his conscience be neuer so pure it sanctifieth not the bodie of Christ Therefore there is no way for you to escape Goad If there bee transubstantiation then Christ is really present in his true body But Christ is not really present in his true body Ergo there is not transubstantiation Camp Christ is really present in his true body Goade He is not present in his sensible body Therefore not in his true body Campion I deny your argument Goade It is the argument of our Sauiour Christ who neither deceiueth nor can be deceiued Luk. 24. 39. See my handes and my feete that it is I handle me and see c. Here Christ proueth his true body to be present by the senses of seeing and handling as reasoning thus You see and feele my body Therefore I am present in my true body And it is not a spirite as you feare as if he could not haue bene seene and handled then not to be beleeued to be his true body Camp The argumeÌ„t of Christ is good The body that might be felt must needes be a true body The body of Christ is alwayes sensible but he doth wheÌ„ it pleaseth him withdraw this propertie Goad Then by our Sauiour Christes reason we may doubt of the trueth of his body Camp It is said of Christ that he vanished out of their sight yet his body was visible And can not Christ bee present nowe without our seeing him Goad He was taken out of their sight and then howe could they see him but you say his body is present with vs. Will you chalenge more vnto you then Christ him selfe doth It pleased Christ to be iudged by our senses touching the presence of his body our senses do see feele smell and taste nothing but bread Campion Christes pleasure is â—…nough 〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉 â—…e him rise out of his sepulchre Goad It pleased the Lorde to holde their eyes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 astonished for feare so when he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is true that wee can not vse this sense Campion Then his body may be 〈◊〉 to â—…s if he will yet he in him selfe is alwayes sensible so the cause of not seeing him is in him and not in mine eye Goade Yea if our eyes were holden that we could not see but it is manifest that the Apostles knewe nothing of this doctrine of reall presence in the sacrament before Christes resurrection For if they had bene taught before in the 〈◊〉 that Christ was present in the sacrament in his naturall bodie and yet they sawe and handled nothing els but bread this argument nowe after his resurrection drawen from their senses had bene of small force Campion Ye haue heard mine answere though now it pleased him to shew him selfe palpable yet there may bee impediment in him and also in vs why this is not alwayes so Here was no miracle when Christ did thus shewe him selfe but Christ wil be present in the sacrament miraculously Goad Let vs ende with prayer Wee yelde thee humbly thankes most gracious God and merciful father that it hath pleased thee to call vs to the knowledge and profession of thine euerlasting trueth reuealed in thine holy worde and although it bee the lotte condition of the same truthe alwayes to haue aduersaries and gainsayers that set themselues against the cleare light of thy word yet we beseech thee so to establish and confirme our faith in the knowen trueth that we be neuer offended by reason of errors and heretiques knowing that as there hath bene alwayes amongst thy people so there wil be still false prophets which priuily shall bring in damnable heresies yea there must be heresies in the Church that they which are approued may be knowen But rather O Lord by this meanes stirre vs vp the more to study and meditate in thy lawe And specially vouchsafe to worke in our heartes a greater measure of zeale and loue towardes thy truthe seeing that of thy iust iudgement thou vsest to sende strong delusions that they should beleeue lyes which woulde not receiue the loue of thy trueth And amongest the multitude of those that wander in blindnes and errour wee beseeche thee in thy good tâ—…e so many of them as pertaine vnto thy kingdome of thy mercie to conuert and the rest that are obstinate against thy trueth and glorie of thy iust iudgement to coâ—…de and finally to breake the might of Sathan by the power of our Lord Iesus Christ to whome with thee and the holy spirit be all glorie now and euer Amen William Fulke Roger Goade A remembrance of the conference had in the Tower of London betwixt M. D. Walker and M. William Charke opponents Edmund Campion Iesuite respondent the 27. of September 1581. as followeth 1. Whether the Scriptures containe sufficient doctrine for our saluation 2. Whether faith onely iustifieth MAster Charke beganne the action with this godly prayer but Campion refusing to pray with them becrossed himselfe on the forehead breastes and other partes after his superstitious maner Our helpe is in the name of the Lord who hath made heauen and earth O eternall God and most mercifull father we thy seruantes doe humbly acknowledge that we are by nature miserable sinners ful of darkenesse and errour without thee neither meete to receiue the loue nor able to yeelde the obedience of thy trueth Therefore wee beseech thee in Iesus Christ to throw all our sinnes into the bottome of the sea to chase away all our darkenes with the brightnesse of thy wisedome that we may growe vp in the knowledge in the loue and in the obedience of thy most holy will And because we are here assembled to maintaine thy trueth against the errour and superstition of Antichrist vouchsafe O Lord our God to be present in this action by thy holy spirit and so sanctifie our hearts and gouerne our tongues that our corrupt affections being suppressed all things may be done in a godly zeale for thy trueth and nothing against it Moreouer for those that are come to heare graunt that as many as loue thy Gospell may be more and more confirmed in the knowledge thereof by that which shal be faithfully deliuered out of thy holy worde such as be otherwise minded wee pray thee that they may yeelde either to the manifest trueth if they appertayne to thy holy election or being none of thine that they may appeare guyltie and conuicted of a lying spirite such as is gone out into the worlde to deceyue those that will not receyue the loue of thy trueth but delight in darkenesse These things O Lord and whatsoeuer thou knowest to be good for vs we aske in the name of Iesus Christ and by that forme of prayer which he hath taught vs. Our father c. After the prayer was ended M. D. Walker entred with this preface Walker Gentlemen ye shall vnderstande that we be sent hither by authoritie to talke conferre with one called Campion an English man borne
tantum loco esse potest veritas autem eius vbique diffusa est c. The body of Christ wherein hee rose againe from the dead can be onely in one place but the trueth of Christ is spread euery where Campion All this is true according to nature but in the sacrament it is a miracle Goade Augustine denieth any miracle to bee in the Sacramentes therefore you can not flee to miracle The very words I nowe remember not but I am sure I haue read it to that effect Fulke His wordes are as I thinke Sacramenta honorem vt religio sa habere possunt stuporem vt mira habere non possunt Our Sacraments may haue reuerence as things religious holy but they can not be wondered at as things straunge miraculous Goade Peter saith Act 3. Whome the heauens must holde till the restauration of all things Campion What will you make him a prisoner nowe in heauen must he be bound to those properties of a naturall body Heauen is his palace and you would make it his prison Goade They are the wordes of the holy Ghost Whom the heauens must conteine vntill c. It becommeth not you so to iest at them and specially considering your state being a prisoner ye should not so play with the worde of God I see nowe the modestie I heard reported to be in you is cleane contrary I would to God you would make more conscience in speaking more reuereâ—…ly of such Diuine matters Campion I am a prisoner for religion but touching Christ his bodie why I pray you might not thaâ—… same naturall bodie which by nature being heauy and yet ascended vpward steppe by steppe and pearced those thicke Christall heauens which are harder then any christall walked vpon the waters and â—…orow the doore being shut why may not the same â—…y like 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 many places at once Fulke It were a hard matter for you to prooue that the heauens are harder then christall Campion I can proue it Goade The text doeth not say that hee came thorowe the doores being shut but hee came when the doores were shut the doores by his diuine power giuing place to his body as the brasen gates in the Actes did vnto Peter of their owne accorde Besides these other thinges you speake of they were extraordinarie workes c. CaÌ„p The text is plaine that he came in by a great miracle Fulke First there is no wordes in the â—…xt to enforce a miracle notwithstanding I am content to graunt that he came in miraculously which might bee either the doores opening of their owne accord vnto him as was saide they did vnto Peter or by giuing place vnto his diuine power Camp If he neither came thorowe the doores nor wrought a miracle how came he in Belike he played some iugling tricke Fulke That is a vile blasphemy It appeareth you haue great reuerence of Christ that speake so blasphemously of him and beare no more reuerence to his holy worde Campion Why what would you call it if it were not a miracle it must be some such thing Fulke It might be a miracle though he came not thorow the doore for he came after the doores were shutte Is it a necessarie consequence to say such a one came in after the doores were shut ergo he came thorow the doores What tempus is the verbe Campion I thinke it be the Aoriste Fulke The word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I pray you what tempus is it Campion The perfect tempus euen as clausis the Latine worde is Fulke But you did English it before the doores being shut which is the present tempus Campion You know it is the phrase of our English speach Fulke Our Englishe phrase will beare as well after the doores were shut Here Master Lieutenaunt shewed them the time was past and so they left off William Fulke Roger Goade A remembrance of the conference had in the tower with Edmund Campion Iesuite by William Fulke and Roger Goade Doctors in Diuinitie the 23. of September 1581. as foloweth The assertions of Campion were these 1. Christ is in the blessed Sacrament substantially very God and very man in his naturall body The 2. After the wordes of consecration the bread and wine are transubstantiated into the body and blood of Christ. FIrst Master Lieutenaunt in a short and pithie speache exhorted Campion to consider what great fauour her Maiestie shewed him that hee might haue conference with the learned to reforme his errours when they shoulde bee playnely conuinced out of the worde of God c. Campion I do acknowledge that I am beholding to her Maiestie If she haue appoynted this conference to instruct me thinking me to be out of the way I can not but be thankefull to her Maiestie for the same Yet I protest being resolute in my conscience that I come not with my minde so suspended as to doubt of my cause but my intent is to doe you good as you would instruct me so would I instruct you as you would drawe me so would I drawe you Therefore take my intent in good part as I would do yours I come to giue an accoÌ„pt of my faith I am not vnresolute This said he crossed himselfe after his superstitious maner Fulke Let vs begin with prayer O eternall and most mercifull God we humbly thanke thy Maiestie that thou hast lightened our mindes with the knowledge of thy trueth we hartily beseeche thee to confirme encrease our faith alwayes in the same and at this time graunt that we may so defende thy trueth that thou mayest haue the glory the obstinate heretike may be confouÌ„ded the weake may be strengthened we all may be edisied in Iesus Christ through whome we make our prayers and to whome with thee and the holy Ghost the Spirite of trueth be all honour and glory Amen We are earnestly moued because of the confusion the other day that it might be auoyded nowe to desire that we might haue some Moderator if we might intreate any of these learned men that are present to take the paynes otherwise that it might please Master Lieutenaunt when one argument is done to commaunde vs to go to another And also when we haue accepted an answere not to suffer the aduersarie to carie the matter with multitude of wordes so that we be neither forced to leaue our argument as though we could followe it no longer nor the aduersarie permitted with large discourses to spende the time vnprofitably contrary to the right meaning of this conference But before we enter into the matters appoynted wee haue to discharge our credite for the authoritie of the Fathers whom we alleadged the last day in the afternoone when wee had not the bookes ready to shewe because the question was then vpon the suddaine both chosen and disputed vpon all within two houres whereupon we promised to bring the bookes as this day because the aduersarie would not credite our allegations
time of the institution Camp Nay we ground sufficiently vpon that place though Christes body be now glorified yet we do not builde vpon glorification but vpon the wordes This is my body which Christ hath spoken and therefore it is his body Goade But you are not yet resolued what kinde of body It is an other now from that it was then Camp Yet the same bodie though differing in condition Christ cannot be wounded now as afore yet the same flesh Goade I do not denie the same body in substance to bee nowe that was then but you see that the presence of a glorified bodie which you affirmed is not grounded vpon Hoc est corpus meum But I leaue this argument Goade Let vs conclude with prayer Almightie Lord and merciful father we yeelde thee humble thankes for thy manifolde benefites bestowed vpon vs especially yâ— thou hast vouchsafed vs the knowledge and loue of thy heauenly trueth contained in thy holy worde which thou hast denied vnto many others leauing theÌ„ in their owne peruerse blindnes we beseeche thee to encrease daily in vs more and more the true knowledge of thee of thy sonne Iesus Christ whom thou hast sent vouchsafe to make thy truthe so much the more deare and precious vnto vs for that it hath enemies that daily seeke to obscure and impugne the same and as for those that goe aâ—…traie so many of them as pertaine vnto thy kingdome we beseeche thee in thy good time to call to lighten their mindes and to mollifie their heartes that we may together with one heart and one mouth glorifie thee thorowe our Lord Iesus Christ. Amen ⧠The disputation in the afternoone the same daye The second question or assertion of Campion The question After the wordes of Consecration the bread and wine are transubstanciated into the body and blood of Christ. Fulke LEt vs beginne with prayer O almightie God and most merciful father we humbly submit our selues before thy maiestie and doe vnfainedly acknowledge that our heartes are full of ignorance and blindnes so that wee cannot vnderstande thy wonderfull trueth by our selues nor see it when it is reueiled by thee except it please thy maiestie by thy holy spirite to lighten our darkenes giue sight to our blindnes Wherefore we humbly beseech thee to assiste vs by thy grace and to giue vs sight to see thy trueth and strength to defende the same against all thine enemies that the weake may be confirmed the obstinate confounded and thy name glorified through Iesus Christ our Lorde Because you tooke a time to finde those wordes which you reported to be in my booke and I see the booke in your hand I pray you reade them if you haue founde them Camp The booke is mistaken it is not that booke I meant Fulke It is the booke that you named Camp I am sure you do not disclame the opinion Fulke As I tolde you in the forenoone I do disclame it in such sorte as it was vttered by you which you are not able to proue to be affirmed by me Campion You make inuocation of Saintes a matter of great waight Fulke The Church did erre in that point but not as you Papistes do erre in it There is great difference betweene their errour and yours But let vs come to the appointed question which is against Transubstantiation I proue there remaineth the substance of bread and wine in the sacrament after consecration Our Sauiour dranke the same that his Apostles did But our Sauiour dranke wine Ergo his Apostles dranke wine Camp I deny that our Sauiour dranke of the coÌ„secrated wine Fulke The words of the Euangelist are plaine that our Sauiour Christ spake I wil drinke no more from henceforth of the fruite of the vine These wordes are plaine of wine for the blood of Christ is not the fruite of the vine Camp This signifieth that our Sauiour did eate indefinitly whether hee did eate of the same bread or drinke of the same cup of wine which he gaue I doubt of it he did eate drinke with theÌ„ Fulk He protested that he would not drinke any more of that which he gaue But that which he gaue vnto them was wine Therefore he dranke of the same wine Camp This text conuinceth it not Fulke Yes plainely Camp He speaketh of that wine which was drunke at supper for all was wine if there had bene 20. gallons before consecratioÌ„ Fulke He speaketh of the wine in his hande for whereto els hath the pronowne this relatioÌ„ After he had taken the cup in his hand immediatly he faith I will not drinke any more of this fruit of the vine Camp He had supped with them hee had eaten the Pascall lambe with them he would not take any more repast with them in this life till his resurrection as afore therfore it is to be referred to the action that went before Fulke It is plaine that he speaketh of the same wine which he had in his hande which he gaue vnto them And Chrysostomes wordes declare the same in Math. Homil. 89. Sedcuius rei gratia non aquam sed vinuÌ„ post resurrectionem bibit perniciosam quandaÌ„ haeresin radicitus euellere voluit eorum qui aqua in mysterijs vtuntur ita vt ostenderet quia quando hoc mysterium traderet vinum tradidit iam post resurrectionem in nuda mysterij mensa vino vsus est Ex germine auteÌ„ ait vitis quae certè noÌ„ aquam sed vinuÌ„ producit But for what cause did he not drinke water but wine after his resurrection His purpose was to pull vp by the rootes a certaine pernicious heresie of them which vse water in the mysteries so that he shewed that both when he deliuered this mysterie he deliuered wine and nowe also after his resurrection in the onely table of the mysterie hee vsed wine Of the fruite of the vine saith hee which verely bringeth foorth wine and not water Campion All this makes for me Fulke You shall heare howe it maketh for you Here you see that he dranke of that which he deliuered to his disciples And he dranke wine Therefore he deliuered wine to his disciples Campion He deliuered that which had the shew of wine doth he say that he gaue wine Fulke He saith Vinum tradidit He deliuered wine or he gaue wine Campion Goe to he deliuered consecrated wine He did consecrate wine and did giue it vnto them Fulke He gaue consecrated wine Ergo he gaue wine Campion I denie your argument for consecrated wine is not wine Fulke Then he gaue wine that was not wine For Chrysostome saith Vinum tradidit He gaue wine Camp He gaue that that was wine Fulke Chrysostome sayth That which hee deliuered was wine when he deliuered it or els howe did hee take away the heresie of those that brought in water if he had not giuen wine Campion The meaning of Chrysostome is to bring in wine against
away our sinnes and heale all our diseases through the righteousnesse of Iesus Christ our onely saluation Open our eyes we beseech thee that wee may at this time beholde and so frame our hearts that we may gladly embrace thy most holy trueth as thou hast left it vnto vs by thy holy seruants the Prophets and Apostles Graunt this knowledge and loue of the trueth with dayly increase not onely to vs O Lorde who through thy grace alreadie make profession thereof but also vnto all those that yet set them selues against the same that they acknowledging the trueth of thy word may cleaue to it forsaking all superstitious vanities and seeing the all sufficient righteousnes sacrifice of thy only sonne may lay hold of it denying them selues renouncing their own merites falsly named righteousnes Graunt vs these things O heauenly Father for thine onely sonnes sake Iesus Christ our alone sauiour redeemer in whose name we aske the praying as he hath taught vs Our Father c. Walker We haue in the forenoone entreated of the Canonicall scriptures and of their sufficiencie Now we haue to entreate of fayth God graunt vs grace that we may see the trueth and hauing fayth may rest in it to our endelesse comfort Let vs before we enter into the matter declare somewhat concerning the state of the question We holde therefore that we are iustified by fayth onely and that freely no other woorkes concurring for that purpose And yet we set not downe a bare and naked fayth as our aduersaries charge vs. For we confesse that fayth hope and charitie are coupled and lincked together and that loue is the greatest But we affirme that fayth onely is that instrument whereby we lay holde vpon the loue of God which is the onely foundation of our saluation By that title therefore wee exclude all mens workes and vertues as meritorious and onely looke to the merits of Christ. Camp I will declare to you my meaning also Wee are agreed that God doeth iustifie and for Christs sake onely through his grace and through his mercie alone through his Sacraments and through baptisme Thus farre we agree but herein we disagree For we say that when God doth iustifie he doth giue vs of his grace three distinct giftes fayth hope and charitie and these are as three causes of iustification and charitie a principall cause which frameth the first act in vs. We say therefore that as grace is put in vs in iustification so also our righteousnesse is enlarged through good workes and is inherent in vs. Therefore it is not true that God doeth iustifie by fayth onely Charke Campion you are not to vse your old sleight in running from the matter and loading one thing vpon an other The question is whether we be iustified by faith onely that is now that which is in question to be decided 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and you are not to change the state of the question Walker Well let your declaration stande for defence although we agree not For there are sundry causes of iustification finall and middle But faith is the first thing in vs that receiueth iustification and yet it is not of vs. Camp I grant that there are mo causes then one Walker Well though I be an olde man and haue bene long from the vniuersitie I meane yet to examine you in the grounds of these things and to go with you from poynt to poynt and so we shall find out our disagreement best I pray you what is the Etymon of fayth Camp It is called fayth Quia fit quod dictum est Because it is performed that is spoken as I take it Walker That is true Dicitur a fiendo quia Dominus fidelis est Because the Lorde is faythfull standing to his worde and keeping his promise with vs. But in vs fayth is a certaintie or sure perswasion and therefore it is called by the Apostle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or elenchus foundation or argument It is therefore the ground and before all other things that come after it as the foundation is before the building Camp I grant it But what inferre you hereof Walker This I inferre Fayth is the grounde and before all things that come after it Ergo it is before hope and charitie Camp In nature it is before them but it doth not iustifie before they do come Walker Prius and posterius First and last bee taken diuers wayes It is not before Tempore but Dignitate ordine Not in time but in dignitie and order Camp That is contrarie to S. Paul For he sayth Charitas est maior Loue is greater Walker You must vnderstand what Paul meaneth therby It is Maior duplici respectu It is greater in a double respect In respect of God and in respect of men and so extendeth further Camp Uery well I like your causes well but it is simplie greater and more excellent Walker Let me proceede then It is greater in that it is more necessarie to the life of man and also in diuturnitie because it neuer dieth nor hath any ende Camp I grant you all this But what are those to the matter of iustification But let me adde a thirde also that it is digâ—…ior because faith and all good workes are nothing without loue But let vs heare your argument Walker The ground is before that which is grounded vpon it and in all good order we vse to set the most worthie first Thus therefore I reason Faith is the foundation ergo before the other Camp If you meane in dignitie it is not true It is before in order but not in dignitie For the roote is not more worthie then the tree though it be afore it Walker Paul sayth Fundati radicati in fide speaking of the assuraÌ„ce they had in their saluation And it was necessarie they should be thus grounded and rooted in the faith before they could bring forth the fruits of faith The fruits were good works which were not the cause of their iustification but the effects of men engraffed in Christ iustified already this root was before the fruit Camp I grant as before In order but not in worthinesse For the fruit is more worthie then the roote Walker Omnis causa efficiens est dignior effectu Euerie efficient cause is more worthie then the effect Camp I deny that faith is the efficient cause of good works It is a cause antecedent but not efficient But we are agreed vpon this Let vs go to another argument Walk Uerie well it is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a sure argument of things that are not seene a thing vndoubted Camp Where is the place It is called the foundation of euerlasting life and an argument of things not seene because I knowe it is by no other argument but by fayth But what inferre you Walker You shall heare anon What is Subiectum fidei the subiect of fayth and what is Obiectum fidei the obiect of fayth In quo
saith that Christianitie which is the Church is to bee knowen only by the Scriptures He hath these wordes Tantummodoper scripturas nullo modo nulla probatio c. Wherfore thus I frame my argumēt out of Chrysostoms place The Church is to be knowen onely by the Scriptures But visibilitie is not the Scriptures Ergo the Church is not to be knowē by visibilitie Or thus The only note to know the Church by is y◠holy Scriptures Uisibilitie is not the holy Scripturs Ergo visibilitie is not a note to know the Church by Campion Yea out of the Scriptures the Church may bee knowen for the Scriptures appoint visiblenes to bee a marke of the Church But I deny the Minor Fulke Do you say then that visibilitie is the Scripture Campion I say visibilitie is conteined in the Scriptures Fulke My Minor is that visiblenes is not the Scripture so vpon my Maior which is Chrysostomes authoritie I conclude that visiblenes is no marke of the Church Campion I know Chrysostomes place hee denieth not visiblenes to be a note You may go to an other argument Fulke You would not heare Chrysostome by your will but he shal be read by your leaue Tunc cum videritis abominationem desolationis stantem in loco sancto id est cum videritis haeresim impiam quae est exercitus Antichristi stantem in locis sanctis Ecclesiae in illo tempore qui in Iudea sunt fugiant ad montes id est qui sunt in Christianitate conferant se ad scripturas Sicut enim verus Iudeus est Christianus dicente Apostolo non qui in manifesto sed qui in occulto sic vera Iudea Christianitas est cuius nomen intelligitur confessio Montes autem sunt scripturae Apostolorum aut Prophetarum de quibus dictum est Illuminas tu mirabiliter a montibus aeternis Et iterum de ecclesia dicit fundamenta eius in montibus sanctis Et quare iubet in hoc tempore omnes Christianos conferre se ad Scripturas Quia in tempore hoc ex quo obtinuit haeresis illas Ecclesias nulla probatio potest esse verae Christianitatis neque effugium potest esse Christianorum aliud volentium cognoscere fidei veritatem nisi Scripturae diuinae Antea enim multis modis ostendebatur quae esset Ecclesia Christi quae gentilitas nunc autem nullo modo cognoscitur volentibus cognoscere quae sit vera Ecclesia Christi nisi tantummodò per scripturas c. Then when you shall see the abomination of desolation standing in that holy place that is when you shall see an vngodly heresie which is the army of Antichrist standing in the holy places of the Church in that time they which are in Iury let them flie to the mountaines that is they that are in Christianitie let them get them to the Scriptures For as the true Iewe is a Christian as the Apostle sayeth not which is in open sight but which is in secrete so true Iurie whose name is vnderstood to be confession is Christianitie And the mountaines are the Scripture of the Apostles and Prophets of whome it is sayde Thou doest giue light marueilously from the euerlasting moūtaines And againe he sayeth of the Church Her foundations are in the holy hilles And wherefore doeth he commaunde all Christians in this time to get them to the Scriptures Because in this time since heresie hath obtained those Churches there can be no tryall of true Christianitie neyther can there be any other escape of Christians which woulde knowe the trueth of the faith but the Diuine Scriptures For before times it was shewed by many wayes which was the Church of Christ and which was gentilitie but nowe to them that woulde knowe which is the true Church of Christ it is knowen by none other meanes but onely by the Scriptures This is playne for the Antecedent And these particles are playne Nullo modo cognoscitur It is knowen by no meanes there is no other proofe but tantummodò per Scripturas onely by the Scriptures Campion Master Doctor you knowe the order I deny the consequent you proue the Antecedent Fulke You denied the Antecedent and therefore it was necessary for me to proue it But this place also doeth prooue the Consequence of mine argument which you denyed Let me see howe you can answere to the place All other markes in time of heresie or schisme by Chrysostomes iudgement are excluded but onely the Scriptures Therefore visibilitie also is excluded from being a marke of the Church Campion When the Church was first planted there was miracles by which it might be knowen but nowe they ceasing it is to be knowen sayeth Chrysostome onely by the Scriptures meaning that it is not to be knowen by miracles c. Fulke This answere is a senseles cauil which is easily auoyded For there is an Antithesis or opposition in Chrysostomes wordes howe it was knowen before that is multis modis by many wayes and howe it may be knowen nowe by one onely way tantummodo per Scripturas onely by the Scriptures For nowe that Antichrist is reuealed he excludeth all wayes except one sayeth it must be knowen onely by the Scriptures Therefore he excludeth visiblenesse as well as miracles from being an inseparable note of the Church Campion It excludeth miracles c. Fulke Well then your answere is that nullo modo nulla probatio tantummodò excludeth nothing but miracles Campion Yea and that appeareth by the wordes Ante tempus Antichristi For whereunto els should nunc and ante be referred except it had meant by ante before the primatiue Church and nunc nowe by the present and instant time Fulke You do but talke you cannot so put away Nulla probatio No proofe Nullo modo by no meane it is knowen but tantummodo per Scripturas onely by the Scriptures c. He speaketh of all times since heresies haue occupyed the Churches If you wil answere no otherwise I will rest vpon iudgement Campion I haue answered but I would to God I had a notarie well I commit all to God But I pray you note that I say that visibilitie is included in the Scriptures Goade I will examine this cause by a manifest place one of the strongest that is alleadged by those of your side to prooue the visibilitie of the Church namely that out of the 5. of Matthewe A citie that is buylded on a hill can not be hid whereupon they inferre therefore the Church must needes be alwayes visible Campion If it please you though it be commonly alleaged yet it is allegoricall There are many stronger places and you were best take a more pregnant place c. Goade It is alleadged by Hosius and others on your side to this purpose and therefore I chose it notwithstanding if you shunne it and would haue me to omitte it I will Campion No I say there are apter and stronger places neuerthelesse I shunne it not
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 coÌ„mon 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 â—…ago similitudo corporis sanguinis Christi in actione mysterioruÌ„ 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 eueÌ„ 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 coÌ„sisteth 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
that but let it be tryed by the authority of the Scriptures not the proper witnesses of any but common to both let matter with matter cause with cause and reason with reason trye it c. And Hierome writing to Laeta de institutione filiae fol. 58. willeth not to reade some without doubting and other some warely but he sayth Caueat omnia Apocrypha Let her beware of all the Apocrypha which he nameth in Prologo Galeato Et si quando ea non ad dogmatum veritatem sed ad signorum reuerentiam legere voluerit sciat non eorum esse quorum titulis praenotantur multaquè ijs admixta vitiosa grandis esse prudentiae aurum in luto quaerere And if at any time she will reade them not for the trueth of opinions but for the reuerence of signes let her knowe that they are not theirs whose titles they beare but that many vitious thinges are mixt with them and that it is a point of great wisdome to seeke out golde in dirt Loe here you see that he biddes her to beware in the reading of them Camp The Scripture is principally to be admitted but I would we might haue an argument Walker Then thus I reason That which he biddeth to beware of is not to be holden authenticall But he biddeth to beware of the Apocrypha Ergo the Apocrypha is not to be holden authenticall Camp Apocrypha are taken two wayes First for those bookes which are doubted of and then for such bookes that are not allowed Such were the prophecie of Enoch Iacobs testament and such like which he calleth Somniolenta deliramenta vitiosa c. of those Hierome speaketh in this place and not of those others For what point is there in Ecclesiasticus the booke of Wisdome that is to be found fault with that is vitiosū not good Walker They are called Apocrypha that are not in the Canon receiued and allowed to haue proceeded vndoubtedly from the holy Ghost these Apocrypha are forbidden to be read And Hierome in praefat in lib. Reg. saith Hic prologus scripturarum c. Si quid extra hos est inter Apocrypha est ponendum c. They are not in the Canon therefore Apocrypha are onely to be read Camp Woulde Hierome forbid the gentlewoman to reade Ecclesiasticus where there are giuen so many morall precepts Non sunt in Canone Hebraeorum sed in Canone Christianorum They are not in the Canon of the Hebrewes but they are in the Canon of the Christians Walker They may be read for morall Lessons but not for matters of religion which must be proued by Canonicall scripture What say you to the second booke of Macchabees Thinke you that to be holden for Canonicall scripture Camp I thinke so What should let Walker What say you to that sentence 2. Macch. 12. thrust into the text Salubris est oratio pro defunctis and to that which followeth Et si quidem bene vt historiae competit hoc est vt ipse velim sin autem minus digne concedendum est mihi And if I haue done well and as is meete for a storie this also my selfe did wish c. Camp It is marueile that you should say that it is thrust in Walker It is noted so by other and the duetie of an historiographer is to reporte things done truely and plainely without arguing like a Logitian but he sayeth Ergo salubris est oratio pro defunctis Therefore prayer for the dead is healthfull which appeareth first to haue bene set in the margent But howe auoyde you the last Can such asking of pardon be of the holy Ghost wherein hath hee fayled or of whome shall hee be pardoned Camp The interpreter asketh pardon of his speach for his style and not for the doctrine The holy Ghost asketh no more pardon then Paul did when he saide Rudis sum sermone I am rude in speach when he spake in a base and lowe stile Charke Campion howsoeuer you labour to auoyde the direct course of disputation and haue obteined some change of the question I must call you home by and by Notwithstanding I minde a while to followe this your course and to finde you out in your owne trace where I maruaile howe you dare thus speake in this assemblie For what a blot is it to the holy Ghost to affirme he should aske pardon and to the Apostle Saint Paul to say his stile to the Corinthians is a base and lowe stile But to vse no further preface I will thus proue that the 2. booke of the Macchabees was not indited by the holy Ghost Whatsoeuer needeth pardon either for matter or maner was not indited by the holy Ghost But the story of the 2. booke of Macchabees needeth pardon either for matter or maner Therefore it was not indited by the holy Ghost Camp This man would be angrie with me if he knew why Charke If I woulde knowe I not why to be angrie with you a notable and vowed enemie of the trueth of God and a seditious man against the state But I come not to deale with your person but against your errors Answere the argument Camp I say the writer of the Macchabees asketh pardon of his speach neyther doeth Paul blotte the holy Ghost when he saide that he was rudis sermone that he spake not so eloquently nor so finely as sometimes he might Charke You answere not directly and beside you affirme an error For S. Paul craueth no pardon for his stile but setteth his plainesse against the set and curious speach of the false Apostles who did come in gay apparance and shewe of wordes as if they had had al the power of trueth that might be and yet in this plaine style the Apostle was of al others most mightie most eloquent As for the 2. booke of Macchabees which you make Canonicall seripture here I will make this challēge if you dare answere it to proue many lyes in it through 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and that therefore it was written by a prophane spirite for the matter But to come to the Syllogisme and to disproue your distinction I reason thus The writers of holy Scriptures aske not any pardon at all either for the matter or for the manner Therefore they aske no pardon for their style Camp I deny your Antecedent Paul sayeth Rudis sum sermone Charke If Saint Paul saith Rudis sum sermone doeth he I pray you in those wordes craue pardon for his stile howe hang your wordes together I will proue my Antecedent by the place of Peter None that haue written as they were directed by the spirit of God craue pardon either for matter or for manner But all the holy men of God that wrote the Scriptures haue written as they were directed by the spirit of God Therefore none of the holy men of God that haue written the scriptures craue pardon either for matter or manner Camp This acknowledging
of the weakenesse of his stile is in the Apostle an humilitie comming from the holy Ghost Charke You answere not to the Argument therefore to auoyde the cauil consider the Syllogisme againe in this sort Whatsoeuer is the worde of God is full sound and perfect it doeth neither aske nor neede pardon in any respect But the second booke of Marchabees doth both neede aske pardon in some respect Therefore it is not the worde of God Norton If you will stay a while and speake leasurely you shall haue the Argument written and while it is writing if you will haue any thing added or changed it shall be done It will be more profitable for the hearers and greater ease for your selues Camp With a good will I answere In it selfe and for it selfe it neither needeth nor asketh pardon but for circumstance In respect of dainty eares it may aske pardon Charke Why Campion shall the holy Ghost begge pardon in respect of daintie eares Camp Syr Put this in also that I say it was in respect of the stile for the forme and the maner of it Norton Well I haue put it in so Charke Let him put in all his shiftes helpes clogging his answeres as much as he will we will cast the clogges vpon his owne heeles and thus I reason agaynst all your cauils Whatsoeuer is in the worde of God is all of the holy Ghost both for matter for stile and for circumstance and the holy Ghost asketh no pardon for any of these Therfore the 2. booke of the Machabees asking pardon is not of the holy Ghost nor canonical scripture Here Campion â—…eeing hastie before master Norton had written it through out master Norton willed him to stay a little Campion replied that it was losse of time To which Master Norton answered againe that it was a gaining of the time He desired that the word all might bee inferred in the Antecedent Charke I sayd all Norton So it is and rightly set downe Camp Then I answere thus This circumstance of asking pardon is of the holy Ghost for it is a speach of humilitie proceeding from the holy Ghost as is Saint Paules speach Rudis sum sermone I am rude in speach Et non in persuasibilibus verbis humanae sapientiae Not in the perswasible wordes of mans wisedome Charke Rudis sum sermone commeth oft and rudely in and yet the alledging of it hath bene disproued long ago Neuerthelesse seeing it pleaseth you so wel it shal be a weapoÌ„ of your owne giuing to vse against your selfe For the Apostle of purpose auoyding the wisdome of mans eloquence doth iustifie that which his aduersaries called rudenesse of speach as lawfull and good Neither doth he as you imagin confesse any want or craue pardon Therefore your example is false deceitfull and vnlearned It is a trim thing for you to abuse the multitude vnder opinion of great learning and to match those that are no scriptures with scriptures sometime affirming one thing and another time another sometime that the Apostles speach is rude and the stile base and needeth pardon in respect of daintie eares and now last that it needeth no pardon but is done for humilitie whereas the holy Ghost neuer asketh pardon of man for any thing he doth for that were to bring God vnder man and make the spirit of God subiect to the allowance or disallowance of sinfull flesh Camp I answere that neither this of the Macchabees nor Pauls speach hath need of pardon in it selfe Charke It is too too much absurd to accuse the holy ghost of waste and needles speach For if there needed no pardon it was not according to the holy Ghost to craue it Camp I haue said neither this nor the Apostles speach needed any pardon in it selfe and yet it was not waste and needlesse because it proceeded of humilitie Charke Will you charge the holy ghost with dissimulation speaketh he one thing and meaneth another Camp I say it was not waste because it proceeded of humilitie to craue pardon Charke Wel I proue my assertion against this your imagined humilitie of the holy Ghost to sinfull flesh Whatsoeuer is without cause is waste and needlesse But your self confesse it to be without cause for the holy ghost to craue pardon Therefore by your owne confession it is waste and needlesse Camp I denie the Minor For there is cause For in trueth the stile is simple Charke How often haue you granted the Minor saying he needed not to aske pardon now as forgetting your selfe you say there is cause of asking pardoÌ„ For say you in truth the stile is simple Your speaches are contradictory Set it downe that yâ— aduersarie is not at one with him selfe Besides he was driuen before to grant the stile is not base or simple Camp I haue set downe no contrarietie but in respect Char. In respect is a simple shift Are not these contradictorie propositions He needeth not pardon but asketh it in humilitie and He needeth pardon for in trueth the stile is simple Camp I pray you read the place of the Maccabees Charke Thus you retire and aske moreouer that which needeth not For the place is well knowen and was read before But I will read it againe Et si quidem bene vt historiae competit hoc ipse velim si autem minus dignè concedendum est mihi This I would haue all the companie marke and vnderstand whom you labor with indirect speaches to abuse draw from the truth that whether the authour of this booke excuse himself craue pardon in these wordes for his stile or for his storie neither can be of the holy ghost because as hath bene proued at large the holy ghost faileth nothing at all in any point of speach of matter or of circumstance Thus your distinctions and cause fall together Camp I haue answered you in what respect he craueth pardon and if that cannot satisfie you leaue it to God and this companie to iudge of Charke Sure your satisfaction is verie weake farre from satisfying God that hateth such fond distinctioÌ„s to darken his word or those of the companie that seeke to be edified But you giue me new occasion to prosecute this matter What thinke you therefore of the storie of Iudith touching the dressing and decking of her selfe with apparell and ornaments fittest to deceiue Holofernes eies and what say you to her lies and praier that he might be taken with the snare of his eies looking vpon her the speaches vntrue and the action vnchaste in outward apparance were they thinke you of the holy Ghost Camp I maruell not that you so speake of me when you so speake of a blessed woman to bring so holy an action into doubt Surely you greatly offend me in so doing Charke I speake of the words and storie as it is plainly written she prayeth saying Capiatur laqueo oculorum suorum in me Percuties eum ex
Rom. Chap. 3. verse 20. chap. 4. verse 13. Eph. 2. ver 8. and verse 9. 2. Tim. 1. 9. Tit. 3. 5. beside some other Camp I doe but request that I may answere them seuerally for not one of them proueth your assertion Charke If you answere any of them I will subscribe to your doctrine in this point Tush Camp you may not thinke to face out the matter with these bare words Dare you say our iustification is partly of workes when the holy Ghost saith so often plainely and exclusiuely Not of workes Without workes Not of the lawe but without the lawe Herein I challenge you that make challenge against the trueth will proue that this weightie and great cause which may worthily be called the soule of the Church is directly and plainely set downe in all these places Denie it if you can Camp Bring one of the eleuen places Charke What say you to the Apostles conclusion Rom. 3. verse 20 Therefore by the deedes of the lawe no flesh shall be iustified Camp Will you giue me leaue to answere and to speake somewhat generally to this Charke You haue a particular place make a particular answere plainely and to the issue roue not in generall discourses that come not neere the marke Camp The meaning of Saint Paul in such places is to exclude the Iewes Ceremonies For the Iewes asseuering the obseruation of the lawe the keeping of their sacrifices and ceremonies as Circumcision c. to be necessarie to saluation S. Paul informeth the Gentiles that these things were not so necessary but faith was sufficient This he vrgeth throughout the Scripture So that faith is vrged but not faith only Againe by faith is meant all Christianitie and the whole religion of Christians which is sufficient without any parcell of the Iewes religion This is one generall consideration why Paul so often vrgeth faith throughout the Epistle to the Romanes and else where Another generall consideration is for that the wise men of the Gentiles did alledge their moralities as a cause of their election which Paul in the same Epistle stoode specially vpon and meant to confute as is afore sayde Charke Whether of these two interpretations you will allowe it followeth by your owne exposition that the Apostle concluding for faith against workes concludeth that it is Faith only that iustifieth shutting out all such workes as are opposed vnto it Nowe whereas you say that the workes opposite to faith are onely either the morall workes of the Gentiles or the Ceremoniall of the Iewes I will easily ouerthrowe the distinction Camp Ouerthrowe it then Charke First there was neuer any such errour mainteined in the Church that the morall workes of the Gentiles shoulde iustifie therefore Paul neuer laboured so much and so often to confute that errour which did not trouble the Church As for the Ceremonial workes the Apostles writing to the Ephesians not iustified with the obseruation of Iewish ceremonies had no cause to barre ceremoniall workes from iustification Therefore he teacheth that all the workes of the faithfull euen of Abraham are excluded from being causes of iustification and not Ceremonies onely or the moralities of heathen men as you imagine against the Apostles argument and scope in those places Camp The generall scope of Saint Paul is to exclude all workes both of Iewes and Gentiles in that Epistle but in the way of discourse I denie not but incidently an other answere is to be giuen Charke This last part of your speach is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the first doeth graunt all that I desire Camp He excludeth the precedent workes of Abraham Charke The ende why works are secluded from iustification doeth proue for me for the Apostle in that place sheweth the finall counsaile purpose of the Lord to be farre otherwise then you suppose And to remember my promise of Syllogisme I will proue it by the very forme of the Apostles wordes The ende and the meanes differ not The ende of our iustification was to exclude all workes precedent or consequent from being causes of iustification Therefore the meanes also must exclude euen all workes precedent and consequent going before or comming after Camp The ende was not to exclude all workes consequent Charke Whatsoeuer it was wherein Abraham might glorie that was excluded from iustification But in workes consequent or following he might glorie Therefore they also and al other workes whatsoeuer first and last are secluded and can be no cause or piece of cause in our iustification Camp The example of Abraham proueth that Abraham was iust before the couenant of Circumcision and so before the lawe of Moses was giuen and therefore he inferreth that the Iewes must not glorie of iustification through their lawe and by the ceremonies thereof seeing their father Abraham was iust before circumcision and therefore circumcision not necessary to iustification But though workes voyde of Christ are nothing yet thorowe grace they serue to iustification Charke Is this your way to answere Syllogismes to tell a tale of your owne and expaunde newe matter leauing the question Answere shortly Abraham hath nothing left to glorie in Therefore all workes whatsoeuer are excluded and so faith onely iustifieth Camp That is another place Charke Answere it then be it another or the same Camp The Apostle meaneth to shewe that Abraham was iustified by workes done in grace and not by workes without expectation of Christ or voide of Christ. Charke An open contradiction to the holy Ghost note it The Apostle faith Master Campion proueth that Abraham was iustified by workes I reply against you with a double argument First Abraham had all his workes of Christ for hee was faithfull therefore the works excluded are works wrought in grace Secondly he speaketh not of him as of an infidel but as being the father of beleeuers Therefore the Apostle excludeth not workes without expectation of Christ as you speake Answere it Campion Camp I answere that no works of Abraham are excluded Charke And I haue proued that all are excluded and you can neither answere the syllogisme nor satisfie the place of Saint Paul The text and argument is cleare If Abraham were iustified by any workes he had wherein to glorie But he could not glorie in any thing for that were absurde by the Apostles reason Therefore there were no workes of merite or iustification in him Camp This is the Apostles reason All the good workes of Abraham were founded in Christ and by these good workes he was iustified therefore he was iustified by Christ. For if he had bene iustified by other workes excluding Christ he might haue gloried and not bene iustified by Christ. Charke I can goe no further in this argument For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is against you that is the plaine text and argument Also I aduow it and make all this companie witnesses that you haue vttered in these straytes plaine contradictorie propositions The Apostle proueth that Abraham was
Charke I do not onely thinke but knowe of a certeintie that you are deceiued and will shewe you the booke Camp Note this obiection This is myne answere to it Hermogenes the Heretike did alleadge a bastard tradition and Tertullian doth call him to proue his opinion by true scriptures For Tertullians argument is not to say It is not written Therfore it is not true but to call him to proue the Scripture true which he alledged for him Charke And note this answere He that euen now knewe no such booke taketh presently vpon him to discourse of the argument thereof What great boldnes is this From what present reuelation doth it come Beside your boldnes your error is great in affirming that Hermogenes brought a bastard tradition For there is no such thing as may appeare to any man that for triall hereof wil reade the booke Hermogenes is cōfuted for saying as an Aristotelian Philosopher the God made al things of materia prima Againe of your answere I conclude that of necessitie the proofe of euery particular tradition must be by a true scripture And it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a generall position Tertullian would haue Hermogenes proue all that he helde by scripture Camp I say it is not to shewe a bastard writing for his tradition but that which is true scripture Charke And that is all I aske for what do I seeke more but to proue that euery tradition must be proued by true Scripture when therefore you Iesuites bring in vnwritten traditions concerning your Candles your vnholy graines your Agnus deis and such beggerly stuffe wherewith you abuse and pester the world Tertullian sayth you bring a Vae vpon your selues except you can proue the vse of them by Scriptures Camp Why I say it must needes be proued there or els it is not to be receaued Charke Remember what you graunt I aske no more To leaue Tertullian with you to aduise better of I alledge also a place of Basill out of his treatises called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 capite 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This place doth clearely establish the sufficiencie of scripture and banisheth all vnwritten and selfe will worshippings Consider the place for it is worthy of consideration as making against you in this question and charging you with pride and apostasie for bringing in things not written Camp Well let these your speaches passe Reade the place S. Basill is not against vs. Charke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. It is a manifest Apostasie or falling away from the faith and a fault of high pride eyther to dissalowe any thing written in the Scriptures or to bring in any thing not written seeing the Lorde hath sayde My sheepe heare my voyce with other arguments to that purpose Camp I will not trouble the auditorie with this place For Basill declareth that in some things we must be referred to tradition he speaketh onely for the alleadging of false scriptures and hath nothing against me Charke Then nothing can make against errour if this make not agaynst you But you abuse the auditorie and knowe not the drift of Basill in this place and that I will make euident to all the companie Take the booke and reade it if you can the place is easie Greeke and the sentence but short Camp I had rather reade it in Latine then in Greeke I vnderstande the Latine better I maruell you are so much in your Greeke Charke If I shoulde not haue brought it in Greeke but in Latine then you woulde haue taken exception against the interpreter I bring not the interpretour but Basill him selfe in the tongue wherein hee wrote Here Campion being long in turning the Latine booke coulde not finde the treatise but desired Master Charke to finde it who answered I haue it readie in Basill him selfe If you flee to the interpretour turne your owne booke Camp I haue answered you Saint Basills meaning is as it was then a common doctrine that it is a great fault to disalow true scriptures or to bring in false scriptures and to father a false writing vpon the Apostles Charke I protest that hauing perused the circumstaunces of the place I finde no such generall or particular drifte of the father as you misreport but a playne doctrine and sundrie argumentes to proue it that nothing is to be receiued or brought into the Church that is not written Camp Your protestation is no argument I am acquaynted with this dealing since the other day But the scope of Saint Basill is as I haue saide Charke My true protestation doeth ouerway your misconstruing as wel of Basill nowe as of Tertullian before and therein I referre my selfe to the examination of both places If you will or can read but twentie lines further your owne eyes shal see and giue sentence against your selfe Camp I haue giuen you the sense of the Doctours wordes and neede not reade the place Charke Reade first and then answere What Authour or what place can make against you if you will of your selfe frame an interpretation after your owne purpose without reading the wordes or making conscience what construction you giue Campion Saint Basill in other places is of a contrary iudgement and I am sure he is not contrary to him selfe The Apostles had fayth before they wrote and therefore it must needes be the scope Charke What kinde of answere is this Speake to the purpose or confesse your insufficiencie Basills owne woordes in this place doe euidently proue that hee is against you answere them or acknowledge your selfe not able to satisfie the Doctour Campion Was all written when the Apostles first taught Charke Is this any answere to Basill Propounde no newe questions but answere the former place so full against you Camp You see mine answere Charke I see and all men may see your vntrueth to shift off the matter Basills wordes are too strong against you To your newe question I answere that since the worde of God was first written that which hath bene written conteyned sufficient matter to saluation Campion Then what needed so many additions since of the Prophets and Apostles writings if we had sufficient before Charke The most honourable addition of the Prophetes and Apostles serued to a clearer manifestation of Christ of whome Moses had written before but added nothing to the substance In the after noone The Question Whether faith onely iustifieth M. Charkes prayer OUr helpe is in the name of the Lorde c. Almightie God merciful Father we acknowledge against our selues that we were conceiued and borne in sinne and corruption that wee remaine vnprofitable to any thing that is good and most prone and ready to that which is euill in thy fight Ignorance doeth possesse our mindes and dulnesse ruleth in our vnderstanding so that of our selues wee can not see into thy glorious and excellent trueth and in our selues wee finde no health nor hope of health Therefore according to thy riche mercie O Lord take