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
Church though you call it a small matter and yet you wil not teach the people that it is a smal matter Fulk I said that inuocation of Saints as it was held by some of the latter sort of auncient fathers was but a small error in comparison of such grosse heresies which the Popish Church doeth now holde and in comparison of such inuocation of Saints as is now mainteined and practised by the Papistes but your accusatioÌ„ of my booke was written therefore you can not alter it Camp Lend me your booke that I may charge you The booke being deliuered after a litle turning he sayde This is not the booke that I meant Fulke This is the booke that you named Camp I meant your answere vnto Doctor Allens articles because Bristow hath confuted it Fulk This is a poore shift wheÌ„ you haue slandered my booke and named one to flie to another so would you do with that booke you name now For I am sure that neither in that nor any other that euer I wrote your slander can be founde Goad There is an other thing ye were desirous to see touching the Councill of Constantinople and the Councill of Nice one of them being alleaged to be coÌ„trary to the other about setting vp of Images in the Church the Councill of Constantinople disalowing Images and the second Councill of Nice allowing theÌ„ and condemning the other Councill as erroneous Camp That of Constantinople was not a generall nor lawfull Councill but a certaine Iconomachy and may rather be called a conuenticle then a generall Councill and therefore no contrarietie hereby proued betweene generall Councils Goade It appeareth it was generall and solemnely gathered in the chiefe citie heare the wordes in the title of the Councill Sancta magna uniuersalis Synodus quae iuxtagratiaÌ„ Dei per pium deuotorum orthodoxorum nostrorum Imperatorum ConstaÌ„tini Leonis decretum in hac diuinormâ—… studiosa regia ciuitate congregata est c. The holy great and vniuersall Synode which by the grace of God and the godly decree of our godly Emperours Constantine and Leo is gathered in this holy and royall citie This Councill did confute by the Scriptures the setting vp of Images in the Church out of Deut. 20. Thou shalt not make to thy selfe any Image nor likenes of any thing c. and Deut. 4. For which cause saith this Counsaile you heard the voyce of wordes in the middest of the fire but you sawe no image Contrary to this the Councill of Nice doth accurse those that will not worship images in these words Qui venerandas imagines non veneraÌ„tur Anathema Accursed be they that worship not holy images So it appeareth that these two Councils were contrary and therefore one of them did erre But I will proceede to the next place You doubted also whether it were to be founde in Saint Augustine that there is no Miracle in the Sacrament Now you may heare his owne wordes To. 3. De Trinitate lib. 3. cap. 10. Sicut panis ad hoc factus in accipiendo Sacramento consumitur Sed quia haec hominibus nota sunt quia per homines fiunt honorem tanquam religiosa possunt habere stuporem tanquam mira non possunt As the bread ordained for this purpose is consumed in receauing the Sacrament But because these things are knowen vnto men are done by men they may haue honour or reuerence as holy things but they can not be wondered at as things strange and miraculous Here you haue Augustines wordes against miracle in the Sacrament Camp In deede there is no such euident miracle visibly appearing as when Christ cured yâ— lame the blinde c. but yet there is a great miracle which our faith doeth acknowledge Goade Augustine speaketh simply against miracle so that whether it be visible or inuisible both is excluded Beside it is perpetuall in all miracles that there must bee some outward sensible signe Further you doubted of Inhaerens iustitia righteousnes inherent in our selues which I auouched to bee erroneous doctrine set forth in the late Council of Trent The wordes are these Concil Trident. cap. 7. Verè iusti nominamur sumus iustitiam in nobis recipientes vnusquisque suam secundum mensuram quam spiritus sanctus partitur singulis prout vult secundum propriam cuiusque dispositionem cooperationem Et cap. 16. Quae quum iustitia nostra dicitur quia per eam nobis inhaerenteÌ„ iustificamur illa eadem Dei est quia a Deo nobis infunditur per Christi meritum We are called and in deede are truely righteous receiuing in our selues euery man his own righteousnes according to the measure which the holy Ghost doth deuide to euery one euen as he will according to euery mans own proper disposition cooperation For that righteousnes which is called ours because we are iustified by it inherent in our selues the selfe same is the righteousnes of God because it is powred into vs from God by the merit of Christ. Camp I did not doubt of inherent righteousnes in our selues whether it were in the Council of Trent for I defend mainteine it as the Councill teacheth it you saye it is by imputation of Christes righteousnes being without vs whereby wee are iustified and I say wee are iustified by that righteousnesse which is within vs though it be not of vs. Goade The place which I vrged against you the other day beside many other in the scripture is direcly against this doctrine 2. Cor. 5. 21. He hath made him to be fin for vs which knewe no sinne that we should be made the righteousnes of God in him Fulke Well nowe we are to come to the question You holde that the natural body blood of Christ is contained in the Sacrament of the Lordes supper Your wordes are Christ is present in the Sacrament substaÌ„tially very God man in his natural body Camp I say there is really present in the Sacrament the naturall body and blood of Christ vnder that bread and cup. Fulke What meane you by these wordes vnder the bread and cup that we may agree of termes Campion You knowe in the bread is whitenes c. that is not in his body make your argument Fulke So I will The cup is not the naturall blood of Christ Ergo the other parte is not his naturall body Campion There is present in the cup the naturall blood of Christ. Go to my wordes Fulke Well The naturall blood of Christ is not present in the cup Ergo the naturall body is not present in the other part Campion The naturall blood of Christ is present in the cup. Fulke Thus I disproue it The wordes of Christes institution be these This cup is the new testament in my blood But the naturall blood of Christ is not the newe testament in his blood Ergo the naturall blood of Christ is not in the cup. Camp The ward Is is neither in the
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 maÌ„may 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 sacramentuÌ„ corporis Christi illius videlicet quod visibile quodpalpabile mortale in cruce posituÌ„ 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 estâ—… 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 heaueÌ„ly 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 sacrameÌ„t of the altar with the elemeÌ„t 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
those that would haue water He saith hee deliuered wine but consecrated wine to exclude water Fulke He excluded water to bring in wine and not to shut out both water and wine Camp We vse wine in the misteries Fulke But he saith Christ deliuered wine so doe not you say when you giue the cup Camp He gaue them that which had the name of wine and had the shewe of it but nowe was not in deede wine As for example the rod of Moyses was called a rod after it was turned into a serpent because it was a rod a litle before Fulke The rodde was miraculously turned into a serpent and returned into a rod againe both which miracles were to be iudged by the sense and yet you proue not that it was called a rodde while it was a serpent Campion Yes that I do Et deuorauit virga Aaron c. And the rod of Aaron deuoured the rod of the enchaunters Fulke Yea Sir That which was a rodde while Moyses did write and was a very serpent before Pharao deuoured the roddes of the Egyptians which were serpents in shew but rods in deed Moyses called it a rod when it was a rod and not when it was a serpent Againe it was a sensible miracle Campion So there is great miracles in the Sacrament Fulke So you say but none appeareth to our sense Campion They are vnderstoode by faith Fulke It is an easie matter so to faine miracles in euery matter but God did neuer shew miracle in conuersion of substances or any sensible thing but it was to be iudged by the senses to be a miracle Bring me one instance of any miracle in cōuersion or in any other sensible thing that could not be discerned by sense Camp It was a rod a litle before that after was called a serpent and yet reteined the name it had before as Clandi ambulant Caeci vident c. Fulke That is not denied although by you it can not be proued but here the place is plaine Chrysostome speaketh of the substance of the Sacrament he deliuered wine and they receiued wine Campion I haue answered Leaue the rest to God and their consciences which are the hearers Goade I will continue to vrge you further with the wordes of the Institution Your answere can not bee allowed for good when you would shift off the plaine wordes of our sauiour Christ calling it wine being the fruite of the vine and would haue this referred to the wine vsed in eating the Pascall before the institution You may not so leape backe from the Institution to the Pascal there was some distance of time betwene the Pascall and the Supper so you can not referre this to the whole action Campion You say well The eating the pascal Lambe went before and the Institution followed and yet I say the wordes of Christ concerning the fruit of the vine hath relation to the whole Goade Consider the order of the wordes in the Euangelist As they were eating the Passeouer Iesus tooke bread c. And then after he had deliuered the cup and bad them all drinke thereof calling it his blood then followeth I say vnto you I will not drinke hereafter of this fruite of the vine c. But I will make my argument from the Institution thus The Apostles did eate the substance of breade and wine after consecration as you terme it Therefore there remaineth the substance of bread and wine after consecration Campion I deny your Antecedent Goade That which our Sauiour Christ gaue the Apostles did eate But he gaue bread and wine Ergo they did eate bread and wine Camp I deny your minor He did not giue bread and wine Goade The same which Christ tooke into his handes he also deliuered But he tooke bread and wine Ergo he deliuered bread and wine Camp I answere out of Ambrose Before consecration it was bread and so he tooke bread but after the wordes of consecration he saith it is no bread Fulke You falsifie Ambrose and would abuse the auditorie for he doeth not say it is no bread Camp He sayth there is a chaunge I may you let me make one argument out of Ambrose and answere me if you can Goade Well make your argument you shal be answered Campion Let me borrow the booke Nowe heare Ambrose wordes lib. de Sacramentis 4. cap. 4. Tu forte dicis panis est vsitatus Sed panis iste panis est ante verba Sacramentorum vbi accesserit consecratio de pane fit caro Christi Vides ergo quà m operatorius sit sermo Christi iussit facta sunt Si ergo tanta vis est in sermone Domini vt inciperent esse quae non erant quanto magis operatorius est vt sint quae erant in aliud commutentur Peraduenture thou sayest that it is common bread But this bread before the sacramentall words is bread but after consecration of bread is made the flesh of Christ. Thou seest then of what efficacie the word of Christ is he commaunded and the creatures were made If then there is so great force in the worde of the Lord that the things that were not begun to be how much more is it able to worke that the things which were should haue still their being and be chaunged into other things Goade I know the place and thus I answere First ye haue not any worde in Ambrose to exclude the substance of bread We acknowledge a chaunge with Ambrose not of one substance into an other as you would haue to be but touching the vse whereto the sacrament serueth namely that which was common bread before ordeined to a common vse to feede the body is now conuerted and consecrated to an holy and spirituall vse to nourish the soule by feeding vpon Christ by true and liuely faith Campion But Ambrose wordes are plaine that which before was bread after consecration ex pane fit caro Christi of bread is made the flesh of Christ. Goade Ambrose words in deede are plaine in the same chapter whereby he doeth expound his meaning the chaunge to be as I haue said touching the vse and not the substance Dicis communem panem c. By these wordes it appeareth that Ambrose purpose was to confute their opinion who thought ouer basely of the Sacrament making no difference betweene it common bread Thou sayest it is common bread but thou art deceiued it is consecrated and chaunged to an holy and heauenly vse and is become sacramentally the flesh of Christ. Campion It is called bread but it is not bread for ex pane fit caro Christi And euen as he made heauen and earth by his worde so by his worde the bread is made his flesh Goade Wee deny not that it is Christes fleshe as himselfe sayeth of the bread This is my body but it is to be vnderstoode as a sacramentall speach when the name of the thing is giuen to the signe as after shal be shewed out of
auoyded The sacramēt consisteth of the signe and the thing signified The signe is the outward shape whitenes quantitie c. this is the materiall part of the Sacrament which is auoyded Fulke There is no one of these accidents shape quantitie colour taste that are auoyded because they are altered in the stomacke before they come to the place of auoydance Againe i◅ is a shameful absurditie to say that the accidents are the meate which is sanctified by the word and prayer Campion I answere Id quod habet materiale is the matter of the Sacrament not of the bread Fulke This place is too playne against you euery one may see your answere how vaine it is Goade That which ouerthroweth both the nature and vse of a Sacrament is not to be admitted But transubstantiation doeth ouerthrowe doth the nature and vse of a Sacrament Ergo it is not to be admitted and consequently vntrue that you affirme the bread and wine to be transubstantiate c. Campion I deny your minor it doeth ouerthrow neither the nature nor the vse of a Sacrament Goade I must proue both the members seuerally because you deny both and first that it taketh away the nature of a Sacrament A Sacrament consisteth of two things the matter and the forme the visible signe and the inuisible grace the one earthly and the other heauenly as Iraeneus sayth the element and the worde according to Augustine Accedat verbum ad elementum fit Sacramentum Let the worde come vnto the element and so it is made a Sacrament This being so then thus I reason Whatsoeuer taketh away the element ouerthroweth the Sacrament for the word must come vnto the element as Augustine fayth the element must not depart away But transubstantiation taketh away the element Ergo Transubstantiation ouerthroweth the nature of the sacrament Campion I deny your minor it doeth not take away the element Goade It taketh away the materiall part the substance of bread and wine Ergo it taketh away the element Campion I say it taketh away neither the heauenly nor the earthly part Goade You answere not directly to mine argument But I will prooue that it taketh away the earthly part It taketh away the substance of bread Ergo the earthly part Campion I deny your argument For there remayneth res terrestris an earthly thing though the substance be chaunged Goade What is that earthly thing if there remayne no substance Euery Sacrament must consist of the element and the worde the element is the earthly creature or substance Camp The element doeth not note a substance there remaineth an earthly creature the whitenesse of the bread Goade What can the whitenesse remayne without substance or subiect The Sacrament must consist of the substance of Christes body and the substance of bread and wine Campion Resterrestris the earthly thing remaineth but not the substance we are come to a nyce poynt Goade So it seemeth I will here leaue the first part I had to proue and now will come to the second touching the vse of the sacrament which I will also proue to be destroyed by your transubstantiation You spake before of the analogie in the Sacrament there must be a similitude and proportion betweene the signe and the thing signified As in Baptisme the element of water washing the bodie and the holy Ghost through the blood of Christ washing and sanctifying the soule So in the other Sacrament as the substance of breade receyued nourisheth the bodie so Christ receyued by faith nourisheth the soule Euen as Augustine very well noteth this analogie in his 23. Epistle in these wordes Si Sacramenta quandam similitudinem earum rerum quarum sunt Sacramenta non haberent omnino Sacramenta non essent c. Hac autem similitudine plerunque ipsarum etiam rerum nomina recipiunt Sicut ergo secundū quendam modū Sacramentum corporis Christi Corpus Christi est Sacramentū sanguinis Christi Sanguis Christi est ita sacramentum fidei fides est If sacraments had not a certaine resemblance of those things whereof they are sacraments they should not at all be sacraments and by reason of this resemblance for the most parte they take the names of the things them selues Therefore as the sacrament of the body of Christ after a certaine maner is the body of Christ the sacrament of the blood of Christ is the blood of Christ so the sacrament of faith is called faith Nowe this similitude or proportion by you is cleane taken away while ye take away the substance of bread that should norishe the body and so consequently ye take away the nature of a Sacrament by Saint Augustines reason Campion The similitude is not taken away though there remaine no substance of bread and wine for there remaineth accidentes which do nourish Do not qualities feede bread may feede by accidentes in all the qualities of bread Goade This is strange I might tell you that this is against Philosophie that accidentes without substance should feede but we are in diuinitie The very true and principall vse of this sacrament is to confirme our faith that as surely as the bread and wine feedeth our bodies euen as certainely the body and blood of Christ receiued by faith feedeth and nourisheth our soules Nowe by your taking away the substance of bread wee are brought into doubt of the nourishment of our bodies by the outward element and so consequently of the feeding of our soules by Christ the heauenly bread and so ye destroye the analogie chiefe vse of this sacrament Camp When God doth worke a miracle it is no marueile though there followe wonderfull sequeles I say that colour may remaine without substance and accidents may feede and nourish I will defende it in the Uniuersitie I would I might haue libertie to defende it Goad What will you defende that accidentes without substance may nourishe that is too absurde Camp No absurditie at all If it please God to take away the substance of water and leaue the qualitie of madefaction what hurt were it might it not bee sufficient And if you will needes vrge the analogie of feeding by the substance it is sufficient that there was also the substance of bread before consecration wherein may stande the analogie Goade Let me make it plaine vnto this auditorie how manifestly you take away the comfortable vse and analogie in this facrament When I come to receaue by this meanes I ought to strengthen my faith that euen as I knowe most assuredly that the substance of bread and wine serueth to nourish and doeth feede my body euen so Iesus Christ being receiued by faith doeth also nourish my soule vnto eternall life This is a most comfortable analogie or similitude in this sacrament But if I should beleue that the substance of bread and wine is cleane gone and though before consecration the substance remained yet before I can receaue the sacrament the substance is taken away and there remaine
his blood Fulke You haue many wordes to no purpose in the worlde Campion Why is a mans brayne called his witte It were reason that I also should haue my course sometime to oppose and you to answere which if it fell so forth I doubt not but I coulde vrge you as well in these matters as you do me and driue you also to narrowe shiftes in the defence how Christ tooke flesh of the virgine Marie Fulke To take vpon me the person of an answerer is not my choyse and yours as also the place of opponent which I nowe susteine was not sought for by me And to graunt that which you now require resteth in the superior powers Camp Well then vse the helpe of your friendes to sue for obteining of the same For if you or the like were in Catholique cities that I know and did but once signifie your desire in the like case free disputation and conference would out of hand be procured And I in my defence challenge you here if you dare to aunswere to such points as I shal obiect against you Fulke I wil make no suite for the matter neither are you the man whome I would choose mine aduersarie to matche my selfe withall Camp In deede I thinke to obteine that suite would not bee for your aduantage Fulke Thinke of your selfe as highly as you list yet when you haue reckened all your gayne will be litle or nothing I will come to mine argument The elements go not from their nature and substance Ergo there is no transubstantiation Campion I deny your Antecedent Fulke I proue it by authoritie of Theodoret Dialog 2. Neque enim signa mysticapost sanctificationem recedunt à natura sua Mauent enim in priori substantia figura forma videri tangi possunt sicut prius For the mysticall signes after sanctification do not go from their nature For they remaine in their former substance shape and forme they may both be seene and touched as before Camp I answere he is so to be vnderstoode as he may confound the heretique with whom he did dispute Fulke Uery well and for that purpose he sayth the nature of the signes remaineth to moue that the nature of Christes humanitie remaineth after the assumption Campion Nature is not taken for substance Fulke Theodoret sayeth they remayne also in their former substance Campion He speaketh popularly hee must not be taken so strictly The word substance is often times taken for being therefore it must not be here taken for a speciall substance but genericè for a generall being Fulke Then it woulde followe that the proper substance of Christes body remaineth not but a generall being thereof Camp The heretique graunted that Christ had a body but he said it was a phantsticall body and not a true body Fulke And your answere will helpe the heretike very well As the signes remaine not in their proper substance but in a generall being or accidents so the humanitie of Christ after it was assumpted by the Diuinitie was absorpte of the same But Theodoret against the Eutichean by the similitude of the mysticall signes remayning in their nature and substance after sanctification proueth the veritie of Christes humanitie after his incarnation Campion You must not presse the similitude so substance is taken generally for being Fulke You were best to say as Saunders doeth that substance is taken for the bulke of the bread though there be no bread Campion I say it is an vnproper speach Fulke If euer we must speake properly we must do it when we dispute against heretiques as Theodoret did Camp I haue answered by substance he meaneth a being and such haue accidents Fulke That answere wil not stand with Theoderets words For Christ hath not nowe those accidentes with the which hee was incarnate but the same substance You shall heare the argument of Epanister the heretique As the symbols of the bodie and blood of our Lord are one thing before inuocation and after inuocation are changed and made other things so the Lordes body after the assumption is chaunged into the diuine substance But Theodoret telleth him that he is taken with his owne nette For the mysticall signes depart not from their nature but abide in their former substance forme and shape Here you see he speaketh both of substance and accidents Campion I graunt so farre forth as it made against the heretique Fulke But it maketh not against the heretique vnlesse transubstantiation be denied Campion Yes it maketh against the heretique that the bread being turned into the very bodie of Christ prooueth that Christ had a true body Fulke You doe open violence to the place His argument is not of the bodie of Christ to prooue his humanitie but by the remayning of the mysticall signes in their former substance and accidents to proue the perfite remayning of Christes humanitie after his incarnation Campion Euery argument vsed by the Fathers must not bee pressed farther then their purpose which was to confounde heretiques Fulke But herewithal is his minde expressed against the heresie of transubstantiation Camp I graunt it doth cary some suspition against transubstantiation but it doeth not make against it Fulke He could not more plainly haue spoken against it then to say the nature and substance forme and shaperemayneth in the bread and wine after sanctification Campion He is to be vnderstood that the substance doeth remayne in vacuitate sed tamen quantitate qualitate c. Fulke Euery man may see howe seely shiftes you be driuen vnto and howe farre you roue from that auncient fathers meaning I will presse you with another authoritie Goade I will vrge you with an other argument out of the same author whereby his iudgement shall appeare in moe places then one that he is flat against transubstantiation his wordes are these dialog 1. qui dicitur immutabilis Volebat enim eos qui sunt diuinorum mysteriorum participes non attendere naturam eorum quae videntur sed propter nominum permutationem mutationem quae fit ex gratia credere Qui enim quod natura corpus est triticum panem appellauit vitem rursus seipsum nominauit is symbola signa quae videntur appellatione corporis sanguinis honorauit non naturam quidem mutans sed naturae gratiam adijciens For he would haue those which are partakers of the diuine mysteries not to regard the nature of those thinges that are seene but for the chaunge of the names to beleeue that chaunge which is made by grace For he which called that which by nature is his body corne bread and againe called himselfe a vine euen he did honor the symbols signes which are seene with the name of his body and blood not chaunging nature but adding grace vnto nature Out of which wordes I reason thus The symbols and signes remayne in their owne nature after they be consecrate Ergo there is no transubstantiation Campion In great
and weightie matters they are forced to vse these termes he speaketh genericè generally not strictly Goade You answere nothing to the place reade the wordes and consider them better He speaketh plainely and in speciall of the nature and substance of the sacrament still remaining Camp I haue answered before that by nature he meaneth the exterior forme as accidents and qualitie Goade By nature it is plaine he meaneth the very substance for he doeth confound these two as appeared in his other place before alleadged Non recedunt à natura sua manent enim in priori substantia They leaue not their nature for they abide in their former substance When you finde the worde nature sometime in the fathers that seemeth to make for your transubstantiation then you triumph then you vrge the worde that it must needes signifie substance Now when the same worde is vrged against you out of Theodoret and the same Theodoret explaning also himselfe that he meaneth the very substance of bread and wine yet it must bee nothing but qualitie and accidents Camp When the coherence of the place yeeldeth it then we say it must signifie the substance It can not alwayes he taken for the substance For I pray you is not heate the nature of the fire yet it is not the substance of the fire Goade Heate is a propertie of the fire But what is this to the answering of Theodorets place where both the coherence and his owne exposition doeth shewe it to be all one with the substance Campion I haue answered the substantiall part doeth not remayne Goade Then I see we shal haue none other answere to Theodoret I will proue howe you will answere Iustinus Martyr in his Apologie Campion These Doctors were great Philosophers and therefore no maruaile though sometime they speake as they were wont Goade The substance of bread and wine remaineth Ergo they are not chaunged Campion It doeth not remayne Goade That which nourisheth the body remayneth But the substance of bread and wine nourisheth the body Ergo the substance of bread and wine remayneth Campion This is answered already When the substance is present it nourisheth by the qualitie Goade But the qualitie can by no meanes nourish without the substance Campion The qualitie nourisheth alone if it can bee there without substance Goade But it can not be there without a subiect Now consider the wordes of Iustinus in 2. apologia Non enim vt communem panem aut communem potum haec accipimus sed quemadmodum Iesus Christus seruator noster per verbum Dei factus caro carnem sanguinem nostrae salutis causa habuit sic etiam cibum illum postquam per precationem verbi illius fuerit benedictus ex quo sanguis caro nostra per mutationem nutriuntur edocti sumus esse carnem sanguinem illius c. For we doe not receiue these things as 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
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
must eate The wordes which the Apostle vseth here are both the imperatiue mode in the Greke text Let him examine him selfe and let him eate and drinke Campion I graunt there are two precepts but this is the summe and ende Vt dignè edat That he may eate worthely Fulke Here is the booke see it and reade it this is the originall giue him the booke it is a reasonable great printe Campion You are stil vrging me to reade Greeke what childish dealing is this can I not see the imperatiue mode aswell in the Latine as in the Greke shall this disaduantage the cause I haue I thanke God and you shall know it asmuch Greke as wil serue my turne and when there is occasion to vse it I will shewe it But is not the Latin toÌ„gue as good a toÌ„gue as the Greeke c. Fulke You were best confesse your ignorance We make not tongues the measure of the truthe but we bring the originall to preuent your cauillations and your finding faulte with translations But I will deale with you with an other argument The whole Church did thinke it necessarie for infantes to receaue Ergo the whole Church hath erred c. Campion Nowe we shall haue a question whether infantes may receaue so we shall runne into all questions Fulke Not so But I will proue that Innocentius Bishop of Rome and all the Church with him as S. Augustine confesseth held this error that it is necessary for infantes to receiue the communion which you your selfe holde to be an error seeing you affirme it is not of necessitie by Christes commandement that any lay men should receiue it You shal heare the wordes of Augustine and of Innocentius both as Augustine citeth them Why are you afraide of the place before you come at it let me reade it Saint Augustine citeth the wordes of Innocentius out of his Epistle to the Bishops of Numidia Lib. 2. ad Bonifacium contra duas epist. Pelag. cap. 4. Haec enim eius verba sunt Illud vero quod eos vestra fraternitas asserit praedicare paruulos aeternae vitae praemijs etiam sine baptismatis gratia posse donari perfatuum est Nisi enim manducauerint carnem filij hominis biberint sanguinem eius non habebunt vitam in semetipsis qui autem hanc eis sine regeneratione defendunt videntur mihi ipsum baptismum velle cassare For these are his wordes But where as your brotherhoode affirmeth them to preach that litle children may be rewarded with the gift of eternall life euen without the grace of Baptisme it is a very foolish thing For except they shall eat the flesh of the sonne of maÌ„ and drinke his blood they shall haue no life in them selues But they which defende this vnto them without regeneration seeme to me that they wil make frustrate baptisme it selfe Upon which wordes of Innocentius Saint Augustine inferreth Ecce beatae memoriâ—… Innocentius papa sine baptismo Christi sine participatione corporis sanguinis Christi vitam non habere paruulos dicit Behold the Pope Innocent of blessed memorie saith that litle children cannot haue life without the participation of the body and blood of Christ. In these wordes Saint Augustine sheweth the generall practise of the Church was that infantes should receaue because it was thought necessary vnto saluation Campion It was onely a practise it was no opinion of necessitie of saluation Fulke Saint Augustine writeth against the Pelagians that held that Baptisme was not necessarie for infantes and that infantes might be saued without Baptisme against whome he reasoneth thus Infantes cannot be saued without they receaue the communion but they cannot receiue the communion vnles they be first baptized ergo infantes cannot be saued vnlesse they be baptized And to proue that they cannot be saued except they receaue the communion he alleaged the decree or diffinitiue sentence of Innocentius Campion Saint Augustine sayth not that the whole churth thought it necessarie to saluation But when Innocetius commanded that infantes should communicate it was but a necessitie of the commandement the necessitie was not in the thing but to keepe the vnitie of the Church and so no error of faith but a lawful practize of the Church but shewe the decree Fulke You haue heard the wordes of Innocentius out of his synodicall Epistle and thus Saint Augustine citeth his decree Ecce beatae memoriae Innocentius papa sine baptismo Christi c. Lo Innocentius the Pope of blessed memorie c. Campion There is no such decree I will beleeue none of your notes He saith they be damned vnles they be baptized but he sayeth not they be damned except they receaue the communion Fulke He saieth both you shall see the booke seeing you will not credit my notes Goade Upon supposition as before I will suppose as you beleeue coÌ„cerning the Church of Rome The head as you hold him of that Church hath erred in matter of faith ergo the Church being the members are subiect to error Campion I denie your Antecedent Goade Saint Peter did erre in faith and that after the sending downe of the holy Ghost vpon him and the rest therefore the principall head of the Church as you accompt of Peter Campion He did not erre in faith I knowe the place Gal. 2. It was a matter of manners not of doctrine For it was but a litle dissimulation Goade It was matter of doctrine for it was somewhat concerning that where about the CouÌ„cill was gathered at Hierusalem touching Circumcision Campion Ye vtterly mistake it for it was about the obseruation of the Lawe by the Gentiles and not concerning Circumcision Goade I nowe well remember it was not directly about the question of Circumcision But it is certaine Peter was in that error that the Gospell pertained not at all to the Gentiles vntill hee was reformed by vision Act. 10 For then at leÌ„gth he said Nunc tandem comperio c. Now at length I finde c so hee was for a time in error But for the place Gal. 2. it is saide Non ambulauit recto pede ad veritatem euangelij Hee walked not with a right foote according to the truth of the Gospel c. Camp It was but a small matter of dissimulation in maners Goade The text saith Paul withstoode him to the face because he was blame worthy and iustly to be reproued therefore it was no small matter And Augustine against Hierome De Petro iure reprehenso Epist. 19. doth iustifie this open reproofe by S. Paul though Hierome laboured to lessen this faulte c. Campion And so do I. But this proueth not that it was any matter of faith Fulke It was against the truthe of the Gospell Truthe is contrary to error Ergo it was an error of faith Camp I haue saide the faulte was in maners for dissimulation When I sawe that he did not walke well or right c. as at
Hebrew nor in the Greeke Fulke Uery well you shall see me finde it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Campion You must adde this worde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Fulke Nay the worde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is in Saint Paul This cup is the new testament in my blood Campion The worde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is vnderstoode is referred to the beginning of the sentence Hic est calix nouum testamentum in sanguine meo This is the cup the new testament in my blood he saith not this cup is the new testament Fulke You peruert the wordes you cannot shift it off so Campion My text hath it so Fulke It cannot be so you haue heard the Greeke and your vulgar translation is according to the Greeke Hic calix nouum testamentum est in meo sanguine 1. Cor. cap. 11. Camp No Syr I was in hande with the 22. of Luke Fulke Shall you appoint me my text I say my text is taken out of Saint Paul I haue shewed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Greeke Latin both Campion It is referred to the beginning Hic est calix nouum testamentum Fulke The composition cannot admitte that peruersion you would obscure the sense by disordering the wordes but Saint Paul is a better interpreter of Saint Luke in whom the verbe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lacketh then your vulgar translation Campion What do you inferre of these wordes Fulke The cup is the newe testament But the naturall blood of Christ is not the newe testament Ergo the naturall blood of Christ is not the cup. Camp M. Doctor this is your argument The cup is the new testament c. I deny your argument Fulke It is a syllogisme Campion It is neither in mode nor figure Fulke It is in Baroco Camp You take the cup otherwise in the Maior then in the conclusion For when it is said the cuppe is the new Testament the meaning is that in the cuppe which is the blood of Christ is the couenant of the newe Testament In the conclusion you take the cuppe for the chalice wherein the blood of Christ is Fulke I take the cup for the same in both I speake meane as the Apostle doeth I take the cuppe for that which is in the cuppe Therefore marke my argument againe The cup or that which is in the cuppe is the new Testament The natural blood of Christ is not the newe Testament Ergo the naturall blood of Christ is not the cup or that which is in the cuppe Answere to this Syllogisme Campion It is no Syllogisme there be quatuor termini Fulke Well I perceiue then you can answere no otherwise Campion It is plaine taking the cup for that in the cuppe Fulke Master Lieutenaunt you heare his answere I wil rest in the iudgement of those which know what a Syllogisme is Goade I will propounde an other argument You say that Christ is present in the Sacrament substantially very God and man in his naturall body which I improue thus Looke howe Christ was present to the Fathers in the wildernesse in Manna and in the rocke euen so he is present to vs in our Sacrament But he was not present to them in their Sacrament in his naturall bodie Therefore he is not in his naturall body present in our Sacrament Campion I deny your Maior or first proposition Goade I proue it thus They receiued in their Sacrament the same substaunce that we doe Therefore they had the same presence Campion I denie your Antecedent Goade I prooue it out of the plaine wordes of the Apostle 1. Cor. 10. 3. Et omnes eandem escam c. speaking of our fathers the Israelites he saith And did al eate the same spiritual meate and did all drinke the same spirituall drinke for they dranke of the spirituall rocke that followed them the rocke was Christ. Campion They did eate eandem escam spiritualem the same spirituall grace but not the same substance Goade They receiued the same that we do touching the substance you can not so anoyde the force of this place Spiritual is added in respect of the corporal signes which differ betwene them and vs as shall after appeare but the same spirituall substance in both as the circumstance of that place enforceth Camp Why Christ had yet receyued no substance of fleshe and therefore could not then bee present to them substantially in his naturall body Goade You reason well for mee Therefore he was present vnto them spiritually as the wordes are eandem escam spiritualem And so he is to vs present and not carnally because Christ had not then taken flesh and the Fathers did then eate Christ in substance as well as we therefore the presence and eating in both must needes be spirituall Camp I answere they had the same in a mystery and figure Goade This is no answere I will easily take it away both by the wordes following in the text and also by the manifest circumstance of the place both which proueth to be clerely the same in substance They had the same Christ who is the substance of our Sacraments ergo the same substance that we haue Camp They had not the same Christ in substance in their Sacrament Goade The words folowing are plaine to expoūd the Apostles meaning Et omnes eundem potum biberunt c. Petra autem erat Christus They did all drinke the same spirituall drinke for they drunke of the spirituall rocke that followed them which rocke was Christ Therefore they eating and drinking the same Christ did eate and drinke the same substance Campion There is a fallacion in the worde eandem the same In a mistery and in signification the same but in substance great difference Goade The difference was onely in the outward signes the measure of reuelation and in time they beleeuing on Christ to come and we in Christ that is come but in matter and substance the very same And that the Apostles meaning must needes be so I will nowe manifestly proue out of the circumstance of this text and out of the Apostles owne argument His purpose is to proue that the Israelites were nothing inferior to the Corinthians touching the seales or Sacramentes of Gods fauour and therefore the Corinthians had no more to boaste in touching their Sacramentes then the Israelites had Whereupon he sayeth they did eate the same meate c. ergo they were equall Nowe if they eate not the same in substance which the Corinthians did eate but only in shadow figure as you say then the Israelites were much inferior to the Corinthians in their sacramentes and so ye would make the Apostles argument of no force Campion The Apostles meaning is that the old Israelites beleeued in the same Christ and did eate him after a sort as wee doe they were not altogether equall for he speaketh a litle before of Baptisme saying that they were baptized in the cloude this was not the same with our baptisme Goade
properties though the same be not alwayes put in practise Goade Then sometime Christ may haue many or rather infinite bodies in many places at one time when the propertie of a true body ceaseth Campion Nay it remayneth still one and the same body though in many places at one time Goade When Christ deliuered his body in his last supper I pray you were there not by your opinion two sundry bodies namely Christ himselfe the author and actor in the supper was it not the one and the bread transubstantiate as ye wil haue it into Christes body was it not the other Camp Christ the actor in the Institution yet was then present in the same body in the Sacrament if he will haue it so who can let him I say he is miraculously in many places at once Goade Nowe we come againe to his will But I deny that he will haue it so and you can not proue it Saint Augustine is flat against you in the forenamed Epistle writing against the like heretiques of his time that would take from Christ the properties of a true body after his glorification as to bee circumscribed in one place c. Cāp Ye vrge me much with Augustine Let me shew for my selfe Augustine Chrysostome others of y◠fathers if you dare Goade This is not to answere Come you to dare This is like your bolde challenge Campion You may if ye list procure leaue that I may oppose Catholiques could easily obtaine a greater matter then this of their princes and can not you obtaine this of your Prince Fulke We see it is to no purpose Whatsoeuer you cā bring is knowen and answered already Heskins Allen and others of your side who are farre your betters I haue already answered Well I will go to another argument If Christ be present in his naturall bodie he is receiued not onely of the godly but also of the wicked But he is not receiued of the wicked Ergo he is not present in his naturall body Campion I denie your minor Fulke I proue the minor out of S. Augustine de ciuitate Dei lib. 21. cap. 25. Nec isti ergo dicendi sunt māducare corpus Christi quoniam nec in mēbris computandi sunt Christi vt alia taceam nō possunt simul esse membra Christi mēbra meretricis Denique ipse dicens qui manducat carnem meam bibit sanguinem meum in me manet ego in eo ostendit quid sit non Sacramento tenus sed reuera corpus Christi manducare eius sanguinem bibere Therefore neither is it to be sayd that these vngodly men do eate the body of Christ because they are not to bee accompted in the members of Christ for to omit other things they cannot be at one time both the members of Christ and the members of an harlot Finally he himselfe saying he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood dwelleth in me and I in him sheweth what it is not so farre as a Sacrament may goe but in very deede to eate the body of Christ and to drinke his blood Camp His meaning is they receiue not the grace of Christ effectually to saluation Fulke His wordes are they receiue not the bodie of Christ reuera in deede but sacramento tenus in a sacrament or sacramentally Againe he saieth that Christ dwelleth not in them Ergo they eate not the body of Christ. Campion He dwelleth not in them vnto saluation Fulke True and therefore they eate not his bodie for whosoeuer eateth the fleshe of Christ hath Christ dwelling in him to saluation Camp Whosoeuer eateth the fleshe of Christ worthily but the wicked also eate the body of Christ though vnworthily Fulke He saith expressely they eate not the body of Christ reuera that is in deede or verily but sacramentally Campion Wherefore then are they guiltie Fulke That is an other question And yet one may be guiltie of the Maiestie of the Prince which refuseth to obey the same or dispiseth the same so are they guiltie of the bodie of Christ which refuse to receiue it being offered Campion They receiue Christ but not worthily He that receiueth Baptisme receiueth the holy Ghost or else the Sacrament should not be true so Saint Paul saieth He that eateth the body of Christ vnworthily is guiltie of the body and blood of Christ. Fulke He that receiueth vnworthily receiueth the sacramēt the Sacrament may be true though he receiue it vnworthily Againe you falsifie the text when you say he that eateth the body of Christ vnworthily Saint Paules wordes are He that eateth this bread and drinketh this cuppe of the Lord vnworthily Campion They must either receiue Christ vnworthily or his grace They receiue not the grace of Christ vnworthily Ergo they receiue Christ vnworthily Fulke Christ can neuer be separated from his grace A man may receiue the grace of Christ though he receiue not his body But he cannot receiue the body of Christ but he must also receiue his grace Campion The wicked receiue the body of Christ but not his grace Fulke So you say but answere to Saint Augustine which saith The wicked eate not the body of Christ in very deede Campion They eate Christ sacramentally Fulke Yea but not in deede as Saint Augustine saith Campion They receiue the same Christ but not to the same comfort that the godly do Fulke They do not receiue Christ saith Saint Augustine because they are not to be accompted in the members of Christ. Campion And I say the same Fulke He saith they eate not the body of Christ in deede you affirme that they eate the body of Christ in deede Againe Saint Augustine saith Hoc est in Christo manere c. This it is to dwell in Christ that Christ may dwell in vs. For so he saide this as though he had said He that dwelleth not in me and in whome I dwell not let him not say or thinke he eateth my body or drinketh my blood Camp The wicked eate the same bodie but not to the same effecte Fulke Augustine saith they eate not his body reuera in deede I see you haue no other shift of answere Therefore I will leaue it to iudgement The Apostles receiued not the same body that afterwards was crucified therefore your solution of the same body not after the same maner and qualitie cannot stand Campion They receaued the same body both before and after his passion Goade I will followe the confutation of that absurde assertion that the wicked eate the body of Christ which is easie to bee improued many wayes I frame mine argument thus Whosoeuer eateth the body of Christ doth eat Rem sacramēti The thing or substance of the sacrament But no wicked or vnbeleuing person can eate Rem sacramēti Ergo no wicked person can eate the body of Christ. Campion I distinguish of your Maior Res sacramenti is taken two wayes for the body of Christ or the
a sacramentall speache vsuall as hath bene saide in the Scriptures to giue the name of the thing to the signe for the similitude betweene both and therefore must be sacramentally expounded propter similitudinem signi rei signatae Campion That maketh for me that the signe hath the name of the thing Goade Doth it make for you that y◠signe is so termed Secūdū quendam modum after a certaine maner as Augustine saith before and yet simply is not for The Sacrament is not the thing it selfe but in a kind of speach sacramentally as Circumcision is said to be the couenant which was not the Couenant it selfe but a signe therof Campion Make your argument Goade Seeing ye will haue me draw it into an argument thus I reason It is vsuall in the Sacraments for the Scripture to speake figuratiuely calling the signe by the name of the thing signified as in Circumcision Gen. 17. the Pascall Lambe Exod. 12. and the rocke in the wildernes 1. Cor. 10 Therefore the like in this sacrament of the Lordes supper Campion I denie your argument they are not alike Goade I proue it The same reason of Augustine from the analogie to take the name of the thing holdeth in all sacraments Ergo in this And for example he bringeth this Sicut ergo secundum quendam modum Sacramentum corporis Christi corpus Christi est Therefore as the Sacrament of Christes body after a certaine maner is sayd to be the body of Christ c. Also the very maner of speach in the other Sacraments is like viz. of circumcision This is my Couenant of the Pascall This is the Passeouer of the rocke The rocke was Christ. Camp I say they are not like for Christ was not naturally present in those sacraments of the olde Testament as he is in this Sacrament Goade You bring an instance by Petitio principij but I ouerthrowe your particular instance by the generall The like vsuall speache is vsed in all Sacraments both of the olde and newe Testament Ergo in this sacrament of the Supper Camp The speache sense is this in the sacrament Hoc est corpus meum This that I see is my body as the quātitie colour Goade You answer not mine argument I haue said inough for the true vnderstanding of these wordes it must haue a sacramentall sense I leaue it vnto iudgement Camp I graunt a sacramentall sense so farre forth as goeth to colour The fathers you alleadge but those that I bring can not be answered Fulke They haue bene and may be as time and occasson will serue but nowe your lot is to answere I will take away your common and onely answere Campion I haue answered already Fulke Your answere sheweth that you vnderstande not the scope and purpose of Saint Augustine which is to proue that this saying Anima est sanguis is such a kinde of speach as this of the sacrament This is my body For these are his words Nam ex eo quod scriptum est c. For of that which is written that the blood of a beast is the soule of it beside that which I said before that it perteineth not vnto me what becōmeth of the soule of a beast I can also interpret this commandement to be made in a signe for our Lord doubted not to say This is my body when he gaue the signe of his body Here you see Augustine hauing disputatiō with the heretique Adimantus which helde that the blood of a beast was the soule thereof affirmeth that the blood is but a signe of the soule as the sacrament is a signe of the body of Christ and yet is called the soule as the other is called the body of Christ. Campion You are answered already Fulke This is your common answere You are answered already and you haue answered your selfe when you haue none other shift You vnderstand neuer a place of the Doctors that hath bene yet alleadged Campion Twentie yeres agoe I haue read this booke Fulke I do not beleeue that euer you read it you are so ignorant of the argument of it But sure I am that xx yeres agoe you had not read it You would seeme to be an older student in Diuinitie then you are by a great deale M. Norton Where were you Campion twenty yeres agoe were you not a poore boy in the hospitall Camp I was two and twentie yeeres olde and then I was Bacheler of Art Fulke You might reade that place noted out by some other but the whole worke of the autor you read not Camp I did not say that I had then read his whole worke Fulke It is not a dosen yeres agoe since I heard you at Garbrandes staule in Oxenforde aske for Irenaeus Epistles wherein you shewed that you were but a yong reader of the Doctors at that time Campion Peraduenture I might aske for Irenaeus workes Fulke Nay you asked for Irenaeus Epistles and namely that to Victor Campion Why might I not hauing read in Eusebius of his Epistle to Victor aske of the Stationer whether that Epistle were extant Fulke I deny not but you might but yet that argueth that you were but a yong man in the Doctors that knewe not what workes of Irenaeus were extant But howe answere you to Saint Augustine Campion I answere Saint Augustine sayth that Sanguis is a signe of the soule present as the bread is a signe of the bodie of Christ being present Fulke Saint Augustine sayth that the blood doth onely signifie the soule and is not the substance of the soule but you vtterly destroy his argument and so helpe the heretique very well Camp The heretique thought it was an absurditie that Sanguis being eaten anima is eaten Augustine sheweth because Sanguis is a principal part of life it is called the vitall blood c. Like as this Sanguis is a token that Anima is neere so the signe of the bread is a token that Christ is neare Fulke You goe quite from the matter The question was not whether the blood be a signe of the soule but whether it bee the soule it selfe Campion Let it be noted why is blood called Anima but because Anima is neare it because it exerciseth his functions therein So he gaue bread that was a signe of his body present The question was neuer whether the blood were the substance of the soule but whether the blood being eaten the soule were eaten Therefore in that saying of Saint Augustine Christ doubted not to say he gaue his body when he gaue a signe of his body there signe is a token of his presence Fulke That is a meere fallacion signe a token of presence as blood a signe that anima is neere Augustine is cleare that the blood is not the soule but a signe thereof as that which Christ gaue was not his body but a signe thereof Or els the heretique had his purpose in saying that eating of blood is eating of soules Campion I must not eate