it was straight answered Master Sherwin you may see that the Apostle speaketh there of faith in working of miracles euen by the wordes of the Apostle him selfe who saith If I should haue all faith so that I could remoue mountaines and haue not charitie I am nothing And when he cryed still omnem fidem all faith and that therefore it must conteine our faith also els we had none at all It was answered by vs If you will not beleeue vs yet let Saint Chrisostomes exposition be of some authoritie with you who calleth it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 faith not of doctrine but of miracles saith Saint Chrisostome euen as we also do say which faith the wicked may haue as our Sauiour Christ teacheth and therefore all faith to worke miracles doeth not conteine that true faith which doeth iustifie him that hath it Further they obiected Saint Pauls wordes in his Epistle to the Galathians Faith worketh by charitie We answered that vnlesse faith doe worke by charitie it is no faith at all but that made nothing against our iustification by faith onely But here they reasoned against vs thus If faith onely iustifie then it iustifieth without charitie But that was contrary to the text of the Apostles Therefore onely faith doeth not iustifie We answered this Syllogisme consisteth of foure termes For it is one thing to say that faith onely doeth iustifie and another that faith is not without charitie For when we say that onely faith iustifieth we meane not to denie that charitie is ioyned with that faith which iustifieth being inseparably vnited vnto it but that onely faith and not charitie is the meanes by which we imbrace Iesus Christ our iustification and righteousnesse And this we indeuoured to make manifest by an example The fire quoth we hath heate and light which qualities can not bee seuered in that subiect yet the fire burneth by heate onely and not by light Nowe if any will reason thus If the heate of the fire onely burne then it burneth without the light of the fire but that it can not doe Therefore it burneth not by heate only They should shewe them selues to be absurd that so woulde reason sayd we And such is your reason against the iustification of faith only because it can not be separated from charitie Likewise though the parts of mans bodie be ioyned together and one is not without another in a perfect bodie yet doeth the eye onely see and the eare heare onely and euery part hath his distinct office Then Master Sherwin alleaged out of the Epistle to the Ephesians Ipsius sumus factura creati in Christo Iesu in bonis operibus That is We are his workemanship created in Christ Iesus in good workes We looked in the Greeke Testament and found 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ad opera bona vnto good workes and so answered that Saint Paul saith not we are the creatures of God in Christ thorowe good workes but that we are created of God in Christ to do good workes which Master Sherwin looking vpon the greeke Testament coulde not denie Further we told Master Sherwin that if he tooke that place in that sense that we were created in good workes he was contrary to Master Campion who graunted that good workes doe come after the first grace and not to be ioyned with our first creation in Christ Iesus as Master Sherwin would haue it And besides that we did admonish him that the place by him alleaged did of all others most effectually make against theÌ„ and for vs. For immediatly before the wordes by him alleadged Saint Paul sayth thus Gratia enim estis saluati per fidem hoc non ex vobis Dei enim donum est non ex operibus ne quis glorietur That is You are saued by grace through faith and that not of your selues it is the gift of God not of workes least any man should boast himselfe In this sentence of Saint Paul euery parcell quoth we maketh for vs and against you The cause of our saluation is the grace of God the instrument whereby we receiue it is faith the false cause alleadged by you is here excluded that is our workes Master Campion alleadged Qui instus est iustificetur adhuc He that is righteous let him be more and more righteous And thereupon he sayde he would not refuse to subscribe that we be iustified by faith onely so that we would subscribe that being so iustified we ought afterward to walke forward more and more in the workes of righteousnesse We graunted that we would so subscribe But M. Sherwine said vnto M. CaÌ„pion Take heed what you do Then sayde Master Campion If you will so subscribe and graunt withal that those good workes are meritorious or do merite I will subscribe to faith onely Doe you nowe come in with your merite sayde we we will none of it neyther will acknowledge any merite quoth we in respect of our iustification or of the kingdome of heauen but only the merites of Christs passion And so our subscribing was dasht by master Campions addition of merite to that which before he promised without any mention thereof But you doe knowe well sayde master Campion that often mention is made in the scripture of this worde merces that is of rewarde for our good workes And that at the last iudgement it shall be sayde Come into the kingdome ye blessed For I was bungrie and ye fed me c. So that these good workes are mentioned as a cause or a meane at the least of entering into the kingdome of heauen We deny not sayd we but the worde merces is often mentioned in the holy Scriptures and that God will rewarde our good workes farre aboue our deseruing but that merces is ex misâ—…ricordia Domini dantis non ex merito hominis accipientis That reward is of the mercie of God giuing it and not of the merite of man receiuing it For when it is sayd He that giueth a cuppe of colde water shal not loose his reward if you take that reward to be the kingdome of heauen and the lande of the liuing to be giuen for the merite thereof surely you make it to be of more easie purchase than any land in this worlde can be be it neuer so little And concerning the last iudgement the wordes of our Sauiour Come possesse the kingdome prepared for you before the beginning of the worlde may giue you to vnderstand that it is not giuen for the merite of any their good workes which they coulde not doe before they were any thing And the worde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Take ye the inheritance of the kingdome sheweth that it is giuen to vs in Christ as inheritaunce which the Father giueth to his children freely and is not purchased by our good workes Besides that though our Sauiour Christ will of his speciall grace and fauour remember those almes done to the poore in his name and
when he wrote The other is the continuall contestation of the Churches succeeding To this effect writeth S. Augustine and so be all latter Churches barred from authoritie to make any writings canonicall scripture specially those that haue of olde bene doubted of They may testifie what the olde Churches before them haue done as we nowe doe Hereunto they saide againe that it was blasphemie after those Councils to call those bookes Apocrypha or to doubt of the authoritie of them It is rather most horrible blasphemie said we to make humane writings equall with the Canonicall scriptures as of late your Tridentine Councill hath done and as your Pope being but one man hath made his Decretal epistles then with S. Hierome Eusebius and other ancient godly fathers to call those bookes Apocrypha which they do so call And we said that notwithstanding those Councils Caietanus their Popes Cardinall thought it no blasphemie who in the ende of his expositions vpon the olde testament in very plaine wordes maketh the same difference of the bookes of the scriptures doeth not onely alowe the iudgement of Hierome but addeth further that all writitings yea of bishops of Rome them selues of whome he nameth some must be brought to S. Hieroms rule They vtterly reiected Cardinall Caietanus because as they said he was but one man against all the Church We said you of your side will not be charged with the wordes of others though they be the Popes Cardinals and yet you doe thinke it reason that we should be charged with euery worde that hath slipped from Luther Nay you charge him and vs by him with that which you can neuer proue that he did write or speake Hart said further that Caietanus was a good scholemā and traueled in that course with commendation but when hee began to become an expositor of the scriptures said he then he lost his grace and credit We answered if they thought it reason to charge vs with all the sayings of Luther or of any other we might by good and great reason charge them with the sayings of so great learned a Cardinall of Rome as Caietanus was Last of all wee came to the place of S. Augustine in his second booke De doctrina Christiana Which Campion and his fellowes gladly receiued because they said it made for them and not for vs. For saide they S. Augustine rehearseth those bookes for Canonicall scriptures which you call Apocrypha To this wee answered that they shoulde rather charge Saint Hierome and Eusebius and other auncient fathers who doe call them Apocrypha And S. Augustine in that place rehearsing the order of the bookes of scriptures though said we he differ somwhat from Eusebius and S. Hierome in shewe of wordes yet hee doeth in deede agree with them For where they deuide the bookes of the scriptures into three sorts that is Canonicall Apocrypha and feigned or vntrue Augustine deuideth them into Canonicall and Apocrypha onely and then he deuideth the Canonicall bookes into two sortes that is those that be certainely true which we with S. Hierome and Eusebius do call properly Canonicall and those that haue bene doubted of which Eusebius and S. Hierome do call Apocrypha And S. Augustine nameth those that be vtterly vntrue Apocrypha which Eusebius calleth doubtfull feigned and forged And this may be gathered out of Augustine him selfe in diuers places whereof we haue noted some And albeit Augustine calleth those bookes Canonicall yet he giueth not the like authoritie to them as namely to the Maccabees and to the other of that sort as he doeth to those that be Christes the Lords witnesses as he nameth them which be these that are named properly Canonicall Here would they not admit in any wise that the worde Canonicall was aequiuocum or of diuers significations in diuers places but that wheresoeuer that worde was founde it brought all bookes so called vnder one kinde Much time was spent here about and the matter was much argued on Master Campion and his fellowes part At the last Master Campion was desired by vs to reade the chapter in that Canon law beginning In Canonicis which Gratian takes out of this place of Augustine and first that hee would reade the rubrick which he seemed both to do And Pound one of his companions sitting by who with his importunitie impertinent speaches had often interrupted the course of the conference saide Father Campion let them reade their places them selues Yet at the length Master Campion read it and it is thus Inter Canonicas scripturas Decretales Epistolae connumerantur which after much desiring he englished also The decretall Epistles are numbred together among the Canonicall Scriptures Whereupon one of vs saide you charge vs with blasphemie for naming those bookes Apocrypha which Saint Hierome Eusebius and other ancient holy fathers doe so name but here may you see most horrible blasphemie in deede in the Canonical lawe of your Pope which matcheth his Decretall Epistles that is meere fables with the Maiestie of the Canonicall Scriptures as he doeth in this distinction and sundry other places whereby you may see to what point this boldnesse of making mens writings Canonicall Scriptures is come Then saide we to M. Campion do you hold that Popes decrees for Canonical scriptures as you do the bookes of Moyses and the Prophets He answered no and graunted then that the worde Canonicall was aequinocum or of diuers significations which before they all did so constantly denie Whereupon we sayde that we had some good hope of Master Campion for that he blushed And we sayde further that Cardinall Caietanus in the place before alleadged sayeth expressely that S. Augustine placed those books in the Canon of maners but not in the Canon of doctrine whereby he plainely declareth that the word Canonicall is aequiuocum After this he was desired to reade the text of that Chapter and there he founde and could not denie but that the place of Augustine was vntruely reported by Gratian and by manifest corruption drawē altogether from the meaning of Augustine For where S. Augustine saith that those Scriptures are to be taken for Canonicall which the most or greatest part of Christian Churches so take among the which those Churches be which deserued to haue Apostolique Seas and to receiue Epistles from the Apostles these wordes of S. Augustine are chaunged and in the place of the Apostolique Seas is put the Apostolique Sea meaning the Church of Rome and those Churches which deserued to receaue Epistles from the said Church of Rome which is cleane contrary to S. Augustines wordes and meaning Both often before and here specially Master Campion and his fellowes seemed to be desirous to dispute vpon some pointes of religion rather then to continue in this examination of his booke which we said we woulde not at afternoone refuse but the forenoone qd we is so farre spēt that we must at this time make
polluted the very Aultar of God being remoued and an idolatrous altar set in the place Campion That is not alike for we haue our functions free we may sacrifice euery where say Masse vpon euery mountaine Fulke Like enough for that matter But there was not so much as an outward face of the Church the high Priest being an Idolater and the true Altar taken away and therefore there could bee no visibilitie You answere nothing to the matter but abuse the presence with multitude of wordes and therefore committing the iudgement to them that be wise and learned I will giue place vnto my brother Mast. D. Goade Concerning the short warning the case is al one with vs as it was with you we had no longer deliberation thē you had litle aboue one dayes space concerning the question and therefore you haue no cause to complaine c. Campion What shall I call your worships name Goade My name is Goade Campion Yes that may appeare by this preparation as it were to a set and solemne thing these bookes also declare besides the bringing of a writer with you c. Goade Well all these concerne not the matter you had word assone as we and were so made acquainted with the question as it was of your own choice c. but in deede you are gone from the state of the question against which we came prepared being of the whole Catholike Church as your owne booke doth importe and it is apparant that you haue wrongfully challenged our definition being as hath bene truely sayd of the Church in general wel we must I see now followe whether you leade vs. We must leaue the Catholike Church and talke of the militant Church the generall goe to a particular One thing before I ioyne with you I woulde wish you to forbeare namely your dealing with the present state and personall speaches it will better beseeme modestie and pertaine more to the matter we haue in hande c. which may be performed with lesse waste of wordes and more humilitie You answere not to the report I haue heard of you for modest behauing your selfe in conference Campion Concerning my selfe I will lay my handes vnder your feete but I must not hūble God to you you know who saith Ne sis humilis in sapientia tua be not humble in thy wisedome I must with courage mainteine religion Haec est sapientia vestra coram populo this is your wisdome before the people c. I must not be prayed in religion Goade Howe fitly those places of Scripture are applied I will not now stande to discusse but concerning the state of the question as your selfe set it downe you are fallen from it And the Church euen as it is vpon earth being but a part of the Catholike Church I will proue sometime to be hidden But what meane you when you write that it must be of the nature of the Church to be visible Campion I meane that it must be an essentiall marke of the Church and such a qualitie as is inseparable It must be as visible as fire is hote water moist c. Goade Uery good but as you vnderstande this qualitie of visibilitie you declare your selfe to dissente from others of your side who by visible vnderstand a notable glorious Church who hath her beautie and pompe as your Bristow writeth her continuall succession of Bishops c. Campion That same outward pompe and glorie may be wāting and yet the Church be visible inough I woulde bee loth to medle with that question of succession You knowe why I woulde not willingly deale in it Goade Well as hath bene proued out of the olde testament that there was a time when the Church militant was hidden so will I proue it out of the newe There was a time when our Sauiour Christ being smitten and all the rest of the Apostles scattered and hidden that visibilitie was not an inseperable qualitie ergo this qualitie is not alwayes inseparable Campion I denie the Antecedent Goade I thinke any here might proue the Antecedent the storie of that time sheweth it plaine The face of the visible Church was then not in Christ his Apostles but in the Iewes amongst the Scribes and Pharisees they had the succession of the Priesthoode and held the chaires Christ was crucified put to death and buried the Apostles scattered and fled into holes and corners so that if visibilitie be such a certaine marke of the true Church then the high Priestes Scribes and Pharises were the true Church and not our Sauiour Christ and his Apostles Campion It was a Church in choate beginning not perfect Goade Therefore it was at sometime hidden c. namely in the beginning of the Church where was then this visibilitie Campion In the virgin Marie Zacharie Iohn Baptiste Peter c. Goade What shewe you me these to proue the Church visible who was Pastor when the Pastor was smitten and killed who occupied the chaires where was the outward face of the Church which you will haue to be so glorious and where was the Pastor and outward exercise of Religion Campion I haue said before that it is not necessarie it should haue alwayes that outward pompe and glorie In the beginning it is not apparant as afterwards Goade Ergo there is a time when it may be hidden Campion Not hidden for they were gathered together It was in deede pusillus grex a litle flocke but proue that it was not visible Goade Because you make light accompt of these times as being but the beginnings of the Church let vs goe on to the proceedings and encrease In those great persecutions vnder the cruell Emperours the Church became hidde and inuisible ergo visibilitie is not an inseparable marke specially in thee time of Dioclesian Christians were so wasted as to the iudgement of mē there were none remaining their bookes were burnt their churches destroyed and them selues put to death with sondrie tormentes Camp You answere your selfe For against whom was this ◅secutiō so hot against whom fought they were they shadowes I am sure there were Christians or els they could not haue stoode forth to haue endured those tormentes but I coulde shewe you Rome in that time Some escaped till Constantines time much about three and twenty yeeres All were not eaten vp for then euery man would be a Christian and well was he that could shewe him self so I could name you the Bishop of Rome that then was Goade But in the ende after that great hauocke was made and crueltie had wasted all that could be founde where was then the visible Church In the ende it was enforced to be hidden It had lost that which you say must needes be of the nature of it the glorie of it was so eclipsed that it shined no where Campion It was most visible then and most glorious and not long after when Constantine came al were Christiās Wherby it appeareth that diuers remained
faith being of things that are not seene You haue graunted many absurdities this daye while you labour to defende that the Church on earth is alwayes visible And now the conclusion is worst of al that the visible Church for which you are so earnest is proued to be no article of faith Campion Why may not a man see yet beleeue Peter sawe him whom he beleeued saying thou art Christ the sonne of the liuing God c. Fulke That which hee sawe of Christ was experimentall knowledge but that which he confessed Christ to be the sonne of God was of faith and not of sense For flesh and blood reuealed it not vnto him but God from heauen That which Peter sawe of Christ with his bodily eyes was seene of many vnbeleeuing Iewes and of Iudas the traytor but his confession which came of faith he had not by bodily sight but by diuine reuelation It is not of faith to see men which are the members of the Church but to see them as they are members of the Church that is of faith therfore that which is seene of the Church is not of faith Camp Why you said the Church might be seene by experimentall faith as Peter sawe Christ and beleeued Fulke When said I so Campion Euen now when you spake of Peter Fulk I neuer thought it much lesse did I speake it It is needfull there should be writing els I see you would outface the matter I said the cleane contrarie That which Peter sawe of Christ was experimentall knowledge and not faith that which he beleeued and confessed he sawe not Euen so I say that which we beleeue and confesse in our Creede of the Catholike Church wee neither do see neither can we see Campion I can see the whole world though I cannot see it all at once so I can see the Catholike Church in her parts although I cannot see it all at once or in one place Fulke Whatsoeuer you can see at seuerall times and in seuerall places of the Catholike Church is no article of faith For that which we beleeue of the Catholike Church is not seene at any time or in any place Campion That is true Fulke Ergo the whole Catholike Church and euery part thereof as it is of faith is not visible Here Campion of himselfe brake vp Campion Shall we meete againe It were to be considered of what question we shall talke Here question being made what point they should deale vpon and being asked whether he would defend the Church of Rome to be the true Church of Christ he denied to medle therein as being daungerous vnles leaue might be obtained of her Maiesties most honourable Counsail Then being demanded whether he woulde deale with that question in the after noone Whether the Church might erre he consented the company present agreeing therunto And so the houre was appointed at two of the clocke after dinner the Replyers hauing no longer time to prouide their arguments In the after noone ⧠The Question whether the visible Church may erre FIrst because promise was made in the forenoone that those places which were omitted should bee shewed D. Goade brought forth his place out of Chrysostome vpon Math. 5. Rursus eos per ista ad bene viuendum ac diligetiam cohortatur ostendens vt studeant esse soliciti quasiante omniū oculos constituti in medio orbis terrarum theatro Nolite inquit aspicere quia in isto nunc residemus loco in exigua sumus parte certaminis Sic enim eritis manifesti cunctis quemadmodum ciuitas in montis vertice collocata vel sicut lucerna in domo super candelabrū relucens Againe by these things he exhorteth them by diligence of well liuing that they might stande to be carefull as they that are set before all mens eyes and in the middest of the Theatre of the whole world Do not you regarde saith he that we remaine nowe in this place and are but in a small part of our battle for you shal be so manifest to all men as a citie placed vpon the top of a hill or as a candle shining in a house vpon a candlestick c. Here you see by the iudgement of Chrysostome expounding the place that it onely respecteth the Apostles which you denied to day For he exhorteth them to liue well as those that are set in the sight and eyes of all and therefore must be carefull howe they beare them selues vpon that open stage of the whole worlde being as a citie vpon an hill Campion The place is nothing against me for it pertaineth to the whole Church Doth Chrysostome cōtrarie any thing spoken by me doeth not their function their faith and religion their place shew that this is not spoken onely to them Goade These are but wordes It is plaine hee noteth their doctrine by the salte and their conuersation by the light Campion He speaketh not any thing contrarie to that which I haue said Goade Yes you say the place meaneth the whole Church to proue the visibilitie thereof as a citie set vpon an hill can not bee hidde Whereas Chrysostome interpreteth it of the Ministerie onely as is manifest by the word Salt the whole drift of the place Campion Of all other first it belongeth to the Prelates then to their flockes as I haue shewed you by the example of a Master of a familie Goade It belongeth in deede to the flocke also to liue well but this place is not directed vnto them It is absurde against the whole scope of the place to make a general conclusion from a particular from the Apostles to the whole Church Campion The Apostles were faithfull they include the whole Church as they were Christians and not Apostles Goade Why then that which was spoken to the Apostles was likewise spoken to the Church But it was said to the Apostles Drinke you all of this ergo to the whole Church Campion That was personall and in respect of their functiō he spake onely in respect of those that were present but there was none present but the Apostles like that which was saide to the Apostles Go ye and preach to all nations baptizing c. doeth he therefore commande the people also to preache and minister the Sacraments Goade The rase is farre vnlike The receauing of the Sacramentes belong to all Christians they must all receaue And though preaching the word and ministring in respect of the funetion be onely appropriate to the Apostles and Ministers yet the word and Sacraments are commō to al Christians So by manifest difference it appeareth that the commādement Go preach is personall belonging to one calling and the commandement Drinke ye all of this is generall to all the faithfull Campion There is no place in the institution that cōmandes the common people to drinke or not to drinke Goade The Apostle the best interpreter of Christes institution applieth it to the whole Church 1. Cor. 11. verse 23. That
In deede the outward signe differed as I said before namely the watery cloude from our water in Baptisme but in matter and substance it was a signe of the same inuisible grace And so the Apostle proueth the Israelites equall to the Corinthians and consequently to vs in both the Sacraments Campion Abraham beleeued in the same Christ yet Christ was not then incarnate to Abraham as he is now to vs c. Goade To what purpose is this What doeth it helpe you doeth it not rather confirme that I said to be true the same in substance the same Christ before nowe the difference to be in time These are your olde excursions when ye can not answere the argument But now after I haue proued the same substance which you denied first by the playne wordes then by the euident circumstance and drift of the text I will yet further vrge this argument by the iudgement of Saint Augustine tom 9. in Ioh. tract 26. Sacramenta illa fuerunt in signis diuersa sed in re quae significatur pariasunt Apostolum audi Omnes eandem escam spiritualem manducauerunt spiritualem vtique eandem Nam corporalem alteram quia illi Manna nos aliud spiritualem verò quam nos Those Sacraments were in signes diuers but in the thing signified are equall Heare what the Apostle sayeth All did eate the same spirituall meate in deede the same meate spirituall For touching the corporall meate they did eate one we another but they did eate the same spirituall meate that we doe Campion You must prooue out of Augustine that they did eate the same Christ. Goade That hath bene already plainely prooued out of the text They dranke of the rocke c. the rocke was Christ. But you shall haue it proued also out of Augustine who expounding the Apostles wordes sayth they did eate the same spiritual meate that we do eate Campion He meaneth the same in effect Goade Augustines wordes are plaine not the same in effect but in substance and matter In signis diuersa sed in re paria Those Sacraments in matter or thing signified are equall He maketh difference in the signes but none at all in the thing Re paria the same thing or substance in both therefore the same Christ. Campion The same Christ was to them incarnate in hope and effect as the Lambe is said to be slaine from the beginning of the worlde but Christ in deede was not yet incarnate Goade True it is that touching the purpose and counsaile of God and the efficacie of Christes death in all ages the Lambe Christ was slayne from the beginning But what is this to mine argument out of Augustine The difference of time is no matter they eate the same thing they did eate Sacramenta re paria sayth Augustine And in his treatise de vtilitate poenitentiae Tom. 9. he proueth very plainely the same Christ and the same substance to be in the Israelites sacrament and in ours Campion Reade the place Goade Eundem inquit cibum spiritualem manducanerunt quid est eundē nisi quia eum quem etiam nos Suffecerat vt diceret cibum spiritualem manducauerunt eundem inquit eundem non inuenio quomodo intelligam nisi eum quem manducamus nos Quid ergo ait aliquis Hoc erat Manna illud quod ego nunc accipio Ergo nihil modo venit si ante iam fuit ergo euacuatum est scandalum crucis Quomodo ergo eundem nisi quia addidit spiritualem Nam qui Manna illud sic acceperunt vt tantummodo indigentiae suae corporali satisfieri putarent ventrem suum pasci nō mentem nihil magnum manducauerunt Quicunque in Manna Christum intellexerunt eundem quem nos cibum spiritualem manducauerunt Sic etiam eundem potum quem nos sed spiritualem id est qui fide capiebatur non qui corpore hauriebatur Audisti eundem potum petra erat Christus Non enim alter Christus tunc alter nunc Tunc enim Christus venturus modò Christus venit Venturus venit diuersa verba sunt sed idem Christus He sayth they did eate the same spiritual meate What is the same but the same that we also eate It might haue sufficed to saye they did eate spirituall meate but he sayth the same I do not finde how to vnderstand this worde the same but the same which we also do eate Then may some say What was Manna the same which I nowe receiue then doth nothing come now but that which was before then the offence of the crosse is become voyde howe then can it be true that he sayeth the same but that he addeth spirituall For they that did receiue Manna in such sort that they thought thereby to satisfie onely their corporall necessitie and to feede their belly and not their minde did eate no great thing Whosoeuer in Manna did vnderstand Christ did eate the same spirituall meate that we doe and also receiued the same drinke that we doe but spirituall that is which was receiued by faith and not by the body Thou hast heard that it is the same drinke the rocke was Christ. For there was not one Christ then and another nowe for then Christ was to come nowe he is come To come and is come be diuers wordes but the same Christ. You heare howe Augustine as it were of purpose often vrgeth the worde eundem the same meate And afterward explaneth it to be the same Christ in their Sacraments and ours and notwithstanding the difference in time yet the same in substance Campion I graunt to be the same Christ as I sayd before touching the effect and deede slaine to them in hope but to vs in deede they had the same touching the fruite and effect and so S. Augustine is to be vnderstoode Goade Your answere is more absurde then some other writers of your side For they distinguish though very corruptly Sacramenta veterum sub lege tantum figurabant nostra autem conferunt gratiam The Sacraments of the fathers vnder the lawe did onely figure but ours do conferre and giue grace Campion This is mine answere the same in effect and end touching saluation If you can say no more ye may go to another argument Goade Your aunswere is taken away and can stand neither with the text of the Apostle nor yet with Saint Augustines iudgement Beside it is manifest you would confound those thinges which of their owne nature must nedes be distinguished namely the thing it selfe and the effect ende or fruite that commeth thereof For the effect being saluation is the fruite that followeth the spirituall eating of Christ being the thing it selfe or substance whom whosoeuer first eateth not can not be partaker of the fruite that followeth Camp You haue not neither can take away mine answere The same I say stil in effect ende but not equal in the thing signified As a man may be sicke to day
Augustine Camp The words are forcible of bread is made flesh Sermo Christi est operatorius The word of Christ is of power efficacy Goade That is of common bread is now made Christes body appointed to be a sacrament of his body And although this be a wonderfull chaunge by the force of Christes word and Institution that common bread should be chaunged to a spirituall vse yet Ambrose doeth not say that the substance of breade is chaunged but rather the contrary that the substance doeth still remaine as appeareth by diuers examples of miracles he alleadgeth in the same chapter and also by his wordes Vt sint quae erant in aliud commutentur That they should remaine and be as they were also be chaunged touching the vse Now you haue vrged what you can out of Ambrose I will returne againe to followe mine argument drawen from the wordes of the Institution as they are explaned by S. Paul 1. Cor. 10. 16. Panis quem frangimus c. The bread which we breake is it not the partaking of the body of Christ Whereby appeareth that after sanctification remayneth bread for he sayth the bread which we breake and breaking followeth after blessing or sanctifying It can not be vnderstoode the body of Christ for that can not be broken So by this place after consecration remaineth bread still Campion It reteineth still the name of bread in diuers respects first because it was bread before and secondly because it hath the shew of bread as Moyses rod being turned into a serpeÌ„t keepeth still the name it had before Goade You are nowe wandring into discourses I will not followe you The Apostles plaine wordes taketh away your answere It followeth in the text We are all partakers of the same bread he sayth not the same that was bread before and it is consecrate before it commeth to participation And the same Apostle in the next chapter oftentimes repeateth and calleth it breade when it commeth to be receiued after sanctification Campion I haue giuen you two causes why it is so called I will adde the third because of the analogie betweene the bread and that which feedeth our soules Make a Syllogisme Goade I vrge the wordes of the Apostle there needeth no Syllogisme answere plainely and directly Campion I haue giuen three causes why it is called bread Goade Your causes can not stand For touching your comparison of the rod turned into a serpent there appeared a sensible chaunge as is vsuall in miracles but here is no such thing in the sacrament and therefore the comparison holdeth not And for the analogie it maketh directly against you For euen as the bread receiued feedeth the body so â—…eth Christ the soule But if when it commeth to be receiued into the body there be no bread in deede as you say then where is your analogie Campion It suffiseth that it was bread before and so appeareth the analogie by the feeding of our soules Goade What doeth the bread feede our soules Camp Yea Christ that is the bread of life feedeth our soules Make a Syllogisme and then we shal see whether your argumeÌ„t hath any face or force Goade Wee are come to the wordes and authoritie of the Scripture If the wordes of Christes Institution and all these manifest places of the Apostle be of no force then I confesse mine argument to be nothing I leaue you to iudgement Fulke Your answere is taken away by the worde breaking The breade which wee breake c. The bodie of Christ is not broken but the breade and not that which appeareth to bee breade Campion The bread is broken by qualitie and not by substance Can substance be broken Bulke Bread is broken And bread is substance Therefore substance is broken When stickes are broken shal we say that the subance of them is not broken but the accidents this is foolish Sophistrie But I will reason thus with you There is something in the Sacrament materiall which goeth the way of all meates Ergo there is bread and wine Campion Whatsoeuer becommeth of all those qualities the colour the taste the quantitie c. it happeneth to them as to accidentes for it is certaine there remayneth neyther bread nor wine Fulke The taste goeth not that way nor in deede any of the accidentes vnaltered but heare what Origen sayeth in Matth. cap. 15. Quod si quic quid in os ingreditur in ventrem abit in secessum eijcitur ille cibus qui sanctificatur per verbum Dei perque obsecrationem iuxta id quod habet materiale in ventrem abit in secessum eijcitur Caeterum iuxta precationem quae illi accessit pro portione fidei fit vtilis efficiens vt perspicax fiat animus spectans ad id quod vtile est Nec materia panis sed super illum dictus sermo est qui prodest non indignè comedenti illum Et haec quidem de typico Symbolicoque corpore Camp The quantitie is auoyded and other accidents Fulke It is monstruous that you speake Origen sayeth the materiall part of the Sacrament and the matter of bread I will reade his wordes in Englishe If whatsoeuer entreth into the mouth goeth into the belly and is cast out into the draught euen that meate also which is sanctified by the worde of God and by prayer according to that which it hath materiall goeth into the belly and is cast forth into the draught But according to the prayer which is added vnto it after the portion of faith it is made profitable causing that the minde may be made cleare of sight looking to that which is profitable Neyther is it the matter of bread but the worde spoken ouer it which profiteth him that eateth it not vnworthily And these things are spoken of the typicall and symbolicall body Campion I haue answered The accidents go the quantitie qualitie and such like Fulke The place is playne Origen acknowledgeth a materiall part of the Sacrament which is substance In what praedicament is Materia Campion In none Materia taken indefinitely is in no praedicament for it is in all praedicaments The matter of substance is in substance of quantitie in quantitie c Fulke Wel then the matter of substance is substaÌ„ce The matter of bread is the matter of substance therfore the matter of bread is substance Then it is substance and not accidentes which is auoyded by Origens iudgement Campion He sayth not the matter of bread is auoyded Fulke He sayeth that meate which is sanctified according to that which it hath materiall is auoyded Meate is that which feedeth accidents feede not Therefore accidents are not called meate Campion Accidentes doe feede and that I will stande to prooue Fulke Philosophie Physieke and Diuinitie are much beholding to you It was neuer heard of before that bare accidentes without substance could feede or nourish Campion He meaneth the matter of the sacrament and not the materiall substance of bread which is
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
Charke I do not onely thinke but knowe of a certeintie that you are deceiued and will shewe you the booke Camp Note this obiection This is myne answere to it Hermogenes the Heretike did alleadge a bastard tradition and Tertullian doth call him to proue his opinion by true scriptures For Tertullians argument is not to say It is not written Therfore it is not true but to call him to proue the Scripture true which he alledged for him Charke And note this answere He that euen now knewe no such booke taketh presently vpon him to discourse of the argument thereof What great boldnes is this From what present reuelation doth it come Beside your boldnes your error is great in affirming that Hermogenes brought a bastard tradition For there is no such thing as may appeare to any man that for triall hereof wil reade the booke Hermogenes is cōfuted for saying as an Aristotelian Philosopher the God made al things of materia prima Againe of your answere I conclude that of necessitie the proofe of euery particular tradition must be by a true scripture And it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a generall position Tertullian would haue Hermogenes proue all that he helde by scripture Camp I say it is not to shewe a bastard writing for his tradition but that which is true scripture Charke And that is all I aske for what do I seeke more but to proue that euery tradition must be proued by true Scripture when therefore you Iesuites bring in vnwritten traditions concerning your Candles your vnholy graines your Agnus deis and such beggerly stuffe wherewith you abuse and pester the world Tertullian sayth you bring a Vae vpon your selues except you can proue the vse of them by Scriptures Camp Why I say it must needes be proued there or els it is not to be receaued Charke Remember what you graunt I aske no more To leaue Tertullian with you to aduise better of I alledge also a place of Basill out of his treatises called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 capite 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This place doth clearely establish the sufficiencie of scripture and banisheth all vnwritten and selfe will worshippings Consider the place for it is worthy of consideration as making against you in this question and charging you with pride and apostasie for bringing in things not written Camp Well let these your speaches passe Reade the place S. Basill is not against vs. Charke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. It is a manifest Apostasie or falling away from the faith and a fault of high pride eyther to dissalowe any thing written in the Scriptures or to bring in any thing not written seeing the Lorde hath sayde My sheepe heare my voyce with other arguments to that purpose Camp I will not trouble the auditorie with this place For Basill declareth that in some things we must be referred to tradition he speaketh onely for the alleadging of false scriptures and hath nothing against me Charke Then nothing can make against errour if this make not agaynst you But you abuse the auditorie and knowe not the drift of Basill in this place and that I will make euident to all the companie Take the booke and reade it if you can the place is easie Greeke and the sentence but short Camp I had rather reade it in Latine then in Greeke I vnderstande the Latine better I maruell you are so much in your Greeke Charke If I shoulde not haue brought it in Greeke but in Latine then you woulde haue taken exception against the interpreter I bring not the interpretour but Basill him selfe in the tongue wherein hee wrote Here Campion being long in turning the Latine booke coulde not finde the treatise but desired Master Charke to finde it who answered I haue it readie in Basill him selfe If you flee to the interpretour turne your owne booke Camp I haue answered you Saint Basills meaning is as it was then a common doctrine that it is a great fault to disalow true scriptures or to bring in false scriptures and to father a false writing vpon the Apostles Charke I protest that hauing perused the circumstaunces of the place I finde no such generall or particular drifte of the father as you misreport but a playne doctrine and sundrie argumentes to proue it that nothing is to be receiued or brought into the Church that is not written Camp Your protestation is no argument I am acquaynted with this dealing since the other day But the scope of Saint Basill is as I haue saide Charke My true protestation doeth ouerway your misconstruing as wel of Basill nowe as of Tertullian before and therein I referre my selfe to the examination of both places If you will or can read but twentie lines further your owne eyes shal see and giue sentence against your selfe Camp I haue giuen you the sense of the Doctours wordes and neede not reade the place Charke Reade first and then answere What Authour or what place can make against you if you will of your selfe frame an interpretation after your owne purpose without reading the wordes or making conscience what construction you giue Campion Saint Basill in other places is of a contrary iudgement and I am sure he is not contrary to him selfe The Apostles had fayth before they wrote and therefore it must needes be the scope Charke What kinde of answere is this Speake to the purpose or confesse your insufficiencie Basills owne woordes in this place doe euidently proue that hee is against you answere them or acknowledge your selfe not able to satisfie the Doctour Campion Was all written when the Apostles first taught Charke Is this any answere to Basill Propounde no newe questions but answere the former place so full against you Camp You see mine answere Charke I see and all men may see your vntrueth to shift off the matter Basills wordes are too strong against you To your newe question I answere that since the worde of God was first written that which hath bene written conteyned sufficient matter to saluation Campion Then what needed so many additions since of the Prophets and Apostles writings if we had sufficient before Charke The most honourable addition of the Prophetes and Apostles serued to a clearer manifestation of Christ of whome Moses had written before but added nothing to the substance In the after noone The Question Whether faith onely iustifieth M. Charkes prayer OUr helpe is in the name of the Lorde c. Almightie God merciful Father we acknowledge against our selues that we were conceiued and borne in sinne and corruption that wee remaine vnprofitable to any thing that is good and most prone and ready to that which is euill in thy fight Ignorance doeth possesse our mindes and dulnesse ruleth in our vnderstanding so that of our selues wee can not see into thy glorious and excellent trueth and in our selues wee finde no health nor hope of health Therefore according to thy riche mercie O Lord take
mislike onely he sayd that he vnderstoode not of our comming Then we beginning with the first part of his sayd booke did demaund of him with what reason he could charge the Queenes Maiesties most mercifull gouernment and vs that at this time professe the Gospel as he did in yâ— Preface of his said booke with unused and strange crueltie and torments practised vpon his fellowes in religion seeing that the Authors and professors of their Religion had most cruelly burnt aliue so many thousands of vs for the maintenance of our Religion onely besides diuers other wayes of most horrible torments whereas none of them was euer executed for Religion but either for treason or some other notorious crime punishable with death by the Lawes of the Realme Whereunto he answered that he was punished for Religion himselfe and had bene twise on the Racke and that racking was more grieuous then hanging and that he had rather chuse to be hanged then racked Whereunto one of vs sayd that belike Master Campion being the Popes tender Pernell accounteth a litle racking of him selfe to be more crueltie then the roasting quicke of many thousands of vs. You must quoth Master Campion consider the cause the cause why and not the punishment onely It hath bene euer your maner sayd we not onely to vse petitione principij but totius also not only to require a principal point in controuersie but euen the whole it self to be graunted vnto you as that your cause is good and that you be the true Church of Christ as you continually presume and take vnto you But thanks be to God the contrarie hath bene so prooued that a great part of Christendome doeth euidently see it And many thousands who were before of your Church haue fled to vs from it as from the synagogue of Antichrist And concerning his racking Master Lieutenant being present sayde that he had no cause to complaine of racking who had rather seene then felt the racke and admonished him to vse good speache that hee gaue not cause to be vsed with more seuerity For although said he you were put to the racke yet notwithstanding you were so fauourablie vsed therein as being taken off you could and did presently go thence to your lodging without helpe and vse your handes in writing and all other partes of your body which you could not haue done if you had bene put to that punishment with any such extremitie as you speake of Besides this Master Beale one of the Clarks of her Maiesties priuie Counsell being by chaunce present demaunded of him before all the companie there assembled whether that being on the racke he were examined vpon any point of Religion or no Whereunto he answered that he was not in deede directly examined of Religion but moued to confesse in what places he had bene conuersant since his repaire into the Realme Master Beale sayde that this was required of him because many of his fellowes and by likelihood he him selfe also had reconciled diuers of her Highnes subiectes to the Romish Church and had attempted to withdrawe them from their obedience due to their naturall Prince and Soueraigne Whereunto he answered that forasmuch as the Christians in olde time being commanded to deliuer vp the bookes of their Religion to such as persecuted them refused so to doe and misliked with them that did so calling them Traditores he might not betray his Catholike brethren which were as he sayd the temples of the holy Ghost But it was replied by Master Beale that it was conuenient in policie for the Prince to vnderstande what such as were sent from the Bishop of Rome her Maiesties and the Realmes mortall enemie did within her dominions and to knowe her foes from her faithful subiects specially in such a time as this wherein we liue that this inquirie did not touch the cause of Religion After this we came to the matter of his booke And first where he chargeth vs that we haue nowe of a sudden cut off many goodly and principall partes of the holy Scriptures from the whole body thereof of meere desperation and distrust in our cause as hee writeth and for example and proofe thereof he nameth first the Epistle of Saint Iames which Luther that flagitious Apostata saith he in the Preface of the same Epistle and in his booke De captiuitate Babilonica nameth contentious puffed vp drie or barren as a thing stuffed with strawe and iudgeth it vnworthie the Apostolique spirit wee answered that if Luther had so written yet Master Campion did vs wrong to charge vs with violating of the Maiestie of the holy Bible for reiecting of the sayde Epistle of S. Iames who doe and alwayes haue receiued the same Epistle Yet we prayed him that he would shewe these wordes in the places by him noted which he sayd he would if he had the bookes The booke wherein was Luthers Preface to that Epistle being deliuered him when he had read some part of the sayd Preface and found that Luther did allowe and commend that Epistle as in deede he doeth testifying that though it were reiected of some olde writers yet he commended it and tooke it to be good and profitable which wordes of Luther when Master Campion had read he shut the booke and sayde that it was not of the true edition We answered that the print was not lately published being almost fourtie yeeres sithence and that we had searched all other printes that we could come by and found them to agree with this and that we thought there was no other and therefore we prayed him that he would shewe some edition wherein it was so set downe as he alleaged it in his booke He sayd he thought it was so as he had alleaged in the same booke of Luther in the Dutch tongue Then we offered to bring him the Dutch booke for the triall of the trueth of the Latin translation but he refused to see the same But it was aduouched vnto him as the trueth is in deede that it was likewise in the Dutch booke as he had read it in the Latin for that we had made conference thereof Then he desired to see Luthers booke De captiuitate Babilonica This booke also we deliuered to him and desired that he would shewe those wordes there He read the wordes in Latin which are these in effect I passe ouer saith Luther that many doe very probablie affirme that this Epistle is not Saint Iames the Apostles nor worthie the Apostolike spirit Here Master Campion thought that he had founde at the least that Luther had sayd that the sayd Epistle was not worthie the Apostolike spirit But wee prayed him to consider that Luther spake of other mens iudgement and not of his owne as in the same place is most euident to see and also before in his Preface to that Epistle he expresly deuideth his iudgement from theirs But Master Campion much vrged the wordes very probably whereby saith
he Luther shewed his allowance of their iudgement We answered that he so sayde for that they brought very probable reasons for that their iudgement But he still charged Luther with blasphemie for saying that some doe very probably affirme that the Epistle of Iames was not written by the Apostle Saint Iames nor worthie the spirite of an Apostle and vrged vs to answere what opinion we had of that Epistle meaning to intangle vs with that Dilemma either to condemne Luther or else to doubt of the Epistle as Luther saith that some probablie doe We answered that our Church doubteth not of that Epistle but receiueth it as Canonical readeth it in our Churches expoūdeth it in our scholes and alleageth it for confirmation of doctrine Notwithstanding for Luther or any other to say that some haue very probably affirmed that Epistle not to be written by Saint Iames nor to be worthie the spirite of an Apostle is no blasphemie It is blasphemie blasphemie quoth he pronoūcing those words with disdainefull countenance and voyce It is soone said quoth we but not so easely proued I will proue it quoth he to be blasphemie by two reasons and thus he framed a syllogisme The Gospell of Saint Iohn and the Epistle of Saint Iames were written by the same spirite But to say that some doe probably affirme the Gospell of Saint Iohn not to be written by Saint Iohn nor to be worthie the spirite of an Apostle is blasphemie Therefore to say that like of Saint Iames Epistle is blasphemy Answere was made that the Maior was Petitio Principij the challenging of the graunt of that which chiefly is in controuersie For those that so say of Saint Iames Epistle doubt whether it was written by the same Spirite that the Gospell of Saint Iohn was or no and that still resteth for you to proue said we And here Master Campion when he coulde not denie that he required that to be graunted to him which he should haue proued was put to silence and had no more to replie Then was his second reason called for but none could be found Then saide one of them Why is not Saint Iames Epistle called the Catholicke Epistle of Saint Iames Howe doe you then denie it to be Canonicall It was said that that was a simple reason For whereas other Epistles of the Apostles were written vnto speciall Cities people or persons this of Saint Iames for that it was written commonly to all the tribes of the Iewes dispersed was called Catholike or generall Then sayd we to the auditorie You haue heard that Luther doeth much commend this Epistle of Saint Iames as good and profitable and Master Campion alleadgeth that he calleth it contentious puffed vp drie or barren stuffed with strawe and vnworthie the Apostolike spirit Whereby sayd we ye may see the diuersitie or rather contrarietie of Luthers wordes and Master Campions reporte and so may ye iudge of his synceritie trueth which he vseth likewise continually Then saide Master Campion that Luther himselfe and others had purged these workes and taken away all such places as that was and the like that ministred such occasions of offence as that did and he said he woulde procure from the Emperours Maiestie and the Duke of Bauaria and from another Prince whose name we remember not the true copyes of those bookes to be sent to the Queenes Maiestie Which wordes he rising vp from the forme whereon he sate pronounced with so great contention of voice and with such gesture casting vp his armes beating vpon his booke that one of vs challenged him therefore demaunding why he vsed such outragious speach and behauiour He answered for that so many yong Catholiques were present there he woulde not by any faint defending of the cause giue them occasion of offence Whereby we vnderstande howe he would haue behaued him selfe might he haue obteined a disputation among the youth of the Uniuersities trusting they woulde be caryed away many of them by such his bolde and confident dealings and actions And we saide further to Master Campion that if Luther had purged his books where he first reiected Saint Iames Epistle as Master Campion saith he hath sithen receiued and much commended it with whatreason hath Master Campion charged vs vpon his surmise of Luthers first writing which doth no where appeare as reiecting Saint Iames Epistle He should rather haue commended vs who doe and alwayes haue allowed of that Epistle and should haue praised Luther who after the example of Saint Augustine and other ancient and godly writers had amended in his writing that which vpon better aduise he misliked Then we turning to the auditorie sayd that seeing all the printed Bookes of Luther extant that we could finde doe conteine such commendations of Saint Iames Epistle as they had heard and that Master Campion hath charged Luther so contrarily to all his printed bookes wherein he commendeth that Epistle and therby also chargeth vs as reiecting it who euer haue receiued it they might we said take Master Campions trueth and synceritie to be as it is vntill he haue brought out his copies from the Emperour and the Duke of Bauaria which he nor any liuing we beleeue can euer doe But Master Campion said that might he haue his own bookes from Oxeforde he woulde shewe that in Luther which he had written of him Whereunto it was answered that if he woulde let vs knowe where they were we would become humble suters to their honors that he might both enioye his bookes and that the partie who had them in keeping might be without daunger But this woulde he not consent vnto Then Hart one of his fellowes saide that he being at Rome heard Bellarminus the reader of controuersies there affirme that the wordes reported by Campion in his booke were in that preface of Luther and that therefore vpon his worde it was so Whereunto we answered that neither his wordes nor the testimonie of Bellarminus were of sufficient credite to carry away such a matter as that was without better proofe specially so many and most manifest proofes in Luthers printed bookes being to the contrarie who agreeth with vs in allowing the said Epistle and that therefore Master Campion hath most impudently alleadged this place of Luther as a profe that we should reiect S. Iames Epistle Then Master Beale said It is not materiall to vs if Luther had once so written but he asked Master Campion whether euer he did read him selfe any such wordes in Luther as he in his booke doeth charge him with or not Whereto he answered that in a treatise made by Doctor Lee sometime Archbishoppe of Yorke against that booke of Luther intituled De captiuitate Babilonica he had read these wordes alleadged as he had set them downe in his booke Being againe asked whether either vpon his othe or vpon his credit he would say to the presence there assembled that he had euer seene the places alleaged by him in his booke