngodly men do eate the body of Christ because they are not to bee accompted in the members of Christ for to omit other things they cannot be at one time both the members of Christ and the members of an harlot Finally he himselfe saying he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood dwelleth in me and I in him sheweth what it is not so farre as a Sacrament may goe but in very deede to eate the body of Christ and to drinke his blood Camp His meaning is they receiue not the grace of Christ effectually to saluation Fulke His wordes are they receiue not the bodie of Christ reuera in deede but sacramento tenus in a sacrament or sacramentally Againe he saieth that Christ dwelleth not in them Ergo they eate not the body of Christ. Campion He dwelleth not in them vnto saluation Fulke True and therefore they eate not his bodie for whosoeuer eateth the fleshe of Christ hath Christ dwelling in him to saluation Camp Whosoeuer eateth the fleshe of Christ worthily but the wicked also eate the body of Christ though vnworthily Fulke He saith expressely they eate not the body of Christ reuera that is in deede or verily but sacramentally Campion Wherefore then are they guiltie Fulke That is an other question And yet one may be guiltie of the Maiestie of the Prince which refuseth to obey the same or dispiseth the same so are they guiltie of the bodie of Christ which refuse to receiue it being offered Campion They receiue Christ but not worthily He that receiueth Baptisme receiueth the holy Ghost or else the Sacrament should not be true so Saint Paul saieth He that eateth the body of Christ vnworthily is guiltie of the body and blood of Christ. Fulke He that receiueth vnworthily receiueth the sacramēt the Sacrament may be true though he receiue it vnworthily Againe you falsifie the text when you say he that eateth the body of Christ vnworthily Saint Paules wordes are He that eateth this bread and drinketh this cuppe of the Lord vnworthily Campion They must either receiue Christ vnworthily or his grace They receiue not the grace of Christ vnworthily Ergo they receiue Christ vnworthily Fulke Christ can neuer be separated from his grace A man may receiue the grace of Christ though he receiue not his body But he cannot receiue the body of Christ but he must also receiue his grace Campion The wicked receiue the body of Christ but not his grace Fulke So you say but answere to Saint Augustine which saith The wicked eate not the body of Christ in very deede Campion They eate Christ sacramentally Fulke Yea but not in deede as Saint Augustine saith Campion They receiue the same Christ but not to the same comfort that the godly do Fulke They do not receiue Christ saith Saint Augustine because they are not to be accompted in the members of Christ. Campion And I say the same Fulke He saith they eate not the body of Christ in deede you affirme that they eate the body of Christ in deede Againe Saint Augustine saith Hoc est in Christo manere c. This it is to dwell in Christ that Christ may dwell in vs. For so he saide this as though he had said He that dwelleth not in me and in whome I dwell not let him not say or thinke he eateth my body or drinketh my blood Camp The wicked eate the same bodie but not to the same effecte Fulke Augustine saith they eate not his body reuera in deede I see you haue no other shift of answere Therefore I will leaue it to iudgement The Apostles receiued not the same body that afterwards was crucified therefore your solution of the same body not after the same maner and qualitie cannot stand Campion They receaued the same body both before and after his passion Goade I will followe the confutation of that absurde assertion that the wicked eate the body of Christ which is easie to bee improued many wayes I frame mine argument thus Whosoeuer eateth the body of Christ doth eat Rem sacramēti The thing or substance of the sacrament But no wicked or vnbeleuing person can eate Rem sacramēti Ergo no wicked person can eate the body of Christ. Campion I distinguish of your Maior Res sacramenti is taken two wayes for the body of Christ or the

his blood Fulke You haue many wordes to no purpose in the worlde Campion Why is a mans brayne called his witte It were reason that I also should haue my course sometime to oppose and you to answere which if it fell so forth I doubt not but I coulde vrge you as well in these matters as you do me and driue you also to narrowe shiftes in the defence how Christ tooke flesh of the virgine Marie Fulke To take vpon me the person of an answerer is not my choyse and yours as also the place of opponent which I nowe susteine was not sought for by me And to graunt that which you now require resteth in the superior powers Camp Well then vse the helpe of your friendes to sue for obteining of the same For if you or the like were in Catholique cities that I know and did but once signifie your desire in the like case free disputation and conference would out of hand be procured And I in my defence challenge you here if you dare to aunswere to such points as I shal obiect against you Fulke I wil make no suite for the matter neither are you the man whome I would choose mine aduersarie to matche my selfe withall Camp In deede I thinke to obteine that suite would not bee for your aduantage Fulke Thinke of your selfe as highly as you list yet when you haue reckened all your gayne will be litle or nothing I will come to mine argument The elements go not from their nature and substance Ergo there is no transubstantiation Campion I deny your Antecedent Fulke I proue it by authoritie of Theodoret Dialog 2. Neque enim signa mysticapost sanctificationem recedunt à natura sua Mauent enim in priori substantia figura forma videri tangi possunt sicut prius For the mysticall signes after sanctification do not go from their nature For they remaine in their former substance shape and forme they may both be seene and touched as before Camp I answere he is so to be vnderstoode as he may confound the heretique with whom he did dispute Fulke Uery well and for that purpose he sayth the nature of the signes remaineth to moue that the nature of Christes humanitie remaineth after the assumption Campion Nature is not taken for substance Fulke Theodoret sayeth they remayne also in their former substance Campion He speaketh popularly hee must not be taken so strictly The word substance is often times taken for being therefore it must not be here taken for a speciall substance but genericè for a generall being Fulke Then it woulde followe that the proper substance of Christes body remaineth not but a generall being thereof Camp The heretique graunted that Christ had a body but he said it was a phantsticall body and not a true body Fulke And your answere will helpe the heretike very well As the signes remaine not in their proper substance but in a generall being or accidents so the humanitie of Christ after it was assumpted by the Diuinitie was absorpte of the same But Theodoret against the Eutichean by the similitude of the mysticall signes remayning in their nature and substance after sanctification proueth the veritie of Christes humanitie after his incarnation Campion You must not presse the similitude so substance is taken generally for being Fulke You were best to say as Saunders doeth that substance is taken for the bulke of the bread though there be no bread Campion I say it is an vnproper speach Fulke If euer we must speake properly we must do it when we dispute against heretiques as Theodoret did Camp I haue answered by substance he meaneth a being and such haue accidents Fulke That answere wil not stand with Theoderets words For Christ hath not nowe those accidentes with the which hee was incarnate but the same substance You shall heare the argument of Epanister the heretique As the symbols of the bodie and blood of our Lord are one thing before inuocation and after inuocation are changed and made other things so the Lordes body after the assumption is chaunged into the diuine substance But Theodoret telleth him that he is taken with his owne nette For the mysticall signes depart not from their nature but abide in their former substance forme and shape Here you see he speaketh both of substance and accidents Campion I graunt so farre forth as it made against the heretique Fulke But it maketh not against the heretique vnlesse transubstantiation be denied Campion Yes it maketh against the heretique that the bread being turned into the very bodie of Christ prooueth that Christ had a true body Fulke You doe open violence to the place His argument is not of the bodie of Christ to prooue his humanitie but by the remayning of the mysticall signes in their former substance and accidents to proue the perfite remayning of Christes humanitie after his incarnation Campion Euery argument vsed by the Fathers must not bee pressed farther then their purpose which was to confounde heretiques Fulke But herewithal is his minde expressed against the heresie of transubstantiation Camp I graunt it doth cary some suspition against transubstantiation but it doeth not make against it Fulke He could not more plainly haue spoken against it then to say the nature and substance forme and shaperemayneth in the bread and wine after sanctification Campion He is to be vnderstood that the substance doeth remayne in vacuitate sed tamen quantitate qualitate c. Fulke Euery man may see howe seely shiftes you be driuen vnto and howe farre you roue from that auncient fathers meaning I will presse you with another authoritie Goade I will vrge you with an other argument out of the same author whereby his iudgement shall appeare in moe places then one that he is flat against transubstantiation his wordes are these dialog 1. qui dicitur immutabilis Volebat enim eos qui sunt diuinorum mysteriorum participes non attendere naturam eorum quae videntur sed propter nominum permutationem mutationem quae fit ex gratia credere Qui enim quod natura corpus est triticum panem appellauit vitem rursus seipsum nominauit is symbola signa quae videntur appellatione corporis sanguinis honorauit non naturam quidem mutans sed naturae gratiam adijciens For he would haue those which are partakers of the diuine mysteries not to regard the nature of those thinges that are seene but for the chaunge of the names to beleeue that chaunge which is made by grace For he which called that which by nature is his body corne bread and againe called himselfe a vine euen he did honor the symbols signes which are seene with the name of his body and blood not chaunging nature but adding grace vnto nature Out of which wordes I reason thus The symbols and signes remayne in their owne nature after they be consecrate Ergo there is no transubstantiation Campion In great

and weightie matters they are forced to vse these termes he speaketh genericè generally not strictly Goade You answere nothing to the place reade the wordes and consider them better He speaketh plainely and in speciall of the nature and substance of the sacrament still remaining Camp I haue answered before that by nature he meaneth the exterior forme as accidents and qualitie Goade By nature it is plaine he meaneth the very substance for he doeth confound these two as appeared in his other place before alleadged Non recedunt à natura sua manent enim in priori substantia They leaue not their nature for they abide in their former substance When you finde the worde nature sometime in the fathers that seemeth to make for your transubstantiation then you triumph then you vrge the worde that it must needes signifie substance Now when the same worde is vrged against you out of Theodoret and the same Theodoret explaning also himselfe that he meaneth the very substance of bread and wine yet it must bee nothing but qualitie and accidents Camp When the coherence of the place yeeldeth it then we say it must signifie the substance It can not alwayes he taken for the substance For I pray you is not heate the nature of the fire yet it is not the substance of the fire Goade Heate is a propertie of the fire But what is this to the answering of Theodorets place where both the coherence and his owne exposition doeth shewe it to be all one with the substance Campion I haue answered the substantiall part doeth not remayne Goade Then I see we shal haue none other answere to Theodoret I will proue howe you will answere Iustinus Martyr in his Apologie Campion These Doctors were great Philosophers and therefore no maruaile though sometime they speake as they were wont Goade The substance of bread and wine remaineth Ergo they are not chaunged Campion It doeth not remayne Goade That which nourisheth the body remayneth But the substance of bread and wine nourisheth the body Ergo the substance of bread and wine remayneth Campion This is answered already When the substance is present it nourisheth by the qualitie Goade But the qualitie can by no meanes nourish without the substance Campion The qualitie nourisheth alone if it can bee there without substance Goade But it can not be there without a subiect Now consider the wordes of Iustinus in 2. apologia Non enim vt communem panem aut communem potum haec accipimus sed quemadmodum Iesus Christus seruator noster per verbum Dei factus caro carnem sanguinem nostrae salutis causa habuit sic etiam cibum illum postquam per precationem verbi illius fuerit benedictus ex quo sanguis caro nostra per mutationem nutriuntur edocti sumus esse carnem sanguinem illius c. For we doe not receiue these things as cōmon breade common drinke but as Iesus Christ our sauiour being made flesh by the worde of God had both flesh blood for our saluation so also we are taught that that meate after it is sanctified by prayer of the worde by which meate our flesh and blood is by chaunge thereof nourished is the flesh and blood of him Camp The accidentes alone wheresoeuer they be they may nourish Goad You speake against learning reason sense Will you say that accidentes without substance can nourish our blood and flesh Camp That is physica quadam ratione naturally it can not be but where there is a miracle supernaturall the miracle being graunted the other followeth Goad But your imagined miracle is denied and it hath bene shewed out of Augustine that there is no wonder in the sacramentes This is an easie answere to all arguments when ye haue nothing els then to say it is a miracle and this is your common answere Camp When the substance is present the qualitie nourisheth I would this question might be handled in the Uniuersitie Fulke You would faine be remoued but it lieth not in vs to remoue you Gelasius against Eutiches writeth thus Certe sacramenta quae sumimus corporis sanguinis Christi diuina rès est propter quod per eadem diuina efficimur consortes naturae tamen esse non desinit substantia vel natura panis vini Et certè ●…ago similitudo corporis sanguinis Christi in actione mysteriorū corporis Christi celebratur c. The sacraments of the body and blood of Christ which we receiue are a diuine thing and therfore by them we are made partakers of the diuine nature yet the substance or nature of the bread wine ceaseth not to be And surely a similitude or image of the body and blood of Christ is celebrated in the action of the misteries Therefore it is shewed vnto vs euidently enough that we must iudge the same thing euē in our Lord Christ him selfe which wee professe celebrate and receiue in that which is an image of him that as by the working of the holy Ghost these things passe into a diuine substance and yet abide still in the propertie of their owne nature euen so the same principall misterie doth shewe that one Christe whose efficiencie and trueth it doth truely represent vnto vs abideth whole true those things of which he cōsisteth properly still remaining What say you to this plaine testimonie of Gelasius who saith the substance of the bread and wine remaineth Campion Make your argument Fulke I haue made it already The suhstance of the bread and wine remaineth Ergo there is no transubstantiation Campion I denie your Antecedent Fulke The wordes of Gelasius proueth it The substance of bread and wine departeth not Ergo it remaineth Camp Gelasius and Theodoret haue one answere in the misteries which are the bodie of Christ there remaineth that which appeareth bread and wine Fulke Gelasius sateth the substance of bread and wine remaineth and not the appearance only and so saith Theodoret. Campion I tolde you they meane to proue that there is not a third thing as a phantasticall body but one Christ God and man Fulke This is nothing to the purpose The substance of the bread and wine ceaseth not to be in the sacrament for your credit sake answere to the authoritie Gelasius was a Pope hee coulde not erre Camp The substance of the bread and wine remaineth that is the being Fulke Euen nowe you denied my Antecedent and now you graunt it you go backward and foreward In deede you knowe not what to say Camp His answere is substance is taken for being Fulke What being a generall being Camp Such a being as is in all the predicamentes Fulke Ergo the sacrament is a transcendent Camp I denie the argument Fulke The bread and wine are the sacrament Bread and wine are transcendentes Ergo the sacrament is a transcendent Camp The being of them both after consecration is a transcendent the bread is a sacrament as