Selected quad for the lemma: soul_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
soul_n	body_n	bread_n	nourish_v	4,911	5	10.6386	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

those that would haue water He saith hee deliuered wine but consecrated wine to exclude water Fulke He excluded water to bring in wine and not to shut out both water and wine Camp We vse wine in the misteries Fulke But he saith Christ deliuered wine so doe not you say when you giue the cup Camp He gaue them that which had the name of wine and had the shewe of it but nowe was not in deede wine As for example the rod of Moyses was called a rod after it was turned into a serpent because it was a rod a litle before Fulke The rodde was miraculously turned into a serpent and returned into a rod againe both which miracles were to be iudged by the sense and yet you proue not that it was called a rodde while it was a serpent Campion Yes that I do Et deuorauit virga Aaron c. And the rod of Aaron deuoured the rod of the enchaunters Fulke Yea Sir That which was a rodde while Moyses did write and was a very serpent before Pharao deuoured the roddes of the Egyptians which were serpents in shew but rods in deed Moyses called it a rod when it was a rod and not when it was a serpent Againe it was a sensible miracle Campion So there is great miracles in the Sacrament Fulke So you say but none appeareth to our sense Campion They are vnderstoode by faith Fulke It is an easie matter so to faine miracles in euery matter but God did neuer shew miracle in conuersion of substances or any sensible thing but it was to be iudged by the senses to be a miracle Bring me one instance of any miracle in cōuersion or in any other sensible thing that could not be discerned by sense Camp It was a rod a litle before that after was called a serpent and yet reteined the name it had before as Clandi ambulant Caeci vident c. Fulke That is not denied although by you it can not be proued but here the place is plaine Chrysostome speaketh of the substance of the Sacrament he deliuered wine and they receiued wine Campion I haue answered Leaue the rest to God and their consciences which are the hearers Goade I will continue to vrge you further with the wordes of the Institution Your answere can not bee allowed for good when you would shift off the plaine wordes of our sauiour Christ calling it wine being the fruite of the vine and would haue this referred to the wine vsed in eating the Pascall before the institution You may not so leape backe from the Institution to the Pascal there was some distance of time betwene the Pascall and the Supper so you can not referre this to the whole action Campion You say well The eating the pascal Lambe went before and the Institution followed and yet I say the wordes of Christ concerning the fruit of the vine hath relation to the whole Goade Consider the order of the wordes in the Euangelist As they were eating the Passeouer Iesus tooke bread c. And then after he had deliuered the cup and bad them all drinke thereof calling it his blood then followeth I say vnto you I will not drinke hereafter of this fruite of the vine c. But I will make my argument from the Institution thus The Apostles did eate the substance of breade and wine after consecration as you terme it Therefore there remaineth the substance of bread and wine after consecration Campion I deny your Antecedent Goade That which our Sauiour Christ gaue the Apostles did eate But he gaue bread and wine Ergo they did eate bread and wine Camp I deny your minor He did not giue bread and wine Goade The same which Christ tooke into his handes he also deliuered But he tooke bread and wine Ergo he deliuered bread and wine Camp I answere out of Ambrose Before consecration it was bread and so he tooke bread but after the wordes of consecration he saith it is no bread Fulke You falsifie Ambrose and would abuse the auditorie for he doeth not say it is no bread Camp He sayth there is a chaunge I may you let me make one argument out of Ambrose and answere me if you can Goade Well make your argument you shal be answered Campion Let me borrow the booke Nowe heare Ambrose wordes lib. de Sacramentis 4. cap. 4. Tu forte dicis panis est vsitatus Sed panis iste panis est ante verba Sacramentorum vbi accesserit consecratio de pane fit caro Christi Vides ergo quàm operatorius sit sermo Christi iussit facta sunt Si ergo tanta vis est in sermone Domini vt inciperent esse quae non erant quanto magis operatorius est vt sint quae erant in aliud commutentur Peraduenture thou sayest that it is common bread But this bread before the sacramentall words is bread but after consecration of bread is made the flesh of Christ. Thou seest then of what efficacie the word of Christ is he commaunded and the creatures were made If then there is so great force in the worde of the Lord that the things that were not begun to be how much more is it able to worke that the things which were should haue still their being and be chaunged into other things Goade I know the place and thus I answere First ye haue not any worde in Ambrose to exclude the substance of bread We acknowledge a chaunge with Ambrose not of one substance into an other as you would haue to be but touching the vse whereto the sacrament serueth namely that which was common bread before ordeined to a common vse to feede the body is now conuerted and consecrated to an holy and spirituall vse to nourish the soule by feeding vpon Christ by true and liuely faith Campion But Ambrose wordes are plaine that which before was bread after consecration ex pane fit caro Christi of bread is made the flesh of Christ. Goade Ambrose words in deede are plaine in the same chapter whereby he doeth expound his meaning the chaunge to be as I haue said touching the vse and not the substance Dicis communem panem c. By these wordes it appeareth that Ambrose purpose was to confute their opinion who thought ouer basely of the Sacrament making no difference betweene it common bread Thou sayest it is common bread but thou art deceiued it is consecrated and chaunged to an holy and heauenly vse and is become sacramentally the flesh of Christ. Campion It is called bread but it is not bread for ex pane fit caro Christi And euen as he made heauen and earth by his worde so by his worde the bread is made his flesh Goade Wee deny not that it is Christes fleshe as himselfe sayeth of the bread This is my body but it is to be vnderstoode as a sacramentall speach when the name of the thing is giuen to the signe as after shal be shewed out of

auoyded The sacramēt consisteth of the signe and the thing signified The signe is the outward shape whitenes quantitie c. this is the materiall part of the Sacrament which is auoyded Fulke There is no one of these accidents shape quantitie colour taste that are auoyded because they are altered in the stomacke before they come to the place of auoydance Againe i●… is a shameful absurditie to say that the accidents are the meate which is sanctified by the word and prayer Campion I answere Id quod habet materiale is the matter of the Sacrament not of the bread Fulke This place is too playne against you euery one may see your answere how vaine it is Goade That which ouerthroweth both the nature and vse of a Sacrament is not to be admitted But transubstantiation doeth ouerthrowe doth the nature and vse of a Sacrament Ergo it is not to be admitted and consequently vntrue that you affirme the bread and wine to be transubstantiate c. Campion I deny your minor it doeth ouerthrow neither the nature nor the vse of a Sacrament Goade I must proue both the members seuerally because you deny both and first that it taketh away the nature of a Sacrament A Sacrament consisteth of two things the matter and the forme the visible signe and the inuisible grace the one earthly and the other heauenly as Iraeneus sayth the element and the worde according to Augustine Accedat verbum ad elementum fit Sacramentum Let the worde come vnto the element and so it is made a Sacrament This being so then thus I reason Whatsoeuer taketh away the element ouerthroweth the Sacrament for the word must come vnto the element as Augustine fayth the element must not depart away But transubstantiation taketh away the element Ergo Transubstantiation ouerthroweth the nature of the sacrament Campion I deny your minor it doeth not take away the element Goade It taketh away the materiall part the substance of bread and wine Ergo it taketh away the element Campion I say it taketh away neither the heauenly nor the earthly part Goade You answere not directly to mine argument But I will prooue that it taketh away the earthly part It taketh away the substance of bread Ergo the earthly part Campion I deny your argument For there remayneth res terrestris an earthly thing though the substance be chaunged Goade What is that earthly thing if there remayne no substance Euery Sacrament must consist of the element and the worde the element is the earthly creature or substance Camp The element doeth not note a substance there remaineth an earthly creature the whitenesse of the bread Goade What can the whitenesse remayne without substance or subiect The Sacrament must consist of the substance of Christes body and the substance of bread and wine Campion Resterrestris the earthly thing remaineth but not the substance we are come to a nyce poynt Goade So it seemeth I will here leaue the first part I had to proue and now will come to the second touching the vse of the sacrament which I will also proue to be destroyed by your transubstantiation You spake before of the analogie in the Sacrament there must be a similitude and proportion betweene the signe and the thing signified As in Baptisme the element of water washing the bodie and the holy Ghost through the blood of Christ washing and sanctifying the soule So in the other Sacrament as the substance of breade receyued nourisheth the bodie so Christ receyued by faith nourisheth the soule Euen as Augustine very well noteth this analogie in his 23. Epistle in these wordes Si Sacramenta quandam similitudinem earum rerum quarum sunt Sacramenta non haberent omnino Sacramenta non essent c. Hac autem similitudine plerunque ipsarum etiam rerum nomina recipiunt Sicut ergo secundū quendam modū Sacramentum corporis Christi Corpus Christi est Sacramentū sanguinis Christi Sanguis Christi est ita sacramentum fidei fides est If sacraments had not a certaine resemblance of those things whereof they are sacraments they should not at all be sacraments and by reason of this resemblance for the most parte they take the names of the things them selues Therefore as the sacrament of the body of Christ after a certaine maner is the body of Christ the sacrament of the blood of Christ is the blood of Christ so the sacrament of faith is called faith Nowe this similitude or proportion by you is cleane taken away while ye take away the substance of bread that should norishe the body and so consequently ye take away the nature of a Sacrament by Saint Augustines reason Campion The similitude is not taken away though there remaine no substance of bread and wine for there remaineth accidentes which do nourish Do not qualities feede bread may feede by accidentes in all the qualities of bread Goade This is strange I might tell you that this is against Philosophie that accidentes without substance should feede but we are in diuinitie The very true and principall vse of this sacrament is to confirme our faith that as surely as the bread and wine feedeth our bodies euen as certainely the body and blood of Christ receiued by faith feedeth and nourisheth our soules Nowe by your taking away the substance of bread wee are brought into doubt of the nourishment of our bodies by the outward element and so consequently of the feeding of our soules by Christ the heauenly bread and so ye destroye the analogie chiefe vse of this sacrament Camp When God doth worke a miracle it is no marueile though there followe wonderfull sequeles I say that colour may remaine without substance and accidents may feede and nourish I will defende it in the Uniuersitie I would I might haue libertie to defende it Goad What will you defende that accidentes without substance may nourishe that is too absurde Camp No absurditie at all If it please God to take away the substance of water and leaue the qualitie of madefaction what hurt were it might it not bee sufficient And if you will needes vrge the analogie of feeding by the substance it is sufficient that there was also the substance of bread before consecration wherein may stande the analogie Goade Let me make it plaine vnto this auditorie how manifestly you take away the comfortable vse and analogie in this facrament When I come to receaue by this meanes I ought to strengthen my faith that euen as I knowe most assuredly that the substance of bread and wine serueth to nourish and doeth feede my body euen so Iesus Christ being receiued by faith doeth also nourish my soule vnto eternall life This is a most comfortable analogie or similitude in this sacrament But if I should beleue that the substance of bread and wine is cleane gone and though before consecration the substance remained yet before I can receaue the sacrament the substance is taken away and there remaine

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

nothing but accidentes howe can I be assured that my body is nourished by the outward elements and so in like maner my soule by feeding on Christ Thus by your doctrine of Transubstantiation you ouerthrowe both the nature and vse of the sacrament would spoile vs of the comfort and streng thning of our faith which wee should haue by this notable comparison the grounde whereof resteth vpon the certainty of nourishing our bodies with the substance of the elementes Camp Nay now ye preach I thought ye had come to dispute Make a Syllogisme Goad I open this more plainely for the edifying of the hearers that they may the better see the fruite and comfort of your doctrine of transubstantiation Campion I would I might appose the auncient fathers are all on my side Fulke Not any one of them ye abuse the auditorie if you can bring any thing do it by writing I wil answere you by writing Camp Mine answere and assertion is that we are fed by accidentes without substance by that which is left the quantitie and qualitie Goade Can you shew any ground or word for this Campion This is worde enough for me Hoc est conpusmeū This is my body Goade Those wordes doe nothing proue your assertion as hath bene shewed Campion I would I might be suffered to shewe my cardes as you haue done yours Goade Whatsoeuer you can shewe is well enough knowen and hath bene shewed by others of your side and is sufficiently answered Fulke I reason thus That which Christ gaue at his supper was bread Ergo there remaineth bread in the sacrament Campion I denie that it was bread in substance that hee gaue but only in shewe Fulke It was pieces of bread that he gaue Ergo it was bread Campion He gaue not substantial pieces Fulke I neuer heard of accidental pieces But Cyrillus saith speaking of that sacrament Dedit eis fragmentapanis In Ioh. cap. 4. He gaue them pieces of bread But bread is substance Therefore he gaue them pieces of substāce or substātial pieces Camp It is all one to giue pieces and to giue bread The whole is not bread Ergo the pieces were not bread It was consecrated bread Fulke How answere you to Cyrillus that saide he gaue them pieces of bread Campion Euery piece of bread is called bread he speaketh after the common maner because it was bread by appellation Fulke What gaue hee or whereof were those pieces but of bread Camp He gaue pieces of bread in appellation The Doctors acknowledge it to be no bread Fulke That is vtterly false The Doctors alwayes called it bread and pieces of bread and no Doctor within 600. yeeres after Christ saide that the accidentes of bread and wine onely did remaine and not the substance Camp I haue answered and giuen three reasons before why they called it so Fulke You haue answered nothing but you teache the Doctors to speake Name one Doctor for fiue or sixe hundred yeres after Christ which saieth that there remaineth no substance of bread in the sacrament or so speaketh as you would expounde them Camp The Doctors say that after consecration the bread is made the body of Christ. Fulke I beleeue and confesse as much Camp Then you must beleeue that the substance of bread is turned into the body of Christ. Fulke It followeth not Campion Master Doctor if you feare not your cause for charitie answere me I chalenge you that you can not answere the Doctors Fulke It is not in me to giue you leaue to oppose I come hether by commandement to oppose you otherwise as I tolde you the last day you are not the man whome I woulde take for my aduersarie Campion I speake to you to be a meane for me I compare the cause with you and not my person with you Fulke I haue answered els where whatsoeuer could be opposed by your betters Heskins and Saunders and neuertheles if you can bring any thing that they haue omitted put it in writing and I will answere you as I haue often said therefore I will go forwarde As Cyrillus calleth the sacramentes pieces of bread so Belasius calleth it a portion of the holy body as it is in the decrees cited by Gratian. Comperimus autem c. We haue founde out of a certaintie that certaine men after they haue receaued a portion of the holy body do absteine frō the cup of the holy blood c. Camp Now we shall haue an other disputation whether the cup be necessarie for lay men Fulke Though the communion vnder both kindes bee proued vnuincibly by that testimonie yet I bring it onely to shewe that terme a portion of the holy body which proueth that there remaineth bread which is broken for the very body of Christ is not broken Campion He calleth it a portion by a popular speache because the signe being deuided Christes body is in euery parte of that bread which is not bread in deede but in apparance only and so seemeth to be deuided into sundrie partes Fulke This answere of popular speache is with you Tanquā Delphicusg 〈◊〉 to auoide all authoritie that makes against you be it neuer so plaine but in deede it is a figuratiue speache not vsed of the people Camp Is not a figuratiue speache common and popu●… They say we drinke the 〈◊〉 Therefore mine answere is it is a popular kinde of speache because when the signe is broken the thing it selfe is said to be so Fulke Do the people saye the Lordes body is broken when they meane that the accidentes only are brokē such kinde of speaking and meaning is farre aboue the peoples ●…itie Camp The signes are broken not the body of Christ it selfe Fulk Againe in that counterfeite epistle ascribed to Clemē●… which he should write vnto S. Iames exhorting him that he should keepe the Pix diligently from mise dung putrifaction hee calleth the sacrament which is reserued Reliquias fragmentorū corporis Dominici The reliques of the fragments of our Lords body and Puluis dominici corporis the dust or small crummes of the Lordes body and fragmēta Dominici corporis fragmēta dominicae portionis The fragments of the Lords body the fragmēts of the Lords portion What are al these reliques fragments dust or crummes but of bread Camp All these remnantes breakings are in respect of the exteriour forme of bread an vnproper kinde of speache Fulke These speaches are vnproper of that body of Christ which can not be brokē but they are proper of the bread of the which Cyrillus speaketh plainely Camp Proue you that the substance of bread remaineth and not the accidentes onely Fulk I haue proued that the bread remaineth which is brokē and bread is substance therefore substance remaineth Campion The signe is broken but not the bread Fulke You shew your iudgement We must take all your answeres when the bread is broken the signes are broken Cam. I could make as good sport about that incarnatiō of

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

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