Selected quad for the lemma: blood_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
blood_n	bread_n	true_a	wine_n	11,224	5	7.9379	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A15057	An ansvvere to the Ten reasons of Edmund Campian the Iesuit in confidence wherof he offered disputation to the ministers of the Church of England, in the controuersie of faith. Whereunto is added in briefe marginall notes, the summe of the defence of those reasons by Iohn Duræus the Scot, being a priest and a Iesuit, with a reply vnto it. Written first in the Latine tongue by the reuerend and faithfull seruant of Christ and his Church, William Whitakers, Doctor in Diuinitie, and the Kings Professor and publike reader of Diuinitie in the Vniuersitie of Cambridge. And now faithfully translated for the benefit of the vnlearned (at the appointment and desire of some in authoritie) into the English tongue; by Richard Stocke, preacher in London. ...; Ad Rationes decem Edmundi Campiani Jesuitæ responsio. English	Whitaker, William, 1548-1595.; Campion, Edmund, Saint, 1540-1581. Rationes decem. English.; Stock, Richard, 1569?-1626.; Whitaker, William, 1548-1595. Responsionis ad Decem illas rationes.; Durie, John, d. 1587. Confutatio responsionis Gulielmi Whitakeri ad Rationes decem. Selections.	1606 (1606)	STC 25360; ESTC S119870	383,859	364

prepared and offered to all the godly But those heauenly and holy banquets whereby our soules are nourished vp to eternall life you make prophane and common when you imagine that Christ may be receiued and eaten like other meates aswell of the r DVR Not vve but the Scripture the Fathers and reason it selfe doth affirme it but speciallie S. Paul 1. Cor. 11.27 Whosoeuer eateth this bread WHIT. pag 195. None of these affirme it and least of all S. Paul for he saith not vvhosoeuer eateth the body of Christ but vvhosoeuer eateth this bread wicked as of the most deuout men in the world which is an horrible opinion senselesse and vnsound For that you adde of flesh body and blood I confesse for being the Sacraments of these things they haue their names giuen vnto them for signes of things saith Augustine are said to be the things of which they are signes But say you heere is nothing figuratiue nothing obscure by doubtfull speeches True it is there is neuer a riddle in the words no obscuritie For the obscurity that is is not in the words but in your interpretation of them which ten Apolloes cannot so vnfold and open that things might agree and answere fitly one to another What resteth yet is it not that at length wee find out some certeine and true sense of these words I hope say you Antiquitie may be heard I verily in this controuersie will reiect no Antiquitie no Councell no auncient Father neither will I refuse any monument of true Antiquitie For that same reuerend hoarie head of Fathers which you speake of could neuer come to the knowledge of this new doctrine of Transubstantiation lately hatched If those holy Fathers and reuerend Elders did now liue they would neuer acknowledge this mōster nor indure the sight of it but iudge it worthy to be abandoned into the vtmost parts of the world Whereas then you say They cannot away with that They say then they are betrayed You trifle and say nothing to the purpose for we can away well with this triall and feare no treachery in it But will call you very willingly to this reuerend Antiquitie as to a barre of triall Therefore if you please we will demaund of those reuerend Fathers what they iudge to be the meaning of those words which you haue produced for example sake And seeing there is no necessity to collect all their sayings some few of them shall speake to giue vs a tast of the rest ſ DVR Tertullian speaketh not of that bread vvhich Christ in his last supper made his body but of another bread vvhich vvas the figure of his body vnd●r the lavv WHIT. pag. 2●0 The pla●e sheweth very plainly that he speaketh of no other bread then of tha● which Christ had said this is my body and which in the night he vvas betrayed he tooke brake and gaue to his disciples Tell vs where vnder the law Christ euer said thus or did thus with any bread DVR Bread wine in the old Testament vvere Figures of Christs body blood therfore in the nevv Testament of the bread must the true body of Christ be made of the v●ine his blood WHIT. pag. 202. It will well follow frō this that Christ must haue in the new Testament a true body true blood but it cannot be inforced hereupō that it must be made of bread wine As if because their Sacramen●s were figures the●fore ours must be trāsubstantiated into the things themselues Then will it follow that because the flood the ●edsea the cloud were types of our Bap●isme therefore it should not be a figure or a signe but be turned into th● very blood of Christ Tertullian saith Tertul. lib. 4 contra Marc. Christ professed his desire to eate the Pass●ouer as his owne and hauing taken bread and distributed it to his disciples hee made it his bodie by saying this is my body that is the figure or signe of my body You acknowledge both Tertullians words and his meaning t DVR Augustine signifieth the Sacramēt by the name of figure WHIT pag 204. It is true Christ gaue the Sacramēt to his di●ci●les but Augustine vseth not the word Sacrament but figure to shew that as no figu●e or signe is the thing wherof it is a fi u●e so the bread is not properly the body nor the w●ne the blood of Christ Augustine saith August in Psal 3. Christ admitted Iudas to that banquet in which he commended to his disciples the figure of his body and blood In another place also u DVR Augustine disputeth in this p●ace against the Ma●●chees carp●ng at Moses vvords The blood is the soule of the beast And saith it is so spoke as the Sacramēt of the body of Christ is called his body the blood is called the soule because it is as the signe of the soule which lieth hid in the blood as the Sacramet is the signe of the body of Christ vvhich is conteined in it WH T pag. 206. Nay I infer the cōtrary as the soule is not the blood whē it is o●● of the vaines may be eaten so Christ is not in the Sacrament And as the blood is the signe of the soule which is not in it so is the Sacrament of the bodie which is not conteined in it The Lord verily doubted not to speake thus Contra. Adimant cap. 12. This is my body when he gaue the signe of his body And that you may vnderstand that this was Augustines perpetuall tenor in interpreting of these words and that he determined farre diuerse to you touching the eating of Christs flesh heare what he saith in his bookes of Christian Instruction where he giueth diuers precepts for the vnderstanding of the phrase of the Scriptures If saith he any sentence there seeme to cōmaund any impious act De doctr Christ. lib. 3. cap. 16. or to forbid any duty tending to the profit or good of others it is a figuratiue speech vnlesse saith Christ you eate the flesh of the Son of man and drinke his blood you haue no life in you It seemeth to inioyne an * DVR Augustine did not thinke that it vvas an heynous thing to eate the flesh of Christ but to cate 〈◊〉 as the Capernites thought that is torne and rent in peeces WHIT. pag. 209. You answere somewhat as touching the fact but nothing for the figure But Augustine saith there is a figure which cannot be if the flesh of Christ be either eaten as you say whole or chopt in peeces as the Capernites affirme And if it be an horrible fact to eate the smale parts of Christs bo●ie is it not a more beastly bloody thing to deuoure the whole body of Christ at one mor●el● DVR It is no more heynous for a Christian to eate the flesh of Christ whole then it was for the blessed Virgin to conceiue to nourish it in her wombe WHIT. pag. 211. What is this

with more words You make hast to the Sacraments Of the Sacraments And I will pursue you as much hast as you make Now here you cry on t most pittifully O blessed Christ they haue left neuer a Sacrament not two not one Dare you appeale to Christ whose Sacraments yee haue banished with great reproch out of the Church that ye might bring in certaine impure Sacraments not worthy to be named we retaine those Sacraments which Christ hath commended to vs if there had been need of more he would haue left more We haue two Sacraments Baptisme and the Lords Supper these Christ did institute p DVR Our seuen Sacraments stand vpon good ground and reason hath antiquitie for them WHIT. pag. 643. You should then produce some antiquitie for the proofe of them but hauing none why do you so brag of it I wonder not at your silēce because I know that that this number was neuer heard of before Hugo de Sancto Victore and Peter Lombard brought them into the Church and yet for them Lombard neuer gathered any testimony of auncient Fathers Neither euer any Councell before the Florentine Councell did approue or establish this number But your fiue bastard Sacraments 1. Order 2. Confirmation 3. Extreame Vnction 4. Penance 5. Marriage I proue thus to be no true Sacramēts of Christs Church 1. In euery Sacramēt is necessarily required and elemēt or visible matter But that neither your Order not Cōfirmation nor Penance nor Marriage haue by any warrant of Scripture 2. Those which are the proper Sacramēts of the Church Christ did institute But Christ instituted not any one of those fiue for Sacraments 3. Sacraments belong to all Christians But your Order and Marriage pertaine to a few in comparison 4. Seeing you faine that grace lye●h hid in the Sacraments and is by them transmitted vnto men proue vs which parts of these Sacraments do containe the grace inclosed What answere soeuer you make you will be taken napping Therefore these fiue bastard Sacraments are no true Sacraments of Christs Church these the auncient Church acknowledge and with these the later Church ought to haue been contented For that it is most euident that for seuen Sacraments for so many you hold that not a footstep of antiquity can be found O blessed Christ they haue seuen Sacramēts yet they haue no Sacramēt because they haue not thine For those Sacraments which are not thine are no Sacraments at all Their bread say you is poison and what is our wine but the common people among you taste not of that at all belike lest they should thinke that you did drinke to them of a poison Wee doe vse that bread and that wine in the Lords Supper which Christ himselfe commanded to vse That which hee deliuered we haue receiued that which he did we do in the bread and wine we celebrate the remembrance of our Redeemer If those were wholesome ours cannot bee deadly Baptisme say you although it be as yet among them true notwithstanding in their iudgement it is nothing You your self cōfesse that our Baptisme is true● I take it for granted But why is it true because wee baptize so as Christ hath commanded vs. We keepe the law of Christ we throw your I know not q DVR What is that you call trash vvhich of the auncient Fathers haue been vvho haue not made mention of our ceremonies WHIT. pag. 658. Christ cōmaunded nothing to the Church touching these trifles though we reade often of Baptisme in the word of many yet there is no word touching any of these Shall we then thinke that the Church in later times hath knowne better vvhat ceremonies vvere fitter for the Sacrament then Christ and his Apostles vvhere did euer any of them vse salt spittle candles c. in this Sacrament what trash away the like haue we done in the other Sacrament not haue wee departed a nailes bredth from Christs precept If ours be true Baptisme then is out r DVR VVhen bread and vvine is your Eucharist neither doe you beleeue Christ gaue any other thing in the Supper vvee leaue you your Eucharist also WHIT. pag. 660. If wee haue true Baptisme why not the Eucharist wee follow Christs commandement in both Further you falsely accuse vs who thinke bread wine to be but one part of the Sacrament as Ireneus and antiquity hath done Christ his body and blood the other But you haue no Eucharist at all who professe you haue neither bread nor wine Eucharist true also But in their iudgement say you it is nothing Why so It is not the water of saluation it is not the conduit of grace it doth not deriue the merits of Christ into vt but only it is a signification of saluation All these things are feined false For we preach it to be the sauing water and a ſ DVR But Caluin denieth all this making it only a signe and seale by vvhich vve are assured of the grace best●●ed vpon vs. WHIT. pag. 663. Doth it follow hence that grace and remission of sinne is not giuen vnto vs in Baptisme As if by the seale of the Kings Charter some thing is not both giuen vnto vs and confirmed And in Baptisme this confirmation is but a more bountifull donation chanell of grace and we doubt not but it deriueth Christs merits into vs. For it doth not only signifie saluation but also it performeth bringeth it indeed to them that vse Baptisme aright and holily For in Baptisme we receiue forgiuene of our sinnes we are accepted into the familie of Christ we are endowed with the holy Ghost we are raised vp to a most certaine hope of euerlasting life Are these matters of nothing to you Campian shall this Baptisme be nothing wherin we obteine so many and so great good things but what manner of thing is your Baptisme or what hath it more which ours ought to haue hath it grace or the merits of Christ or saluation Ours also hath these things what then is wanting in it why it should not be true both in ours and others iudgement I know your meaning It conueigheth not grace by the worke wrought This indeed is a magicall and pestilent deuice that you should thinke t DVR VVe thinke not so but that it is in it as in an instrument And so hath Thomas taught WHIT. pag. 664. Then you reiect and condemne all your old Sophisters who haue taught that grace is included in the Sacrament as health is in a medicine or salue For as that doth cure the disease whether he beleeue or no that is sicke only if he take it so the Sacrament doth giue grace without any faith or good motion of the receiuer so he hath no mortall sinne to hinder it grace to be inclosed in the water it selfe as it were in a pipe which sheadeth it self forth into all men though quite void of faith For what auaileth the Sacrament

and Page 210 14 There is a negatiue ignorance which is not sinne Page 208. 209 15 Ch●●●t ●●oke vpon him the punishment due to sinne both ●gnorance and d●ath Page ●●9 16 That which raised such feare and horror in Christ was not the feare of naturall death but the bitter wrath of God against mankind pag. 210. and 211 17 What the hell was which Christ suffered and as man feared pag. 211. nota 18 Christ suffered in soule as well as in bodie pag. 211. 212 19 Christ did not goe into Limbus after his death pag. 214 20 Many auncient Creedes both in the Romane and East Church haue not this article of Christs descension into heil pag. 215. nota 21 What the image of God was in man before his fall pag. 216 22 The whole image of God is not razed in man but some reliques are remaining Naturall gifts are corrupted supernaturall distinguished pag. 216. 217 23 That which is in the regenerate of themselues is corrupt that which they haue from God is contrarie to their corruption pag. 218 24 Sinne is not a substance nor a meere priuation but an accident and a corrupt habit like to a disease pag. 220 25 Concupiscence is sinne and so iudged by Augustine vpon great and weightie reason ibid. nota 26 Sometime he calleth it no sinne in opposition to actuall sin pag. 221 nota 27 Sinnes are not equall neither doe Protestants so teach they all deserue eternall death though some more some lesse pag. 221. 222 28 Grace is double either the free mercie and loue of God towards vs which is without vs in God or those gifts which flow from this grace and this is in vs. pag. 223 224 29 Christs righteousnes is onputed to vs as our sinnes to him Christ hauing paid our debt the paiment must needs be ours by imputation and if Papists allow the imputation of the righteousnes of Saints why should they so much scorne the imputation of Christ his righteousnes ibid. nota 30 Charitie cannot iustifie vs because it is imperfect for that which is faultie cannot iustifie vs. ibid. 31 Imputed and infused righteousnes goe together in one and the some man Iustification and sanctification are distinguished in the word pag. 225. nota 32 The regenerate by grace cannot so resist their temptations that they should neuer sinne as the example of S. Paul and others manifest pag. 226. 227. nota 33 Our righteousnes is a reall relation 228. nota 34 All our righteousnes being stained cannot iustifie vs and faith hope and charitie being imperfect cannot doe it pag. 229 35 Christ is he that couereth vs by whose righteousnes wee are adorned Our righteousnes is the couering of the fault pag. 231 36 Faith alone iustifieth but it is not alone when it doth iustifie pag. 232 37 The reasons why wee are exhorted to performe workes and obedience as also that wee are commanded to apprehend Christs righteousnes by faith pag. 230 38 A man ought and may be certaine of his saluation by the certaintie of faith pag. 232. 233. nota 39 Many are deceiued with a conceit of faith but he that hath it knoweth certainly that he hath it pag. 233. nota 40 From Gods predestination a man may be sure of his perseuerance so the Fathers teach yet a man must vse the meanes pag. 234. 235 nota 41 The number of Sacraments are but two in the Church the noueltie of the other fiue not any antiquitie for them and pregnant reasons against them pag. 237. nota 42 Hugo de S. Victore and Peter Lombard brought seuen Sacraments first into the Church No Councell before the Florentine did euer confirme them ibid. nota 43 Popish ceremonies in Baptisme are new ibid. nota 44 Protestants haue both bread and wine and the bodie and blood of Christ Papists haue no bread nor wine nota pag. 239 45 Baptisme is both a chanel of grace and that which confirmes grace but giueth not grace by the word wrought Duraeus contrarie to the schoolemen maketh it but an instrument pag. 239. nota 46 The Baptismes of Iohn and of Christ were both one in cerem●●ie in doctrine and in grace pag. 240 47 The place against it Matth. 3.11 Act. 19.4.5 expounded and answered ibid. nota 48 Baptisme is not so simplie necessarie to saluation that the want of it will condemne but the neglect or contempt of it is a sinne pag. 241 49 Papists thinke infants dying without Baptisme are d●●●●●ed A barbarous and a se●selesse opinion and against all reason ibid. nota 50 Infants may haue faith as they haue life and know not of it pag. 242 51 The Sacrament is a Sacrament to all without faith but not a sauing Sacrament to men of yeeres without faith yet to infants it may be because the spirit worketh secretly and powerfully ibid. nota 52 Luther earnestly held that Baptisme ought to bee giuen to children and thought they had faith pag. 243 53 Caluin against the Anabaptists proued the baptisme of infants not by tradition but Scripture pag. 244. nota 54 Campian hath no cause to vpbraid Protestants with corruption of manners so long as Rome is so corrupt as as is and publike Stewes maintained in it pag. 245 55 Luthers lasciuious speech obiected by Campian plainly excused and a worse obiected of Pope Clements 246.247 56 Luther makes three causes of diuorce and the Papists many moe pag. 246. nota 57 Mariage is most necessarie for men who cannot liue chast and commanded pag. 247 58 Mariage is oftentimes simply better than virginitie though this be to be embraced when a man hath the gift that he may more freely serue the Lord. pag. 248. nota 59 The speech of Lauther saying The more wicked that thou art the necrer art thou vnto grace defended in his true sense pag. 249 60 How all our good actions are tainted with sinne and so may be called sinnes in Gods seuere indgement and yet good and to be done pag. 250. nota 61 The good actions of those who are once in Christ though tainted are acceptable vnto God because he lookes vpon the person not the worke pag. 251 62 The law belongs to Christians for a rule of their life though it be abrogated by the new couenant For they are deliuered not from the obedience of it but the curse of it by Christ pag. 252 253. 254. nota 63 God respects the good workes of his but not to instification pag. 254. nota 64 The iust not onely liues but is iustified by his faith and so much the place of Habacuck prooueth ibid. nota 65 Workes not the cause but the manifestation of righteousnes out of Thomas ibid. 66 They who haue broken hearts and contrite spirits are fittest ghuests for the Lords table neither is this against faith pag. 255 67 Luther was not against publike confession but a priuate auricular confession of all sinnes to a Priest onely when by the word it may be made to others pag.

that which shall not be vttered out of their shops must by their brain-sicke decree be reiected as a thing most rude and loath some They that are driuen to this horrible and detestable shift though their Armes be blazed neuer so farre abroad by their owne disciples though they buy and sel● benefices though in their Sermons they cry out against Catholikes though they procure them the sword racke and gallowes yet are they ouercome naught set by horrible in mens sight and quite ouerthrowne For as much as the taking vpon them the authoritie of Censorors and sitting as honorable Iudges do dash out at their pleasure such holy Scriptures as they found would not serue their turne is there any body though neuer so simple which can feare these sub●tle sleights of the Aduersaries who assoone as they should enter within your assemiblie that are learned men and flie vnto such their vsuall snifts as it were vnto their familiar spirit should though not with reproach full words yet at the least with trampling of your feet be thrust out of your schooles I would demaund of them for example sake b● what authoritie they mayme and robbe the corpes of the Bible They answere they doe not cut out any true Canonicall Scriptures but cull out only such as are not Canonicall that haue been forsted into the Bible and are indeed but counterfeits Who shall be iudge the * Campian refuseth the holy Ghost as Iudge holy Ghost for this very answere doth o 1. Lib. Inst. cap. 7. Caluin giue thereby to escape the iudgement of the Church by whose authoritie all spirits are tried why then do some of you cut off certaine bookes and others of your crew allow the same seeing you all vaunt of the self-same spirit The Caeluinists spirit alloweth of six Epistles which the Lutheran spirit doth d●sallow and yet both of you as you say haue the holie spirit The p Xistus Sen. lib. 7. Anabaptists doe call the historie of Iob a fable interlaced with tragicall and Comicall meeters how know they that by the spirit that instructeth them q Praefat. in Cant. Castalio that lecherous varlet made no more account of that mysticall booke of Salomon commonly called Cantica canticorum which the Catholikes do as highly esteeme as a Paradise of the soul as that heauenly food Manna which was laid vp and kept in the tabernacle and as delicate dainties in Christ then he did of a * This is falsoe for Castalio in his preface hath no such word baudie song and ribaudous ta●be of a Courtly wayting mayd with her louer where had he this of the spirit In the Apocalyps of r Epist. ad Paul S. Iohn euery little title whereof S. Hierome affirmeth to containe some high and notable mysterie yet neuertheles these ſ Praef. in Apoc. seuere Iudges Luther Brentius and Kemnitius find I know not what lacking shooting all at this marke that the booke might be defaced and be of no authoritie whom did they aske the spirit * This is most false reade the answere to it Luther vpon a prepostorous zeale casteth a bone amongst the g Praefat. in nouum Test. foure Euangelists and preferring S. Paules Epistles farre before the three former Gospels in the end concludeth that the one only Gospell of S. Iohn is from henceforth to be taken for the gay for the true and the principall Gospell as one that asmuch as in him lay would gladly haue made the Apostles also partakers of his brawling in religious matters who was his Tutor the spirit Besides this that peeuish u Ser. de Pharis Publican Fryer was so malapert as to endeuor to make * This is false for Luther neuer spake saucily of S. Luke S. Lukes Gospell to be suspected to be written in a wanton style because therein good workes are often commended vnto vs whom hath he consulted with the spirit Theodorus Beza was so bold as to reprehend that mysticall word taken out of the 22. Chapter x Luc. C. 22. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of S. Luke Hic est Calix nouum Testamentum in sanguine meo qui calix pro vobis fundetur This is the Cup of the new Testament in my blood which Cup shall be sh●dde for you as very corrupt and euilly placed there because this sentence cannot admit any interpretation but of the * This is false for by no meanes can he endure thi● exposition wine of the Cup changed into the very true blood of Christ where learned he that of the spirit Finally when euery man committeth euery thing to his priuate spirit they belie the name of the holy Ghost most blasphemously Do not these fellowes which deale thus bewray themselues and shew what they are are they not easily confuted are they not in the assemblie of such men as you of both the Vniuersities be quickly perceiued and soone represt Ought I to feare disputations with these in defence of the Catholike faith who with much falshood haue handled the very word not of man but of God himselfe Here I passe ouer such things as they haue depraued in their false translations though there be intolerable matters wherewith I may well charge them I am very loath to take away any part of the matter either from my old Colledge fellow Master Gregory Martin a man of excellent great knowledge in the three tongues y Latin Greeke and Hebrew which will handle this matter farre more learnedly and copiously then I can or from some others which as I vnderstand haue already vndertaken this matter The matter that I now write of is farre more heynous and horrible There were lately discouered certaine pettie Doctors that vpon a drunken pange laid violent hands vpon the diuine Scriptures and haue condemned them as corrupted as maymed as falsified as craftily foisted in in sundrie places some parts thereof they haue corrected some they haue raced and some they haue quite pulled out And lastly they haue changed as the fortresse of this authenticall writing of Gods owne hand wherewith before it was fenced vnto certaine Lutherane spirits as though it were into vaine bulwarkes of their owne imaginations or into bare painted walles least peraduenture they should haue bin mum for want of matter when they should stumble at such places of Scripture as are plaine against their heresies Of which neuerthelesse they could no sooner shift their hands then suppe vp hot coales or eate hard stones Then this first reason seemed to me vrgent and iust which when it had euidently laid before mine eyes that the Aduersaries side was but counterfeited and feeble truely it incouraged me much being both a Christian and also somewhat beaten in this kind of studie in defence of the euerlasting Kings Charter to encounter with the remnaunts of these discomfited enemies WILLIAM WHITAKERS The answere to the first Reason THat Campian which made you most cheerefull in the cause you haue vndertaken and

changed so that it is no maruell if the custome of the Church at one time interpret the Scriptures after this manner another time after that Was there euer the like bouldnes heard of that men would wrest the eternall and immutable word of God which euer hath but one and the same sense to serue the will of the Church that is of the Pope of Rome Thom. 1. ● 1. art 10. besides this you haue made so many h DV● The Fathers and Antiquity haue euer made these foure senses of the Scriptures WHIT. pag. 163. To faine such foure senses in euery sentence differeth not much from a learned kind of madnes Allegories I confesse many are in the Scriptures but such as the holy Ghost himselfe hath made but to make other Allegories when the words may be vnderstood without a Trope or when the Grammaticall sense is not absurd and repugnant to sound doctrine I thinke is too great bouldnesse and temerity A Tropologicall sense is not a new sense differing from the Grammaticall but one ●s it were with it Finally if the Fathers as men haue erred must we needs follow their errors The Fathers reiected the errors and false interpretations of their predecessors why may not we deale so with them senses of euery place to wit an allegoricall a tropological an anagogicall sense that by your Ledgerdemaine you haue abolished the true and natiue sense Now Campian since you know that this is the manner of your Church in the interpreting of the Scripture than which what can be more corrupt how dare you presume to reprehend our manner of interpretation But we follow no other course then that which the Fathers haue prescribed and which the thing it selfe argues to be most fit For that is our course which Augustine aduised we interpret obscure places by those which are plainer we obserue the phrase and stile of the Scripture we weigh circumstances we compare scripture with scripture we go not one iot from the Analogie of faith They who take this course adioyning their harty prayers that the Lord would open this sealed booke vnto them and teach them the true sense of the scripture shall neuer need to runne to Rome and enquire of that sacred Oracle of the Pope who himselfe neither vnderstandeth the true sense of scripture neither is able to expound them to others But to returne now to Campian what is the vsuall fault he finds in our dealing with the scripture and what be the arguments by which he doth confute vs Let vs demaund saith he for example sake of our Aduersaries what caused them to deuise this new opinion whereby Christ is excluded out of the mysticall Supper We Campian do not i DVR If you place Christs body and your supper so farre asunder how do you not exclude h m from i● WHIT. pag. 168. It is true if things that are seuered could no way be ioyned but by a corporall ouching but without it it may fitly be as all beleeuers are ioyned together though they be farre distant and distracted one from another as Iewes Grecians and all other godly make but one body with Christ what is that bond of this vnion but the power of the spirit Such an vnion is this in the Sacramēt and it hath the some bond exclude Christ out of the Supper neither do we otherwise thinke of the Sacrament then both Christ hath taught vs and the old Church hath prescribed We certeinly affirme that the faithfull in the supper receiue whole Christ God and Man we beleeue and teach that they eate his body and drinke his blood Neither doubt we to affirme but that he that comes to the supper and doth not in the supper partake of Christ that he is in danger of condemnation Doe we now exclude Christ from the supper But whosoeuer includeth Christ in the supper as you doe he faineth and forgeth a new Christ to himselfe he confoundeth heauen and eart● together he offereth violence to nature and mu●● needs admit innumerable absurdities Wherfore we following the scripture as our schole-masters not taking vp any new opinion place the naturall and humane body of Christ in heauen for so the Apostle Peter speaketh whom the heauens must conteine vntill the time that all things be restered Act. 3.21 yet the k DVR The● is Christ as present in Baptisme and in the word and wheresoeuer your faith seekes for him as in the supper yea as present to the Father● in the old Testament as now to vs. WHIT. pag. 169. So quest●onlesse he is vnl●sse all men be without hope of life and saluation who are depriued of the Supper For John 6.53 yea all Christians communicate of Christ alike as well such as come to the supper as they who cannot partake in it And that he was present to the Fathers it is proued 1. Cor. 10.3.4 vertue the communion the benefit of this body we exclude not from the supper but stifly maintaine that in the supper whole Christ is present to each mans faith This is the summe of our opinion which I no lesse doubt to be the true sense of the scripture then that Christ is Christ or that to be scripture which is scripture This opinion out of all others which we hold haue you made choice of as an example to impugne and gain-say Let vs see now how scholler-like you acquite your selfe If they name the Gospell say you we ioyne with them The very words make for vs. This is my body this is my blood I acknowledge the words do but I enquire now for the sense of them whether they should be so expounded as your Church teacheth that the bread is Transubstantiated into the bodie and the wine into the blood of Christ or by a Trope and in a mysticall sense that the bread is the Sacrament the signe and symboll of the body and so the wine of the blood of Christ as we interpret them Whether opinion hath more truth in it we will now discusse As for that which you tell vs of Luther I suppose you will not expect any answere from me and vndoubtedly in this thing Luther was farre more opposite to your opinion then ours For he euer condemned your Transubstantiation as it is for an accursed inuention and fiction of Satan Luther we acknowledge was a man who though he saw the truth in many things yet he might erre in some things his good things wee embrace but wee are bound by no law to defend his errors But how shal we find out the meaning of this saying Let vs trie out this say you by the words thereto adioyning Nothing can be spoken more truly nothing more fitly nor more ingenuously And verely I could wish you would alwaies doe as you pretend in this place to doe sist out the meaning of the scripture by the circumstances of the words But what are the words adioyning My body which is giuen for you my blood which is shed for you

Campian you are too sparing and scant in the point repeate and say that which goeth before As they did eate Christ tooke bread he blessed it he brake it and gaue it to his disciples and said Take eate this is my body and he tooke the cup and gaue thankes and gau● it to them saying Drinke yee all of this for this is my blood c. So now Campian I will deale with you from the words which are now adioyning What was it Christ tooke you will say bread what brake he bread what gaue he to his disciples bread wh●● did he bid them take and eate bread what said he was his bodie was it any other thing ●hen the very same bread which he tooke into his hands brake and l DVR He tooke bread but he gaue not bread to his disciples but his bodie WHIT. pag. 183. Then one body of Christ is made two one sitting among them another deliuered vnto them yea as many bodies as there were Communicants And the disciples did receiue chaw and eate him whom they saw s●ting with them but whē was the chāge made for before he had spoken these operatiue words This is my bodie he brake it gaue it ●o his disciples either these words make not the change or he ga●e to his disciples bread vnchanged DVR ●f there was no change then the blessing wa● without profit WHIT. pag. 185. As if all blessings were without profit if they change not the nature of things God blessed our first parents Gen. 1.28 Noah and his Sonnes Gen. 9.1 Christ his disciples at his departure Luk. 24.51 was their blessing without profit because they changed not their natures and substance Besides to blesse is nothing else but to giue thankes as Luke hath it which was done by words before not by those This is my body gaue to his disciples Therfore that when Christ saith This is my body this is my blood is as much as if he said This bread is my body and this cup is my blood But the bread and the body of Christ the cup and the blood of Christ are they not differing and wel-nigh contrary Then tell vs how they can affirme or be spoken one of another vnlesse you will admit a Tropicall speech Yet Campian to vse your owne words the matter gocth hard on your side and maketh very plainly and manifestly for vs. For Christ saith plainly that the bread is his body which cannot be true without a figure that bread made to eate should be properly Christs body And this is that figure which we find so often in the Scriptures specially when any Sacram●nt is spoken of So in Genesis cap. 17. the Lord saith of Circumcision m DV● This is neither heere nor any where else to be found in the Scriptures WHIT. pag. 173. Ma●ke well This is my couenant which you shall keepe that euery manchild be circumcised what I pray you is This but that euery man-child be circumcised and ●o you haue it in this place directly but see Gen. 17.13 My couenant shall be in your flesh what is this but circumcision reade Act. 7.8 DVR This signifieth not circumcision but agreement or couenant betwixt God a●d Abraham touching circumcision WHIT. That agreemen● was it the couenant or not ●f it was then see what a goodly sentence you haue made This my couenant is my couenant But if it was not thē you must needs acknowledge a Me●●nymy that is that the name of th● thing is giuen to the signe howsoeuer then it must be vnderstood by a figure This is the couenant betwixt me and Gen. 17.10 you Yet Circumcision was not the couenant but the signe of the couenant Now tell vs I pray you what difference betwixt these two This is my couenant this is my body The former you cannot deny but must be vnderstood by a Metonymy and can any man make doubt but that the latter likewise is to be so expounded The like we reade of the Lambe Exod. 12.11 n DVR These words are not to be found there WHIT. pag. 174. Obserue the words Thus shall you eate it for it is the Lords Passouer That which was to be eaten is called the Lords Passeouer Now they we●e cōmanded to eate the Lambe reade Exod 12. ve●se 27. 〈◊〉 is the Lords Passeouer And yet the Lamb was not the Passeouer but a memoriall of it like to this is that of S. Paul o DVR There is no figure in the word Christ but in rocke for the rocke was the signe of Christ WHIT. pag. 175. Then you acknowledge a Metonymy in the word● because the rock was the Sac●amen● of Christ And if heere there be a Trope then why not in these words of this Sacramēt The rocke was Christ. 1. Cor. 10.1 Now as the rocke was Christ so is this mysticall bread the body of Christ Thus as yet you see the matter is neuer the better on your side haue you any thing else The Gospell say you makes for vs S. Paul accordeth also Nay S. Paul vtterly ouerthroweth your opinion 1. Cor. 11. for when he speaketh of this Sacrament in one continued speech he vseth the word p DVR S. Paul call●th it so because it vvas novv Christ vvho vva● the liuing bread WHIT. pag. 188. many of your fellowes interpret it far otherwise yea your sh●●t S. Paul ouerthroweth 1. Cor. 10.16 The bread vvhich vve breake is it not the Comunion of the body of Christ Now not Christ was brokē but the bread bread foure seuerall times and that after Consecration so that it appeareth ●earely to haue the proper nature of bread though it be said to be the body of Christ But yet you adde The words the sentences the whole conuection of Scripture doe often most reuerently repeate the bread the wine a notable miracle heauenly food his flesh his bodie his blood In good earnest you discourse of these things with great reuerence and shamefastnes For you would proue that in this Sacrament there remaineth neither bread nor wine but certeine qualities of these things hanging in the ayre and void● of the things themselues And for any notable miracle I acknowledge none but answere you with Austen They may be honoured as religious things De Trinit lib. 3. c. 10. but they cannot be wondred at as q DVR Augustine speaketh of thes● miracles which are made of a bodily substanc● and so are sensible novv no such thing is seene in the Eucharist WHIT. pag. 191. But if there were a true miracle it would be sensible and haue the witnesse of the senses as all oth●r miracles of the Scriptures haue For thing● that are hid saith Augustine are not miracles He writ three bookes of the miracles of the Scriptures in which he hath not spoken one word of this miracle Therefore he knew not the Popish Transubstantiation minacles No man euer denied but that in the Sacrament heauenly food is both

but as if you had said It is no heynous thing to conceiue and bring forth an Infant Therfore it is none to deuoure it after it is borne heynous act It is therefore a figuratiue speech commanding vs to communicate in the Passion of the Lord. Doe you thinke this reuerend old man dotes or hath he not giuen a iudicious interpretation wel agreeing vnto the iudgement of the auncient I thinke matters yet goe worse on your side then they did before but perhaps you will say these are too aunciēt to serue your turne heare then some of latter times Theod. Theodoret a Gretian and a learned man writeth thus in his Dialogue● x DVR Theodorets meaning is that the signes haue not lost their naturall properties though their nature be changed WHIT. pag. 214. If the naturall properties remaine then certeinly their natures must for esse●t●all properties can neuer be separated from ●heir natures yea in the words follow ng in this very place Theodoret affirmeth that the nature remaineth The mysticall bread saith he remaineth in the nature it first had in the figure and in the forme Mysticall signes doe not lose their proper nature This very speech quite ouerthroweth your Transubstantiation for if their proper nature remaine without doubt nothing can be Transubstantiated or changed Now the bread keepeth his proper and old nature therefore there can be no Transubstantiation but I will ioyne to Theodoret Marcarius whose homilies Morelius had out of the Kings Librarie and hath published them in Greeke and I suppose that you being a Frier will not reiect the testimony of so auncient a Monke he writeth thus In the Church saith he Marcar homil is offered bread and wine y DVR An antitype or resemblance of the type is not the type or figure but the substance signified by that type or figure WHIT. pag. 217. An antitype is neuer properly the substance of the type though sometime it be another type answering to it and both of them are but similitudes figures of the substance And sometimes a type and an antitype are both one and the same as Heb. 9.24 The Tabernacle is called an antitype of heauē being the substance signified by the Tabernacle and no answering type to the Tabernacle And in this sense doe diuers of the Fathers vse the word Antitype as Basil Nazianzen Theodoret Chrysost antitypes or resemblances of his body and blood What saith he bread and wine but bread is already turned into flesh and wine into blood Ought a Monke to speake after this manner giue you them so slender a name as similitudes Pardon mee Campian this Monke was neuer vsed to speake after your manner neither was your Transubstantiation as yet come abroad what say you now are you pleased with this reuerend hoare head of the Fathers If you rest not heere it shall be free for you to appeale to any one of the whole reuerend company of the holy Fathers not one of them no not any one of them do I except against For I make no doubt but if they may be iudges you shall euer haue the worst From henceforth therefore do not cast any such calumni●●ions vpon vs and boast your selfe of the bare names of the Fathers for the Fathers both in this controuersie and in many others are firme on our side As for the Fathers of whom you name many but I beleeue haue read but a few I thus answere you We are not the seruants of the Fathers but the sonnes When they prescribe vs any thing out of the Law and diuine authoritie we obey them as our parents If they inioyne any thing against the voyce of the heauenly truth we haue learned not to harken to them but to God You as Vassals and base seruants receiue whatsoeuer the Fathers saie without iudgement or reason being affraid as I think either of the whippe or the halter if euery thing they speake be not Gospell with you In few words say you this is their drift vnlesse thou wilt stand to their owne iudgement that are guilty there is no iudgement to be had Verily this fits you a great deale better then vs for you will receiue no iudgement but the iudgement of the Pope and Church of Rome which Church and Pope wee haue proued long agoe to be guilty of most heynous crimes and there hath been a perpetuall variance betwixt him and vs. Is there any equity then in your demaunds that we should stand to his iudgement who 〈◊〉 both a person guilty and an aduersarie to vs And well should we deserue to lose the cause if we would be so witlesse contenders Much truer speaketh Augustine Let one matter encounter with another Contra Maxim lib. 3. c. 14. one cause with another one reason with another by the authoritie of the holy Scriptures which are not proper to either side but common z DVR How foolishly do you alledge Augustine who maketh the Scripture a witnes of the truth not a iudge as you would haue it WHIT. pag. 243. If the Scripture be the witnes where shall we find a iudge answerable to this witnes Is it the Church Then must it be of more authority then the Scripture which heere you affirme not neither may it be grāted for the Scripture is the word of God therefore he that is the iudge of it must be the iudge of God himselfe To deny the Scriptures then the preheminence in iudging is to thrust God out of his throne Therefore as God so the Scripture the word of God hath the authoritie both of a witnesse and a iudge DVR Augustine euer thought that the Popes iudgement was the highest tribunall ●pon earth where all controuersies must be decided WHIT. pag. 244. Augustine neuer thought so but writ the contrary De ciuitat Dei lib. 15. ●ap 3. The Lord saith he hath penned the Scripture which is call●d Canonicall because it is of highest authoritie yea hee neuer once pressed the Arrians either with the authoritie of the Pope or of the Councell which vndoubtedly he would haue done neither could he haue done better if the highest iudgement had been in the Church witnesses for both And to their iudgements would we haue you to stand not ours As for other things you speake of I passe them ouer for you will reserue them for vs till another place and wheras you say you haue cited many and worthy places of Scripture we haue weighed those places in their ballances and haue found them to light to proue what you proposed And it is your vse indeed rather to take them by number then by weight But you charged vs with scorning at this and shifting them off we did nothing lesse all we did was to free them from your cauils We haue say you alledged the interpretations of the Greeke and Latin Churches I confesse it but we haue wrung all those weapons from you and haue by them battered all your holds But say you what say they

Luther whom you say doubted not to taxe S. Lukes Gospell Serm. de Pharis Publi as if it were written in a wanton stile because therein good workes are often recommended vnto vs. Was there euer read or heard of the like impudencie audaciousnes and treacherous dealing in any man The place you note in the margent I haue very diligently and heedfully obserued that I might discerne wherin Luther hath shewed such male pertnes but I haue not found one vnholy nor dishonorable terme vnfit to be giuen to S. Luke as being an heauenly Euangelist For that which Luther propounds to himselfe is to take out of mens minds a scruple which S. Lukes often mention of workes might moue in them lest any happilie might thinke that S. Luke by often speaking of works should detract somewhat from faith or place our iustification in our workes And this is as you affirme saucilie to giue S. Luke a wipe if you can tel me of any greater matter I will no waies defend or excuse Luthers malepertnes But what malepertnes is this of yours Campian whom neither the feare of God nor the reuerence of men can restraine frō writing or diuulging of those things which your owne conscience tels you are most false and you cannot passe by Beza neither without the like Calumnious censure Who say you was so bould as to reprehend that mysticall word Hic est calix n●u●m Testame●tum in s●●guine meo qui calix pro vobis fundetur This is the cup of the new Testament in my blood which cup shall be shedde for you a● corrupted and depraued I see well where your error is in following that corrupt and adulterous vulgar translation for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 you thus translate a DVR I confesse there is a Metonymy in the cup the cup being put for the blood WHIT. pag. 130. Then this cup is as much as this blood Then see what a sentence you haue made This blood is the new Testament in my blood which is shed for you As if Christ had said This blood is the new Testament in my blood And so heere are two bloods and the one in the other Hic est calix nouum Testamentum This is the cup of the new Testament when the words are rather thus to be placed Hic calix est nouum Testamentum This cup is the new Testament and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being a participle of the present tence you translate by a verbe of the future tence Qui fundetur shall be shed for you for Qui funditur is shedde for you But you dare not goe a haires breadth from the vulgar translation for feare of incurring that curse of the Councell of Trent But heere Theodor Beza apparantly is caught in a haynous crime for he writeth that Luke hath committed a Solecisme what then I pray you a very foule fact and very intolerable Is it so indeed how shall we then defend Hierome who writeth that Paul committed such solecismes in his words that by no good ordering any good sense could be made of them In cap. 3. Epist. ad Ephes If S. Paul might commit Solecismes in his words why may we not thinke S. Luke may doe as much and if Hierome without sinne might accuse S. Paul not to speake properly or scholer-like why might not Beza note some want of propriety of speech in S. Luke for you are wide Campian if you thinke this any thing diminisheth the authoritie dignity of the Scriptures for Hier●me construeth it quite contrarie Let vs looke therefore vpon the place of the Euangelist that we may iudge where this fault is The words runne thus This cup is the new Testament in my blood which is shedde for you If you change nothing in the words and exclude all incongruitie then these last words Which is shed for you must be referred to the first This cup. And so this should be the meaning This cup is shed for you But not the cup but the blood of Christ was shed for vs. But you will say the cup is put for the wine in the cup. So that whether you will or no you must acknowledge that in these words there is a trope or figure though you Papists vsually deny the same and vehemently cry out none of them is to be taken figuratiuely But you your selues in these words make two figures first you take the cuppe for the wine in it then the wine for the blood of Christ which in no hand you can do without a figure therefore heereafter stand not vpon words for if you will now stand to the words you must either graunt that the cup was shed for vs or you must admit a solecisme and vnproper speech If we will read them as Basill doth Basil in Eth. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Which blood is shed for you the meaning wil be plaine when these words which is shedde for you are referred to the blood of Christ These are Campians collectiōs of such things wherein our men haue offended against the authoritie and dignity of the Scripture These he crieth out do euidently open our diffidence and desperation these are those things he propoundeth vnto you that are most learned of the Vniuersity Whose iudgement I am therefore also wel contented to stand vnto because I well know your learning and wisdome together with your studious endeuours in the best authors to be such that this sillie foolish sophister with all his slaunders and lies shall neuer be able to remoue or corrupt you for what matter hath he brought or what inuention which may seeme to sauour either of deepe learning much reading or witty conceit Therefore you shall do wel to set light by the threats of this Philistine and to cleaue with constancy to that holy religion which you haue learned out of the holy Scriptures as also proceed in that course of vertue and learning you haue begun that the Iesuits with all their inchauntments may lose all their labour in seeking to seduce you Hitherto Campian hath busied himself in discoursing vnto vs what he could concerning the holy bookes being desirous also to deliuer vnto vs such things as we haue depraued in our false translations saue that as he saith he reserues this labour for his old Colledge fellow Gregory Martin some others whom he well knoweth will performe it farre more learnedly and copiously then himselfe Therefore if you thinke good we will expect this Martin of whom you speake and whom I shall easily conceiue to be a man of more learning then your selfe vnlesse he be a very doult indeed And I doubt not but we shall be able to maintaine our translations both Latin and English against your Martin and all your Colleagnes And as for those petty Doctors whom you lastly reproach I neither know them nor the nature of their offence But when once your friend Martin shall come abroad who now perhaps is hammering some speciall peece of worke we shall

learne from him many new and excellent points This your first reason seemed very iust in your conceit to maintaine your glorious challenge of disputation with some of the learned of our Vniuersities But Campian you had delt a great deale wiser for your self if either you had neuer conceiued thes● reasons or streightway vpon the birth smothered them For before by your great challenge you begat a maruelous and wonderfull conceit of your selfe in euery mans mind and now when they shall read● those slender reasons of yours they will easily perceiue there is no cause why you should take so much vpon you and they wil tontemptuously deride you as you well deserue hisse you out of their scholes Therefore the counsell which Archidamu● gaue to his Sonne headily venturing to right with the Athenians the same doe our Vniuersitie men giue to to you Either adde to thy might or abate of thy mind for no man Campian euer tooke more vpon him and performed lesse than you haue done But let vs see what other things you bring vs. EDMVND CAMPIAN The second Reason which is the right sense of the Scriptures ANother matter that prouoked me to vndertake this enterprize and that enforced mee little to feare these my aduersaries slender armies is the vsuall inclination of my enemie in expounding the Scriptures full of deceite and void of wisdome These things you Philosophers would quickely finde out and therefore I was desirous of your audience Let vs demaund for example sake of our aduersaries what caused them to deuise this new opinion whereby Christ is * This is false for we doe not exclude Christ from the Supper excluded out of the mysticall supper If they name the Gospell we ioyne with them the very words they are for vs. a Matth. 26 Mark 14. Luk. 22. This is my bodie this is my blood which words seemed to b Luther in epist. ad Argen Luther so forcible that when he earnestly desired to be of Zuinglius mind because by that meanes he might haue wrought the Pope most displeasure yet notwithstanding he yeelded being ouercome and vanquished by the most plaine text of Scripture and as vnwillingly confessed that Christ is truly present in the most holy Sacrament as the c Matth. ● Marke 1. diuels in time past being ouercome with miracles with outcries confessed that Christ is the sonne of God Goe to then the written word doth fauour vs the controuersie is about the true meaning of the written word Let vs trie out this by the words thereunto adioyning d Luk. 22. Mattb. 22. Corpus meum quod pro vobis datur sanguis meus qui pro multis e●lundetur that is My bodie which is giuen for you my blood which shal be shed for many Yet the matter goeth hard on Caluins side and maketh very manifestly and plainely for vs. What say they else Conferre say they the Scriptures together Agreed The c Iohn 6. Matth. 16. Marc. 14. Luc. 22. Gospels make for vs f 1. Cor. 10. 11. S. Paul accordeth also The words the sentences the whole connexion of Scriptures doe often most reuerently repeate the bread and the wine a not able miracle heauenly foode his flesh his bodie his blood Here is nothing figuratiue nothing obscured by doubtfull speeches yet notwithstanding the aduersaries stand stiffely in their opinion and neuer cease wrangling What shall we then doe I hope antiquitie may be heard and that the reuerend hoare head of Fathers of all former ages to Christs time more nigh farther off from the time of these controuersies may be their iudgement determine this debate which we cannot end amongst our selues being suspected one of another * This is false for in this cōtrouersie we willingly admit Antiquity as witnesse They cannot away with that they say then they are betraied They crie out for the sincere and pure word of God they vtterlie reiect all mens commentaries trecherouslie and witlesselie done We will vrge them with the word of God they darken it we call the Saints in heauen for witnesses they refuse them In few words this is their drift that vnlesse thou wilt stand to their owne iudgement that are guiltie there is no iudgement to be had And so they behaue themselues in euerie controuersie betweene vs. As concerning grace powred into vs from heauen inherent iustice the visible Church the necessity of Baptisme Sacraments and sacrifices meritorious works of good folke hope and feare inequality of offences the authoritie of S. Peter the keyes vowes Euangelicall counsailes and other like controuersies we Catholikes in sundrie of our books in our mutuall conference in churches in schooles haue brought forth many and waightie places of Scripture and haue both tried and applied the same They haue scorned at this We haue alledged the interpretations of the auncient Greeke and Latin Churches they haue refused them What say they then marry that M. Doctor Martin Luther or else M. Philip Melanthon or certainelie M. Zuinglius or without doubt M. Caluin and M. Beza haue faithfullie entreated vpon these matters Can I imagine any of you to be so stuffed in the nose that being forewarned cannot quicklie smell out this subtile iugling wherfore I confesse plainlie that I am desirous to haue audience in the Vniuersitie scholes that after I haue called these Ruffian-like knights out of their dark dennes into the open and plaine field I may before your eies discomfite them not by my owne strength which am not to bee compared with the worst of an hundred of our side but by the puissance of the cause and certaintie of the truth which we maintaine WILLIAM WHITAKERS The answere to the second Reason WHat could be said touching the Scriptures wee haue heard wee must proceed to heare what can bee said for the interpretation and exposition of them for our vsuall inclination in expounding the Scriptures saith Campian hath encouraged and incited him earnestly to desire this encounter And we also Campian haue long ago desired to buckle with you herein And at length the Lord hath brought you out of your lurking holes into the broad light that we might trie it out with you but what is our disposition you speake of It is full of deceit say you and void of wisdome Thus you being a man of small reach and lesse discretion do conceite our inclination Assuredly the matter you haue now in hand is a cause of great waight for the force the substance and as it were the soule of the Scripture consisteth in the meaning very well said Hierome The Scriptures are not in the letter but in the vnderstanding Contra Lucifer in 1. cap. ad Gila and in another place a DVR Then Luther and Caluin obtruded a new Gospell vpon the Church when they brought in a new sense of the words such as the whole Christian ●orld knew not yea it had a far other sense of the Scriptures WHIT. pag. 138. If this last