Selected quad for the lemma: spirit_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
spirit_n	according_a	speak_v	word_n	5,557	5	4.4077	3	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

mislike onely he sayd that he vnderstoode not of our comming Then we beginning with the first part of his sayd booke did demaund of him with what reason he could charge the Queenes Maiesties most mercifull gouernment and vs that at this time professe the Gospel as he did in y● Preface of his said booke with unused and strange crueltie and torments practised vpon his fellowes in religion seeing that the Authors and professors of their Religion had most cruelly burnt aliue so many thousands of vs for the maintenance of our Religion onely besides diuers other wayes of most horrible torments whereas none of them was euer executed for Religion but either for treason or some other notorious crime punishable with death by the Lawes of the Realme Whereunto he answered that he was punished for Religion himselfe and had bene twise on the Racke and that racking was more grieuous then hanging and that he had rather chuse to be hanged then racked Whereunto one of vs sayd that belike Master Campion being the Popes tender Pernell accounteth a litle racking of him selfe to be more crueltie then the roasting quicke of many thousands of vs. You must quoth Master Campion consider the cause the cause why and not the punishment onely It hath bene euer your maner sayd we not onely to vse petitione principij but totius also not only to require a principal point in controuersie but euen the whole it self to be graunted vnto you as that your cause is good and that you be the true Church of Christ as you continually presume and take vnto you But thanks be to God the contrarie hath bene so prooued that a great part of Christendome doeth euidently see it And many thousands who were before of your Church haue fled to vs from it as from the synagogue of Antichrist And concerning his racking Master Lieutenant being present sayde that he had no cause to complaine of racking who had rather seene then felt the racke and admonished him to vse good speache that hee gaue not cause to be vsed with more seuerity For although said he you were put to the racke yet notwithstanding you were so fauourablie vsed therein as being taken off you could and did presently go thence to your lodging without helpe and vse your handes in writing and all other partes of your body which you could not haue done if you had bene put to that punishment with any such extremitie as you speake of Besides this Master Beale one of the Clarks of her Maiesties priuie Counsell being by chaunce present demaunded of him before all the companie there assembled whether that being on the racke he were examined vpon any point of Religion or no Whereunto he answered that he was not in deede directly examined of Religion but moued to confesse in what places he had bene conuersant since his repaire into the Realme Master Beale sayde that this was required of him because many of his fellowes and by likelihood he him selfe also had reconciled diuers of her Highnes subiectes to the Romish Church and had attempted to withdrawe them from their obedience due to their naturall Prince and Soueraigne Whereunto he answered that forasmuch as the Christians in olde time being commanded to deliuer vp the bookes of their Religion to such as persecuted them refused so to doe and misliked with them that did so calling them Traditores he might not betray his Catholike brethren which were as he sayd the temples of the holy Ghost But it was replied by Master Beale that it was conuenient in policie for the Prince to vnderstande what such as were sent from the Bishop of Rome her Maiesties and the Realmes mortall enemie did within her dominions and to knowe her foes from her faithful subiects specially in such a time as this wherein we liue that this inquirie did not touch the cause of Religion After this we came to the matter of his booke And first where he chargeth vs that we haue nowe of a sudden cut off many goodly and principall partes of the holy Scriptures from the whole body thereof of meere desperation and distrust in our cause as hee writeth and for example and proofe thereof he nameth first the Epistle of Saint Iames which Luther that flagitious Apostata saith he in the Preface of the same Epistle and in his booke De captiuitate Babilonica nameth contentious puffed vp drie or barren as a thing stuffed with strawe and iudgeth it vnworthie the Apostolique spirit wee answered that if Luther had so written yet Master Campion did vs wrong to charge vs with violating of the Maiestie of the holy Bible for reiecting of the sayde Epistle of S. Iames who doe and alwayes haue receiued the same Epistle Yet we prayed him that he would shewe these wordes in the places by him noted which he sayd he would if he had the bookes The booke wherein was Luthers Preface to that Epistle being deliuered him when he had read some part of the sayd Preface and found that Luther did allowe and commend that Epistle as in deede he doeth testifying that though it were reiected of some olde writers yet he commended it and tooke it to be good and profitable which wordes of Luther when Master Campion had read he shut the booke and sayde that it was not of the true edition We answered that the print was not lately published being almost fourtie yeeres sithence and that we had searched all other printes that we could come by and found them to agree with this and that we thought there was no other and therefore we prayed him that he would shewe some edition wherein it was so set downe as he alleaged it in his booke He sayd he thought it was so as he had alleaged in the same booke of Luther in the Dutch tongue Then we offered to bring him the Dutch booke for the triall of the trueth of the Latin translation but he refused to see the same But it was aduouched vnto him as the trueth is in deede that it was likewise in the Dutch booke as he had read it in the Latin for that we had made conference thereof Then he desired to see Luthers booke De captiuitate Babilonica This booke also we deliuered to him and desired that he would shewe those wordes there He read the wordes in Latin which are these in effect I passe ouer saith Luther that many doe very probablie affirme that this Epistle is not Saint Iames the Apostles nor worthie the Apostolike spirit Here Master Campion thought that he had founde at the least that Luther had sayd that the sayd Epistle was not worthie the Apostolike spirit But wee prayed him to consider that Luther spake of other mens iudgement and not of his owne as in the same place is most euident to see and also before in his Preface to that Epistle he expresly deuideth his iudgement from theirs But Master Campion much vrged the wordes very probably whereby saith

he Luther shewed his allowance of their iudgement We answered that he so sayde for that they brought very probable reasons for that their iudgement But he still charged Luther with blasphemie for saying that some doe very probably affirme that the Epistle of Iames was not written by the Apostle Saint Iames nor worthie the spirite of an Apostle and vrged vs to answere what opinion we had of that Epistle meaning to intangle vs with that Dilemma either to condemne Luther or else to doubt of the Epistle as Luther saith that some probablie doe We answered that our Church doubteth not of that Epistle but receiueth it as Canonical readeth it in our Churches expoūdeth it in our scholes and alleageth it for confirmation of doctrine Notwithstanding for Luther or any other to say that some haue very probably affirmed that Epistle not to be written by Saint Iames nor to be worthie the spirite of an Apostle is no blasphemie It is blasphemie blasphemie quoth he pronoūcing those words with disdainefull countenance and voyce It is soone said quoth we but not so easely proued I will proue it quoth he to be blasphemie by two reasons and thus he framed a syllogisme The Gospell of Saint Iohn and the Epistle of Saint Iames were written by the same spirite But to say that some doe probably affirme the Gospell of Saint Iohn not to be written by Saint Iohn nor to be worthie the spirite of an Apostle is blasphemie Therefore to say that like of Saint Iames Epistle is blasphemy Answere was made that the Maior was Petitio Principij the challenging of the graunt of that which chiefly is in controuersie For those that so say of Saint Iames Epistle doubt whether it was written by the same Spirite that the Gospell of Saint Iohn was or no and that still resteth for you to proue said we And here Master Campion when he coulde not denie that he required that to be graunted to him which he should haue proued was put to silence and had no more to replie Then was his second reason called for but none could be found Then saide one of them Why is not Saint Iames Epistle called the Catholicke Epistle of Saint Iames Howe doe you then denie it to be Canonicall It was said that that was a simple reason For whereas other Epistles of the Apostles were written vnto speciall Cities people or persons this of Saint Iames for that it was written commonly to all the tribes of the Iewes dispersed was called Catholike or generall Then sayd we to the auditorie You haue heard that Luther doeth much commend this Epistle of Saint Iames as good and profitable and Master Campion alleadgeth that he calleth it contentious puffed vp drie or barren stuffed with strawe and vnworthie the Apostolike spirit Whereby sayd we ye may see the diuersitie or rather contrarietie of Luthers wordes and Master Campions reporte and so may ye iudge of his synceritie trueth which he vseth likewise continually Then saide Master Campion that Luther himselfe and others had purged these workes and taken away all such places as that was and the like that ministred such occasions of offence as that did and he said he woulde procure from the Emperours Maiestie and the Duke of Bauaria and from another Prince whose name we remember not the true copyes of those bookes to be sent to the Queenes Maiestie Which wordes he rising vp from the forme whereon he sate pronounced with so great contention of voice and with such gesture casting vp his armes beating vpon his booke that one of vs challenged him therefore demaunding why he vsed such outragious speach and behauiour He answered for that so many yong Catholiques were present there he woulde not by any faint defending of the cause giue them occasion of offence Whereby we vnderstande howe he would haue behaued him selfe might he haue obteined a disputation among the youth of the Uniuersities trusting they woulde be caryed away many of them by such his bolde and confident dealings and actions And we saide further to Master Campion that if Luther had purged his books where he first reiected Saint Iames Epistle as Master Campion saith he hath sithen receiued and much commended it with whatreason hath Master Campion charged vs vpon his surmise of Luthers first writing which doth no where appeare as reiecting Saint Iames Epistle He should rather haue commended vs who doe and alwayes haue allowed of that Epistle and should haue praised Luther who after the example of Saint Augustine and other ancient and godly writers had amended in his writing that which vpon better aduise he misliked Then we turning to the auditorie sayd that seeing all the printed Bookes of Luther extant that we could finde doe conteine such commendations of Saint Iames Epistle as they had heard and that Master Campion hath charged Luther so contrarily to all his printed bookes wherein he commendeth that Epistle and therby also chargeth vs as reiecting it who euer haue receiued it they might we said take Master Campions trueth and synceritie to be as it is vntill he haue brought out his copies from the Emperour and the Duke of Bauaria which he nor any liuing we beleeue can euer doe But Master Campion said that might he haue his own bookes from Oxeforde he woulde shewe that in Luther which he had written of him Whereunto it was answered that if he woulde let vs knowe where they were we would become humble suters to their honors that he might both enioye his bookes and that the partie who had them in keeping might be without daunger But this woulde he not consent vnto Then Hart one of his fellowes saide that he being at Rome heard Bellarminus the reader of controuersies there affirme that the wordes reported by Campion in his booke were in that preface of Luther and that therefore vpon his worde it was so Whereunto we answered that neither his wordes nor the testimonie of Bellarminus were of sufficient credite to carry away such a matter as that was without better proofe specially so many and most manifest proofes in Luthers printed bookes being to the contrarie who agreeth with vs in allowing the said Epistle and that therefore Master Campion hath most impudently alleadged this place of Luther as a profe that we should reiect S. Iames Epistle Then Master Beale said It is not materiall to vs if Luther had once so written but he asked Master Campion whether euer he did read him selfe any such wordes in Luther as he in his booke doeth charge him with or not Whereto he answered that in a treatise made by Doctor Lee sometime Archbishoppe of Yorke against that booke of Luther intituled De captiuitate Babilonica he had read these wordes alleadged as he had set them downe in his booke Being againe asked whether either vpon his othe or vpon his credit he would say to the presence there assembled that he had euer seene the places alleaged by him in his booke

vnto priuate vses these sanctified vessels in which is not the true body of Christ but a misterie of the body of Christ is contained how much more the vessels of our bodie which God hath prepared for a dwelling place to him selfe ought wee not to yelde vnto the deuill to do in them what hee will The place is so plaine that no man can deny it hee saith the misterie of Christ is contained in the vessels therefore hee speaketh not of the vessels when they are emptie but when the sacrament is in them which he denieth to be the true body of Christ. Campion The thing may bee abused after the true body of Christ be taken out and yet there is a misterie there because of the spirituall vse the meaning is you must not abuse the thing referred to holy vses by the example of Balthasar and therefore the misterie is alwayes there when the vessels are emptie Fulke A very secret misterie in deede that is in the emptie chalice Well well I thinke that there is none so simple here but he may see in what case you stande Campion A misterie is not alwaies taken in one sense Why may there not be a misterie of Christ in the emptie chalice there is a misterie of Christ in euery thing I would you might answere me a while to that I could bring out of Chrysostome Fulke You are not allowed to oppose at this time but I will answere you in writing whatsoeuer you can bring As for this matter all men see how vnable you are to answere I could helpe you with a better answere my selfe Goade If Christ be present in the sacrament in his naturall body then his bodily presence must continue so long as the vse of the sacrament continueth to the worldes ende But Christ touching his bodily presence doeth not so continue Therefore Christ is not present in the sacrament in his naturall body Camp Christ doeth and so shall continue his bodily presence to the ende of the worlde Goade Christ him selfe hath denied his bodily presence or continuance Therefore he shall not so continue Campion I denie your antecedent Goade Io. 16. vers 28. I leaue the world and goe to the father And Math. 26. 11. The poore yee shall haue alwaies with you but me ye shall not haue alwaies Camp He meaneth he will not be conuersant in the world as then he was touching his outward conuersation and poore estate you shall not saith he haue me alwaies with you as you haue the poore Here he was entring into a long tale Goade I looked for this shift before I will take away your distinction ye are too full of wordes ye will not suffer mee to goe on with mine argument you are belike afraide It is spoken in respect of his bodily presence simplie Therefore not in respect of his poore estate Campion Proue what you can I deny your antecedent Goade I proue it by Saint Augustine expounding the same wordes of our Sauiour Christ. Tractat. in 10. 50. Pauperes semper habebitis vobiscum me autem non semper loquebatur enim de presentia corporis sui Nam secundum maiestatem suam secundum prouidentiam secundum ineffabilem inuisibilem gratiam impletur quod ab eo dictum est Ecce ego vobiscum sum vsque ad consummationem seculi secundum carnem quam verbum assumpsit secundum id quòd de virgine natus est c. non semper habebitis vobiscū Ascēdit in coelum non est hîc ibi est enim sedet ad dextrā patris hîc est non enim recessit praesentia maiestatis Secundū praesentiā maiestatis semper habemus Christum secundum praesentiam carnis rectè dictum est discipulis Me autem non semper habebitis The poore ye shall haue alwaies with you but me ye shal not haue alwaies he spake this of the presence of his body For according to his Maiestie according to his prouidence according to his vnspeakeable inuisible grace that is fulfilled which Christ said Lo I am with you to th ēd of the world according to the flesh which the word tooke according to that he was borne of the virgine c. you shal not saith he haue me with you alwaies He is ascended into heauen is not here for he is there sitting at the right hād of the father And he is here for he is not departed according to the presence of his maiestie According to the presence of his maiestie we haue Christ alwaies with vs according to the presence of his flesh it was well said to his disciples But me you shal not haue alwaies Augustine in his first wordes expoundeth this to be spoken of the bodily presence of Christ simply Campion It is spoken according to his visible conuersation Proue any thing against this Goad Augustine excludeth all kinde of bodily presence Therefore it is not spoken according to his visible cōuersation Camp I denie your Antecedent Goad Augustine acknowledgeth only two kindes of presence of Christ the one the bodily presence of his flesh the other according to his maiestie prouidence inuisible grace According to this latter kind he saith Christ is present with vs which he directly opposeth to his bodily presence Therfore all kinde of bodily presence is excluded Campion There is no contrarietie to that I said before S. Augustine excludeth not by maiestical presence al bodily presence Make your Syllogisme and I will answere you Goad It is more then the vsuall order of disputatiō to require a Syllogisme when I am come to the issue of mine argument namely to authoritie as now we are come to Augustine but I will followe your request Do you answere directly Thus I make mine argument out of Augustines wordes Christ is now present with his Church touching his maiestie and vnspeakeable grace Therefore by no meanes touching his body Campion I deny your argument Goad Augustines wordes proueth it making but two kindes of presence of Christ namely presence of maiestie and presence of flesh and opposeth the one against the other Camp He speaketh not of Christ present in the sacrament but of his presence which euery Christiā man may haue he speaketh according to Subiectam materiam he excludeth not his naturall presence in the sacrament Goad You answere not the argument out of Augustine But I will followe you and proue that hee excludeth the presence of Christes naturall body in the sacrament He excludeth all presence saue that by his maiestie prouidence and grace Ergo he excludeth the presence of Christes naturall body in the sacrament Camp To your Antecedent I answere he excludeth all ordinary presence by outward conuersation and sheweth how Christ is present with euery Christian by his spirit and grace hee speaketh not of his presence in the sacrament Goad He speaketh generally excluding all bodily presence Therefore aswell in the sacrament as without Camp Hee speaketh generally quoad subiectam materiam according to

the matter that he had in hand Goad You answere not the argument Thus I vrge it briefly Christ is now present with his Church only touching his spirit and grace Ergo he is no way present touching his body Mine argument you see is grounded vpon Augustines plaine wordes opposing the one presence to the other Secundum presentiam maiestatis semper habemus Christum c. Campion He compareth these two together how he was present to his Apostles and how to vs he talketh generally of an vsuall presence as euery māmay haue Christ present by prayer c. Goad And he maketh Christ present to vs none other way but by his maiestie and inuisible grace and touching all presence of his flesh saith it is true me ye shall not haue alwaies I pray you would or durst Augustine so haue written in so plaine wordes absolutely to allowe onely of Christes presence by his grace denying that touching his bodily presence we should not alwaies haue him with vs if Christ any way were still bodily present vpon earth Camp Yea I warrant you being rightly vnderstoode For he opposeth his presence then and his presence now not any more according to visible conuersation And so your argument ye woulde make out of Augustine is not good Goad You vse not to answere the point of the argument but your manner is to holde you stil to one shifting distinction though it be often taken away Your kinde of answering is not onely against learning but against common sence Fulke I will take an other argument If Christ be present in the sacrament in his naturall body he is present in truth and in deede not onely in a signifying misterie But he is not present in the sacrament in truth and in deede but onely in a signifying misterie Ergo he is not present in his naturall body Cam. I denie your Minor he is present in the truth of his body Fulke I proue it out of the Canon Lawe De Consecratione Distinct. 2. cap. Hoc est Sicut ergo caelestis panis qui Christi caro est suo modo vocatur corpus Christi cum reuera sit sacramentū corporis Christi illius videlicet quod visibile quodpalpabile mortale in cruce positū est vocaturque ipsa immolatio carnis quae sacerdotismanibus fit Christi passio mors crucifixio non rei veritate sed significante mysterio sic Sacramentum fidei quod Baptismus intelligitur fides est●… Therefore euen as the heauenly bread which is the flesh of Christ after a peculiar maner is called the body of Christ when in deede it is the Sacrament of the body of Christ to wit of that body which being visible which being palpable being mortal was put on the crosse and euen that immolation of the fleshe which is done by the Priests handes is called the passion death crucifixion of Christ not in trueth of the thing but in a signifying mystery so the Sacrament of faith which is vnderstoode to be baptisme is faith And the Gloss. hereupon sayth Coelestis c. id est Coeleste Sacramentum quod ver è repraesentat Christi carnem dicitur corpus Christi sed impropriè vnde dicitur suo modo sed non rei veritate sed significante mysterio Vt sit sensus Vocatur corpus Christi idest significat The heauēly bread that is the heauenly Sacrament which truely representeth the flesh of Christ is called the body of Christ but vnproperly whereupon it is sayd by a peculiar maner but not in the trueth of the thing but in a signifying mystery So that the sense is It is called the body of Christ that is it signifieth it Camp All this maketh for transubstantiation That which we see is called the body of Christ where in deede it is but the colour and the accidents Fulke All makes for you but let vs see whether you can so runne away with the matter He saith Coelestis panis the heauenly bread can the colour or accidents be called the heauenly bread Campion The meaning is of the accidents and of the signe Fulke This is a straunge proposition color or accidens is coelestis panis Campion It is called Coelestis panis because it is heauenly bread by consecration Fulke That can not be For he calleth that heauenly breade which is the fleshe of Christ and after the maner of it the body of Christ But accidents are not the flesh of Christ nor the body of Christ Ergo they are not the heauenly bread Campion If you respect the qualitie it is the heauenly bread by consecration Fulke It seemeth you knowe not the place the Glosse sayth the heauenly bread which is the heauenly Sacrament is called vnproperly the body of Christ not in trueth of the thing but in a signifying mysterie Camp Saint Augustine there speaketh popularly You bewray your slender reading of Augustine in citing this as Gratians authoritie Fulke It is Gratian in the decrees of your owne Canon law and the Glosse thereupon In deede the decree is borowed of Augustine but it is more fully against the carnall presence as it is cited by Gratian. Campion I will answere both Gratian and the Glosse Fulke Set it downe then in few wordes Campion It is called coelestis in respect of consecration and transubstantiation bread in respect that it is bread wine in outwarde shewe and for the accidents it is called Sacramentum the Sacrament in respect that vnder those outward shewes the naturall body of Christ is present Fulke So you vnderstand the sacrament which is denyed to be the body of Christ in trueth of the thing to be the accidents but it is absurd that accidents should be called the heauenly bread Campion It is not absurd if it be heauenly vnderstood but accidents visibly considered of themselues import absurditie Fulke The Sacrament is the outward shewe which is not the body of Christ. I will proue that he taketh the worde Sacrament for the whole Sacrament not for the accidents as you doe Campion He speakes of the whole Fulke He speaketh of the whole and not of the whole this is manifest contradiction Campion The worde Sacrament is here taken for the exterior formes and not for the whole Sacrament Fulke I proue it must be taken for the whole Sacrament els it could not be compared with Baptisme But it is compared with Baptisme Ergo he taketh it for the whole Sacrament Camp Your maior I answere He compareth the element of the sacramēt of the altar with the elemēt of water in baptisme Fulke He speaketh of the whole Sacrament of Baptisme which is called faith euen as the heauenly bread is called the Sacrament of Christ But the water of Baptisme is not called faith Ergo he speaketh of the whole Sacrament Campion He respecteth the externall signes and compareth signes with signes Fulke That which he spoke of is called the body of Christ But the accidents are not called the body of Christ Ergo

it is a signe Fulke Take the sacrament for a signe and then you will say it is a transcendent which is in all predicaments I pray you what remaineth Campion Aliquid the signes of bread and wine Fulke Hoc aliquid nihil est There remaineth the substance of bread and wine saith Gelasius that is to say the accidentes as you expound him By like reason you may expounde him by white to meane blacke by hoate colde you might as well say when hee speaketh of God hee meaneth the deuill by such monstrous interpretations all heresies may be defended Camp Your arguments cary a shew because you reason physically but we must not be led by senses in these misteries Fulke I reason truely and truthe is able to stande with all true sciences against all gainsaiers Goad There remaineth the substance of one of the elements Ergo there remaineth the substance of both Camp There remaineth substance in neither Goade The substance of the wine remaineth Ergo of the one Camp Wine doeth not remaine substantially Goade Cyprian epist. 3. ad Caecilium Dico vobis non bib am amodo ex ista creatura vitis vsque in diem illum quo vobiscum bibam nouum vinum in regno patris mei Qua in parte inuenimus calicem mixtum fuisse quem Dominus obtulit vinum fuisse quod sanguinem suum dixit I say vnto you I will not drinke hereafter of this creature of the vine vntill the day that I shal drinke it new with you in the kingdome of my father In which parte we finde the cup which the Lord offered to be mixed and that it was wine which he called his blood By these wordes it appeareth that wine remaineth He saith we finde that it was wine c. Campion His intent is to proue that Christ did consecrate in wine and so must we do he doth not call it wine after consecratiō Goade I proue that his meaning is after consecration as Christ him selfe doth call it whose wordes he doth recite He saith it was wine which he offered and called his blood But he did not offer and call it his blood till after consecration Therefore it was wine after consecration Campion That is hee tooke wine to make it his blood and when he tooke it it was wine he saith not that when Christ did offer it it was wine Goade He saith that it was wine which he called his blood he did not call it his blood before consecration I leaue the place to the iudgement of the learned I will farther confirme this out of Irenaeus There remaineth an earthly substāce after consecratiō Ergo there is not transubstantiation Camp There doth not remaine any substance Goade Heare his wordes Iren. aduer hereses lib. 4. cap. 34. I am non communis panis est sed Eucharistia ex duaebus rebus constās terrena coelesti Caeleste hoc quidnā est Dominus Iesus Terrestre autem quid panis qui ex terra est quique corpora nostra pascit quemadmodum reliqui panes Nowe it is not common bread but the Euchariste consisting of two things one earthly and the other heauenly This heauenly what is it the Lorde Iesus And what is the earthly bread which is of the earth and which doth feede our body as other bread doth Camp He saith the sacrament consisteth of two things There be nine predicaments beside that of substance and this word Res or thing may be in them all and they may bee all saide to be earthly things Goade You can not so shift of Irenaeus plaine wordes I will proue that Res in this place must needes signifie a substance Sacramentes consist of two substances the one earthly and the other heauenly Therefore it must needes be vnderstoode of substance Campion I deny that they consist of two substances they consist of two things Goad You will graunt that Christ the inuisible grace is one substance and so that part of the sacrament which is heauenly is a substance The earthly part namely the elementes of bread and wine remaine also in their proper substance for as Irenaeus saith the bread is of the earth and doeth nourish our bodies as other bread doeth Campion It is inough to consiste of two thinges of Christ and the grace of Christ. An euill man may receiue Christ but not the grace of Christ. Goade Do you make the two things to bee Christ and his grace thē one of these two must be earthly according to Irenaeus And it hath bene confuted before that the wiched can not eate Christ for whosoeuer is partaker of Christ must also be partaker of his spirit and grace Campion I say that the wicked may receaue Christ yet t●… their condemnation when they receaue that part of the sacraniēt which Irenaeus calleth the thing earthly being not the substance but the accidents Goade The wicked receaue the sacrament the thing earthly to their condemnation but Christ they receaue not I haue before proued that by the earthly thing must needes bee vnderstoode the substance but ye are much beholding to accidentes and miracle they haue helped you well to daye when yee had nothing els to answere Fulke Irenaeus calleth the sacrament a sacrifire I thinke you like the phrase in regard of yourmasse but he faith it was such a sacrifice as doth not sanctifie the offerer lib. 4. cap. 34. Therefore it was bread and wine Camp You say that it is a sacrifice so it is in deede but hee meaneth by the offerer Christ which doth sanctifie not man Fulke He meaneth cleane cōtrary you shall heare him speake he meaneth man Campion Man is also the offerer after a sore Fulke You hurt your selfe because you will not heare the place but take vpon you to answere you knowe not to what His wordes are speaking of the sacrament Igitur sacrificia non sanctificant hominem non enim indiget sacrificio Deus sed conscientia eius qui offert sanctificat sacrificium pura existens praestat acceptare Deum quasi ab amico Therefore the sacrifices do not sanctifie the man for God needeth no sacrifice but the conscience of him that offereth being pure sanctifieth the sacrifice causeth God to accept it as of a friend Hereof I inferre That which the conscience of mā must sacrifice is bread wine Therefore the sacrifice is bread and wine Campion He meaneth except the conscience of the offerer be pure it sanctifieth not the man Fulke Not onely that but hee saith the pure conscience doeth sanctifie the sacrifice But no mans conscience doth sanctifie the body of Christ Therefore the sacrifice of bread and wine are not the body of Christ. Camp The pure conscience maketh it an holy sacrifice to him that offereth but otherwise it is holy of it selfe Fulke Irenaeus affirmeth that the sacrifice hath no sanctification but of the pure conscience of the offerer Campion If that be wanting it signifieth not the man that is holy Fulke But if

labijs charitatis meae And againe Verte sermonem meum in fraudem Do you thinke this speach proceeded of the holy Ghost Nay rather howsoeuer it displease you to heare of the matter it proceeded frō a prophane spirit as I haue said to charge the holy ghost with fraud to pray for such an effect that Holofernes might be taken with her loue snared with her kisses Camp There be no such wordes in the booke Charke Here you are manifestly ouertaken for they are worde for worde in the 9. Chapter and after your translations the vulgar and Vatablus Camp Is that to be esteemed fraude which the holy Ghost deuiseth Is it fraud to deceiue the deuill blame you her who did that she did to a good end and for the deliuery of the Church Char. What dealing is this Euen now he denied the words now finding them strong against his cause he would auoid them with a distinction of good intents to iustifie bad parts Thus you Papists hold against the word of God that we may do euill that good may come of it No Campion Gods spirit is alwayes like it selfe It is not agreeing with the maiestie of the spirit of God for any woman to pray that a stranger should be taken with the snare of his eyes looking vpō her or that she may deceiue by lies This story therfore this practise proceded not frō the holy ghost Camp It is a shame for you to bring that example She desireth God that it will please him to turne the wickednes of Holofernes to the deliuerie of his people She prayeth not as you say that he should sinne Charke She doth pray for it in plaine words and set out her selfe in sumptuous apparell and ornaments to that purpose It is a shame for you Campion to mainteine any such absurditie and againe to deny and misconster the manifest wordes of that you would haue Canonicall scripture We stand before the face of God for the maintenance of his truth and giue such honour therunto that we acknowledge with our harts cōfesse with our mouths that it is perfect full and sufficient and that there is no prophanation in it but you would haue that to be matched with holy scripture which is far vnworthy that honor What say you to the argument the place Let him be taken with the snare of his eies in me turne my speach into deceit or fraud This is a praier for successe in a matter of sinne most vnseemly for the holy ghost Camp I receiue this booke first because the Nicene coūcill hath allowed it then I say further that this was her meaning that whereas God had giuē Holofernes ouer to fleshly lust that he might be taken with the loue of his eies towards her to be besotted with her y● she might the better performe her determinate purpose she prayeth that God will turne his sinne to the deliuery of his distressed people And what doth she commit worthy of blame in this Charke This is not only worthy of blame but also to be condemned as sinfull and sauouring of a prophane spirite that shee prayeth God to blesse her lyes and falshood her tentations and allurements to lust For the Lord hath appointed good wayes for good purposes and for the performance of that his worke he needed not her deceit For as Iob saith God needeth not any mans lie or any mans fraude Which is also true of the fraude and dangerous allurements mentioned in that chapter Camp What Chapter what Chapter Charke The ninth Chapter Reade and acknowledge the words you haue denied Here Campion read in his owne booke saying he perceiued we builded vpon our owne t●…slation Camp Well this is mine answere It was not truely and formally fraude but materially in the formall act fraude as for example when the people of the Iewes were commanded to steale from the Egyptians it was in the act theft but not formally theft So Abrahanis intent to kill his childe was to do murther in the act but formally it was no murther Charke You woulde nowe in steade of a short and schoolelike answere drawe me to a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the place in hande to the examination of newe matters Therefore to take you where you will needes be I say the Hebrewe worde hath not that signification that it shoulde import theft but a spoyle which was iust and commanded of God as after a victorie or for a rewarde of their labours seruice in Egypt therefore no theft But this fraude is another thing So the first example is vnlike proueth nothing no more do the rest For Abrahams act was no murther nor intent of murther but a duetiful obedience and seruice to God who had expresly commanded it Lastly you can not thinke that the Magistrate in taking the life of a transgressor or taking away y● head of a traytor is a murtherer No this duetie of iustice is layd vpon him by his office from God and can not but ignorantly be called murther And such was the warrant for Abraham in his office Camp I meane killing as it respecteth the taking away of life and no otherwise Charke How do you confound the speciall with the general All murther is the taking away of life but all taking away of life is not murther To kill and to take away life from the wicked by the sworde of iustice is iust and in no respect to carry the name of murther which is euermore euill Walker Concilium Laodicenum The Councill of Laodicea hath left out Toby Iudith the booke of Wisdome Ecclus Baruch Maccabees Esra the third and fourth and in the newe Testament Luke the Apocalyps these are the wordes Quae autem oporteat legi in authoritatem recipi haec sunt Genesis Exodus c. But those which ought to be read receiued for authenticall are these Genesis Exodus c. Where the forenamed bookes are omitted Camp The Laodicene Councill was particular and not generall And againe it reckeneth vp those bookes that were vndouted and not douted of in that part of the world But what maketh this to proue that they were douted of of that Catholike Church They were douted of in that Church or in that part of the Church Ergo they were douted of of the whole Church How holdeth this Therefore it is plaine that these bookes were not doubted of in that whole Church For the same Nicene Council accepteth Iudeth as Hierome testifieth in the preface to Iudeth Further because the Church of Rome approueth them it followeth not that we should dout of them Walker Then you confesse that the Council set not downe al that we should receiue And where you make the Councill particular it was prouinciall and further was confirmed by the sixth generall Councill holden at Trullo Constantine being president as Bartholomaeus Caranza writeth fol. 71. and therfore we may with them leaue out of the Canon Tobie Iudeth the