❧ A true report of the Disputation or rather private Conference had in the Tower of London, with Ed. Campion jesuite, the last of August. 1581.  
Set down by the Reverend learned men themselves that dealt therein.  
Whereunto is joined also a true report of the other three days conferences had there with the same jesuite. Which now are thought meet to be published in print by authority.  
IMPRINTED AT LONDON by Christopher Barker, Printer to the Queen's most excellent Majesty, januarij. 1. 1583.   

ERRATA.  
A. signifieth the first page. B. the second. The numbers show the line  
 Fault Correction. C. two. a. line last. commoda for commoda. D. two. a. 25. in the margin. Normam Limam. D. two. b. 36. both loath. D. iiii. a. 27. lewd loud. D. iiii. b. 19 Proof process. H. iiii. line last. by in. D d. iiii. b. 9 justified infected.   

To the Reader.  
MAster Campions' Book being at large answered shortly after our conference with him, which was concerning certain points in the beginning of the said book only: and our said conference also, being partly remembered in the said answer of his book, (though we had immediately upon the said conference, set down in writing certain notes of the same, out of our fresh memory to all events:) Yet we thought there was no cause, the whole book being confuted, why we should publish our dealing with him, concerning a few points in the beginning thereof only, specially Master Campion being now dead, and not to reply thereunto himself: so that we laid aside our notes, and without all thought of any publishing of them at all. But there having been sithen by others the favourers of him and his cause partly in print, but in written Pamphlets much more dispersed, wherein Master Campions surmised glorious conquest against us, is exceedingly set forth, and some of them so confidently, that in the conclusion thereof the Author saith: The Catholics by the judgement of those that were not wedded wholly to will, did get the Goal. And again: In my soul I protest, that in any indifferent judgement, the adverse protestaunts were quite confounded: and if I were not a Catholic already, the only hearing of that conference, would have made me one.  
Upon such untruths and impudency of such writers, we were partly of ourselves inclined, and by the often and earnest exhortations of others importuned, and by some of great authority almost enforced to set down the true report of the said conference: whereby we trust that all those Catholics, as they would be called, that have any spark of shamefastness left, may blush for Master Campions' sake, being so manifestly deprehended in so many lies so braggingly advouched, and in print in the Latin tongue published to the world.  
Surely we do think ourselves, and may say in truth, that if we had been so openly convicted, so many ways and in such sort, as Master Campion then was: we should while we lived, be ashamed to show our faces. And we have indeed heretofore, out of our fresh memories then, made report of divers parts of this our conference unto divers persons as occasion hath served, and not dissembled, that we found not Campion such a man, as by his challenge and book, and other men's reports of him we looked for: and that upon this our conference with him, we verily thought the book published in his name, to have been none of his. But by such Pamphlets as these be, and like reports by word, his surmised victories against us were so speedily suread abroad, that divers Gentlemen and others, neither unlearned, nor of themselves evil affected, gave not much credit to our sayings: of that value is the first report in some ears and heads, which hath among other things moved us not a little, to set down at the last this our true report of our said conference, upon hope, that truth in time may take place. We do know they will cavil at this, as our biting of a dead man, whom being alive, they will say, we could not all match But the truth is, we do defend ourselves against the backebiting of many slanderous reporters, who do yet live and lurk in every corner, by false reports and writings continually endeavouring to suppress, or at the least to blemish the truth, upon every least occasion offered or sought. As first they began, so they continue. For whereas divers of us at divers times had conference with Campion and his fellows, the time being such, that so many of us as could get leave, when we had once conferred with him & his fellows, departed into the country from whence we were called: and others remaining in the city, assaying whether it might please God, that they could do any good with them to their reformation: this was forthwith by reports and pamphlets every where so framed and dispersed, as though Campion like some great bear or Lion rather (as they would have him seem) had shaken us all off like cowardly curs one after another. But that religion can not long stand, that is underpropped and stayed by such impudent lies, as amongst many other things may well appear to all, that with indifferency, without forejudgement, will read and consider our true report of the said conference. Which why we have not published it before, and why we do publish it now, we have showed the true causes, howsoever they shall cavil, that upon misliking of our parts, we have not published it hitherto, and find fault also that we have published it now. Surely we with good conscience may affirm this our report, in the substance of matter to be most true, though our memory could not always retain the order, or the very words wherein every sentence was uttered.  
A. Nowell. W. Daije.   

A true report of the conference had with Campion and others, by the Dean of Paul's and the Dean of Windsor, in the Tower of London the last of August, the 23. year of the Queen's Majesty, and of the Lord 1581.  
WE the Dean of Paul's & the Dean of Windsor (being sent to the Tower to have conference with Master Campion and his fellows in matters of Religion, and by order of Master Lieutenant, admitted into the Chapel of the Tower, whither the said Campion and others were brought) shortly after our meeting, said to Master Campion, that we came thither to the end to do him good, if it might please God to give such good success, howsoever he or any other should think otherwise of us. And because it should not seem to him, that our meaning was to take any advantage against him by our sudden coming to him, we ourselves being prepared for the Conference: we said we intended to deal with him in no other matters, than such as were contained in his own book, by him so much studied, written, and so lately published in print: wherein he having made so large a Challenge as he had, we said, we thought he could not think himself to be suddenly taken as unprovided. Of which speech he seemed not much to mislike, only he said, that he understood not of our coming.  
Then we beginning with the first part of his said book, did demand of him with what reason he could charge the Queen's Majesties most merciful government, and us that at this time profess the Gospel (as he did in the Preface of his said book) with unused and strange cruelty and torments, practised upon his fellows in religion: seeing that the Authors and professors of their Religion, had most cruelly burnt alive, so many thousands of us, for the maintenance of our Religion only, besides divers other ways of most horrible torments: whereas none of them was ever executed for Religion, but either for treason, or some other notorious crime punishable with death by the Laws of the Realm.  
Whereunto he answered, that he was punished for Religion himself, and had been twice on the Rack, and that racking was more grievous than hanging, and that he had rather choose to be hanged then racked.  
Whereunto one of us said, that belike Master Campion being the Pope's tender Pernell, accounteth a little racking of himself, to be more cruelty, than the roasting quick of many thousands of us.  
You must (quoth Master Campion) consider the cause: the cause why, and not the punishment only.  
It hath been ever your manner said we, not only to use petitione principij, but totius also: not only to require a principal point in controversy, but even the whole itself to be granted unto you: as that your cause is good, and that you be the true Church of Christ, as you continually presume and take unto you. But thanks be to God, the contrary hath been so proved, that a great part of Christendom doth evidently see it. And many thousands, who were before of your Church, have fled to us from it, as from the synagogue of Antichrist. And concerning his racking, Master Lieutenant being present, said, that he had no cause to complain of racking, who had rather seen then felt the rack: and admonished him to use good speech, that he gave not cause to be used with more severity. For although (said he) you were put to the rack, yet notwithstanding you were so favourably used therein, as being taken off, you could, and did presently go thence to your lodging without help, and use your hands in writing, and all other parts of your body: which you could not have done, if you had been put to that punishment, with any such extremity as you speak of. Besides this, Master Beale one of the Clarks of her majesties privy Counsel, being by chance present, demanded of him before all the company there assembled, whether that being on the rack, he were examined upon any point of Religion or no:  
Whereunto he answered, that he was not in deed directly examined of Religion, but moved to confess in what places he had been conversant, since his repair into the Realm.  
Master Beale said, that this was required of him, because many of his fellows, and by likelihood he himself also, had reconciled divers of her highness subjects to the Romish Church, and had attempted to withdraw them from their obedience due to their natural Prince and Sovereign.  
Whereunto he answered, that forasmuch as the Christians in old time being commanded to deliver up the books of their Religion to such as persecuted them, refused so to do, and misliked with them that did so, calling them Traditores: he might not betray his Catholic brethren, which were (as he said) the temples of the holy Ghost.  
But it was replied by Master Beale, that it was convenient in policy for the Prince to understand, what such as were sent from the Bishop of Rome (her Majesties and the realms mortal enemy) did within her dominions: and to know her foes from her faithful subjects, specially in such a time as this, wherein we live: & that this inquiry did not touch the cause of Religion. After this we came to the matter of his book.  
And first, where he chargeth us that we have now of a sudden, cut off many goodly and principal parts of the holy Scriptures from the whole body thereof, of mere desperation and distrust in our cause (as he writeth:) and for example and proof thereof, he nameth first the Epistle of Saint james, which Luther, that flagitious Apostata saith he) in the Preface of the same 
Flagitiosus Apostata. Contentiosam, tumidam, aridam, stramineam.  Epistle, and in his book, De captivitate Babilonica, nameth contentious, puffed up, dry or barren, & as a thing stuffed with straw, and judgeth it unworthy the Apostolic spirit: we answered, that if Luther had so written, yet Master Campion did us wrong, to charge us with violating of the Majesty of the holy Bible, for rejecting of the said Epistle of S. james, who do, and always have received the same Epistle. Yet we prayed him that he would show these words, in the places by 
Lutherus in praefat. in epist, jacobi. Hanc epistolam S. jacobi laudo & pro utili ae commodo habeo.  him noted: which he said he would, if he had the books. The book, wherein was Luther's Preface to that Epistle being delivered him, when he had read some part of the said Preface, and found that Luther did allow and commend that Epistle, as in deed he doth, testifying, that though it were rejected of some old writers, yet he commended it and took it to be good and profitable: which words of Luther when Master Campion had read, he shut the book and said, that it was not of the true edition.  
We answered that the print was not lately published, being almost forty years sithence, and that we had searched all other prints 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 show some edition wherein it was so set down, as he alleged it in his book.  
He said, he thought it was so as he had alleged in the same book of Luther in the Dutch tongue.  
Then we offered to bring him the Dutch book for the trial of the truth of the Latin translation: but he refused to see the same. But it was advouched unto him (as the truth is in deed) that it was likewise in the Dutch book, as he had read it in the Latin, for that we had made conference thereof.  
Then he desired to see Luther's book, De captivitate Babilonica. This book also we delivered to him, and desired that he would show those words there. He read the words in Latin, which are these in effect: I pass over (saith Luther) that many do very probably affirm, that this Epistle is not Saint james the Apostles, nor worthy the Apostolic spirit. Here Master Campion thought that he had found at the least, that Luther had said, that the said Epistle, was not worthy the Apostolic spirit.  
But we prayed him to consider, that Luther spoke of other men's judgement, and not of his own, as in the same place is most evident to see: and also before in his Preface to that Epistle he expressly divideth his judgement from theirs.  
But Master Campion much urged the words (very probably) whereby saith he, Luther showed his allowance of their judgement.  
We answered, that he so said, for that they brought very probable reasons for that their judgement. But he still charged Luther with blasphemy for saying that some do very probably affirm, that the Epistle of james, was not written by the Apostle Saint james, nor worthy the spirit of an Apostle, and urged us to answer what opinion we had of that Epistle, meaning to entangle us with that Dilemma either to condemn Luther, or else to doubt of the Epistle, as Luther saith that some probably do.  
We answered that our Church doubteth not of that Epistle, but receiveth it as Canonical, readeth it in our Churches, expoundeth it in our schools, and allegeth it for confirmation of doctrine. Notwithstanding for Luther or any other to say, that some have very probably affirmed that Epistle not to be written by Saint james nor to be worthy the spirit of an Apostle, is no blasphemy.  
It is blasphemy, blasphemy (quoth he) pronouncing those words with disdainful countenance and voice.  
It is soon said (quoth we) but not so easily proved.  
I will prove it (quoth he) to be blasphemy by two reasons, and thus he framed a syllogism.  
The Gospel of Saint john, and the Epistle of Saint james, were written by the same spirit:  
But to say that some do probably affirm the Gospel of Saint john not to be written by Saint john, nor to be worthy the spirit of an Apostle is blasphemy:  
Therefore to say that like of Saint james Epistle is blasphemy.  
Answer was made that the Mayor was Petitio Principij the challenging of the grant of that which chief is in controversy. For those that so say of Saint james Epistle, doubt whether it was written by the same Spirit, that the Gospel of Saint john was or no: and that still resteth for you to prove said we.  
And here Master Campion when he could not deny, that he required that to be granted to him which he should have proved, was put to silence, and had no more to reply.  
Then was his second reason called for, but none could be found.  
Then said one of them, Why, is not Saint james Epistle called the Catholic Epistle of Saint james? How do you then deny it to be Canonical?  
It was said, that that was a simple reason. For whereas other Epistles of the Apostles, were written unto special Cities, people or persons: this of Saint james, for that it was written commonly to all the tribes of the jews dispersed, was called Catholic or general.  
Then said we to the auditory: You have heard that Luther doth much commend this Epistle of Saint james, as good and profitable: and Master Campion allegeth, that he calleth it contentious, puffed up, dry or barren, stuffed with straw, and unworthy the Apostolic spirit. Whereby (said we) ye may see the diversity or rather contrariety of Luther's words, and Master Campions' report, and so may ye judge of his sincerity & truth, which he useth likewise continually.  
Then said Master Campion, that Luther himself and others had purged these works, and taken away all such places as that was, and the like that ministered such occasions of offence as that did: and he said he would procure from the emperors Majesty, and the Duke of Bavaria, and from another Prince (whose name we remember not) the true copies of those books to be sent to the Queen's Majesty. Which words he (rising up from the form whereon he sat) pronounced with so great contention of voice, and with such gesture, casting up his arms, & beating upon his book, that one of us challenged him therefore, demanding why he used such outrageous speech and behaviour?  
He answered, for that so many young Catholics were present there, he would not by any faint defending of the cause, give them occasion of offence.  
Whereby we understand, how he would have behaved himself, might he have obtained a disputation among the youth of the Universities, trusting they would be carried away many of them by such his bold and confident dealings and actions.  
And we said further to Master Campion, that if Luther had purged his books, & where he first rejected Saint james Epistle (as Master Campion saith) he hath sithen received and much commended it: with whatreason hath Master Campion charged us upon his surmise of Luther's first writing, which doth no where appear as rejecting Saint james Epistle? He should rather have commended us, who do and always have allowed of that Epistle, and should have praised Luther, who after the example of Saint Augustine (and other ancient and godly writers) had amended 
S. Aug. in his book of retractations.  in his writing that which upon better advise he misliked.  
Then we turning to the auditory, said, that seeing all the printed Books of Luther extant, that we could find, do contain such commendations of Saint james Epistle as they had heard, and that Master Campion hath charged Luther so contrarily to all his printed books, wherein he commendeth that Epistle, and thereby also chargeth us as rejecting it, who ever have received it: they might, we said, take Master Campions' truth and sincerity to be as it is, until he have brought out his copies from the Emperor and the Duke of Bavaria, which he nor any living we believe can ever do.  
But Master Campion said, that might he have his own books from Oxeforde, he would show that in Luther, which he had written of him.  
Whereunto it was answered, that if he would let us know where they were, we would become humble suitors to their honours, that he might both enjoy his books, and that the party who had them in keeping might be without danger. But this would he not consent unto.  
Then Hart one of his fellows said, that he being at Rome, heard Bellarminus the reader of controversies there affirm, that the words reported by Campion in his book were in that preface of Luther, and that therefore upon his word it was so.  
Whereunto we answered, that neither his words, nor the testimony of Bellarminus were of sufficient credit to carry away such a matter as that was without better proof, specially so many and most manifest proofs in Luther's printed books being to the contrary, who agreeth with us in allowing the said Epistle, and that therefore Master Campion hath most impudently alleged this place of Luther, as a proof that we should reject S. james Epistle.  
Then Master Beale said, It is not material to us, if Luther had once so written: but he asked Master Campion whether ever he did read himself any such words in Luther, as he in his book doth charge him with, or not?  
Whereto he answered, that in a treatise made by Doctor Lee, sometime Archbishop of York, against that book of Luther entitled De captivitate Babilonica, he had read these words alleged, as he had set them down in his book.  
Being again asked, whether either upon his oath, or upon his credit, he would say to the presence there assembled, that he had ever seen the places alleged by him in his book: and whether he knew them to be true?  
He answered, that he wrote his book as he travailed, and that he could not, we knew, carry a library about with him, and therefore he was forced to give credit to his notes.  
We said it was more credible, that he brought the said book over with him, ready framed by the common and long conference of himself, and his fellow jesuits at convenient opportunity suddenly to be published, rather than that he did write it in his travels, having so much beside to do, & being destitute of his library as he said, which is the usual manner (as we said) of you all, hunting thereby for popular praise of speedy writing. But when & howsoever you did write your book said we, you have used overmuch boldness, so confidently to publish in print these slanderous reports of such men as you have named, being not able to make any proof of that, whereof you accuse them. And upon these such good grounds of yours, you do most unreasonably and untruly charge us all, as those that have razed, mangled and spoiled the body of the holy Bible.  
The third testimony or proof alleged against us by Master Campion in his book, is taken out of the Centuries, written by Illiricus, and others: which book being given into his hands, and the like demand made as before, he would neither read, nor once open the book, neither yet made he any answer thereto, knowing that he could make no exception to the print, as he did before to Luther's books, seeing that book was never printed but once.  
And beside, where they as Historiographers, had only set down the judgements of S. Jerome, Eusebius, Epiphanius, and of other ancient father's concerning this Epistle of Saint james, of Tobias, the books of Macchabees, &c: he knew that he could not thereby prove his assertion, that they suddenly cut away so many goodly parts of the holy Bible, much less that we had so done, as he doth in his book charge us. For which causes chief, he would not as much as once open those books, and for the same cause, he would not look upon Kemnisius, whom, and us by him, he had likewise falsely charged.  
When Master Campion could not show these words, out of any of those books by him alleged, nor any good matter to prove them, nor us suddenly to have razed, mangled and spoiled the holy Scriptures, as he chargeth us of desperation in our cause, to have done: then did we show him, that we had not now suddenly (as he untruly reported) cut off any part or line of the body of the holy Scriptures, but made only a difference between those books of the Scriptures, that be commonly called Canonical, and of all men be taken for undoubtedly true, from those that have been long ago suspected of many, and are called Apocrypha, according as was before set down by the ancient Doctors of the Church, above a thousand years since & more. And for the proof hereof, we alleged the testimony of Saint Jerome, In Catalogo Scriptorum ecclesiasticorum, where he thus writes of the Epistle 
S. Hieromes words.  of Saint james named by Master Campion: The Epistle of Saint james, is said to be published, by some other man under his name. And of the second Epistle of Saint Peter he saith in the same book, that it is denied of many to be his, by reason of the difference of the style.  
To this Master Campion answered, that Jerome spoke not of his own judgement, but reported what others said of them.  
We answered, if Saint Jerome so reported of other men's sayings of those Epistles, and did not himself gainsay it, that it was a manifest token, that he did not greatly mislike their sayings. And seeing in S. Hieromes time and before, those Epistles were doubted of, you do us great wrong said we, to charge us that we have suddenly cut them off from the body of the Bible, who in deed notwithstanding the former doubts of them, gladly receive and allow them. We alleged again S. Jerome, In Prologo Galeato, et Epistola ad Paulinum, where he showeth his own judgement, what books of the Scriptures of the old Testament are to be taken for Canonical, and which have been doubted of: which Epistles (quoth we) have been written and printed in all Bibles, by the space of these thousand years and more, to warn all readers of that difference of the said Apocrypha, from the true Canonical: and to arm them as it were against the error of confounding the Canonical Scriptures with these Apocrypha: for the which cause as it seemeth, he also nameth that Prologue Galeatum, as an helmet for defence against that error. But now sitchence the Tridentine Council, some Popish printers have left out the said Prologue and Epistle of S. Jerome, who yet declareth this his judgement likewise, in his Preface to the first book of Esdras also.  
Sherwin one of Master Campions fellows, answered to these allegations, that Jerome did judaizare, and more was not ●…ayd to these places.  
We also alleged Eusebius, who having made rehearsal of those books of the new Testament, which be undoubtedly true, nameth also such as were gainsaid, and writes thus: Quibus vero 
Euseb. lib. 3. cap. 25.  contradicitur, etc. those books that are gainsaid, though they be known to many, be these: The Epistle which is attributed to S. james, the Epistle of Jude, the latter of Peter, & the second 
Euseb. lib. 2. cap. 23.  and third of john. And the same Eusebius in another place affirmeth plainly, the said Epistle of S. james, to be a counterfeit or bastard Epistle. 
Adulterinam.   
To this authority they said that it was true that he so said, and as we alleged them, and that when he wrote, it was lawful for any man to doubt of those books, that he called Apocrypha: but seeing by the Church (that was by the Council of Carthage, & now also by the Council of Trident) they were received for Canonical, it was blasphemy, they said, to doubt of the authority of those books.  
To that was replied, that the Synod of Laodicea, held them for Apocrypha.  
Yea said they, but that Synod was not general.  
No more was that of Carthage said we.  
No said they, but that of Carthage was after confirmed by a general Council in Trullo.  
So was (quoth we) the Synod of Laodicea, which held them for Apocrypha, confirmed also by the same general Council in Trullo, as there is to be seen. But how doth this agree, that not long before you did say absolutely, that S. james epistle was written by the same spirit that S. john's Gospel was written with, and now you ground the credit of S. james Epistle and the other upon these Councils:  
But said we, these Councils had no authority to make any manner writings Canonical, that was not before Canonical. For, by the judgement of S. Augustine in many places of his books, there 
August. contra Faustum. li. 28. cap. 2. & lib. 33 cap. 6.  are two things requisite to prove any writing Canonical: one is the testimony of the Church, in which the author lived when he wrote: The other is the continual contestation of the Churches succeeding. To this effect writeth S. Augustine: and so be all latter Churches barred from authority to make any writings canonical scripture, specially those that have of old been doubted of. They may testify what the old Churches before them have done, as we now do.  
Hereunto they said again, that it was blasphemy after those Councils to call those books Apocrypha, or to doubt of the authority of them.  
It is rather most horrible blasphemy said we, to make human writings equal with the Canonical scriptures, (as of late your Tridentine Council hath done, and as your Pope being but one 
Distinct. 19 cap. In Canonicis.  man hath made his Decretal epistles) then with S. Jerome, Eusebius, and other ancient godly fathers, to call those books Apocrypha, which they do so call.  
And we said, that notwithstanding those Councils, Caietanus their Pope's Cardinal thought it no blasphemy, who in the end of his expositions upon the old testament, in very plain words, maketh the same difference of the books of the scriptures, & doth not only allow the judgement of Jerome, but addeth further, that all writitings, yea of bishops of Rome themselves, of whom he nameth some, must be brought to S. Hieroms rule. 
Ad norm●… Hieronimi.   
They utterly rejected Cardinal 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 words of others, though they be the Pope's Cardinals, and yet you do think it reason, that we should be charged with every word, that hath slipped from Luther. Nay you charge him, and us by him, with that which you can never prove, that he did write or speak.  
heart said further, that Caietanus was a good scholeman and traveled in that course with commendation: but when he began to become an expositor of the scriptures, said he, than he lost his grace and credit.  
We answered, if they thought it reason to charge us 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 Cardinal of Rome, as Caietanus was. Last of all we came to the place of S. Augustine in his second book De doctrina Christiana. 
August. De Doctrina Christian. lib. 2. ca 8.  Which Campion and his fellows gladly received, because they said, it made for them and not for us. For, said they, S. Augustine rehearseth those books for Canonical scriptures, which you call Apocrypha.  
To this we answered, that they should rather charge Saint Jerome and Eusebius, and other ancient fathers, who do call them Apocrypha. And S. Augustine in that place rehearsing the order of the books of scriptures, though, said we, he differ somewhat from Eusebius and S. Jerome in show of words: yet he doth in deed agree with them. For where they divide the books of the scriptures into three sorts, that is, Canonical, Apocrypha and feigned or untrue: Augustine divideth them, into Canonical and Apocrypha only: and then he divideth the Canonical books into two sorts, that is, those that be certainly true (which we with S. Jerome and Eusebius, do call properly Canonical) and those that have been doubted of, which Eusebius and S. Jerome do call Apocrypha. And S. Augustine nameth those that be utterly untrue, Apocrypha, which Eusebius calleth doubtful, feigned and forged. 
Euseb. lib. 3. cap. 25. dubia, ficta, adulterina. August. de civit. Dei. lib. 15. cap. 23. & contra 2. Gaudent. Epist. lib. 2. cap. 23. Testes Domini.  And this may be gathered out of Augustine himself in divers places, whereof we have noted some. And albeit Augustine calleth those books Canonical, yet he giveth not the like authority to them, as namely to the Maccabees, and to the other of that sort, as he doth to those that be Christ's the Lords witnesses, as he nameth them, which be these that are named properly Canonical. Here would they not admit in any wise, that the word Canonical was aequivocum, or of divers significations in divers places: but that wheresoever that word was found, it brought all books so called under one kind. Much time was spent here about, and the matter was much argued on Master Campion and his fellows part. At the last Master Campion was desired by us, to read the chapter in that Canon law, beginning In Canonicis, which Gratian takes out of this place of Augustine: and first that he 
Distinct. 19 cap. In Canonicis.  would read the rubric, which he seemed both to do. And Pound one of his companions sitting by (who with his importunity & impertinent speeches, had often interrupted the course of the conference) said, Father Campion, let them read their places themselves. 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 decretal Epistles are numbered together among the Canonical Scriptures.  
Whereupon one of us said, you charge us with blasphemy, for naming those books Apocrypha, which Saint Jerome, Eusebius, and other ancient holy fathers do so name: but here may you see most horrible blasphemy in deed, in the Canonical law of your Pope, which matcheth his Decretal Epistles (that is mere fables) with the Majesty of the Canonical Scriptures, as he doth in this distinction, and sundry other places, whereby you may see to what point this boldness of making men's writings Canonical Scriptures is come.  
Then said we to M. Campion, do you hold that Pope's decrees for Canonical scriptures? as you do the books of Moses and the Prophets?  
He answered no: and granted then that the word Canonical, was aequinocum or of divers significations, which before they all did so constantly deny.  
Whereupon we said that we had some good hope of Master Campion, for that he blushed. And we said further that Cardinal Caietanus in the place before alleged, sayeth expressly that S. Augustine placed those books in the Canon of manners, but not in the Canon of doctrine, whereby he plainly declareth that the word Canonical is aequivocum.  
After this he was desired to read the text of that Chapter, and there he found and could not deny, but that the place of Augustine was untruly reported by Gratian, and by manifest corruption drawn altogether from the meaning of Augustine. For where S. 
S. Augustine's words.  Augustine saith, that those Scriptures are to be taken for Canonical, which the most or greatest part of Christian Churches so take, among the which those Churches be, which deserved to have Apostolic Seas, and to receive Epistles from the Apostles: these words of S. Augustine are changed, and in the 
The report of them. Distinct. 19 Cap. de Canonicis.  place of the Apostolic Seas, is put the Apostolic Sea, (meaning the Church of Rome) and those Churches which deserved to receive Epistles from the said Church of Rome: which is clean contrary to S. Augustine's words and meaning.  
Both often before, and here specially, Master Campion and his fellows seemed to be desirous to dispute upon some points of religion, rather than to continue in this examination of his book, which we said we would not at afternoon refuse, but the forenoon (qd we) is so far spent, that we must at this time make an end. And then turning us to the auditory, we said: You have heard how Master Campion in his printed book, hath charged us as razors, manglers and spoilers of the holy Scriptures, of mere desperation and distrust in our cause, as he saith. You have heard how he would prove us so to be, by certain places by him in his said printed book noted, as being the words of Luther and others in their books. You have heard and seen proved by the books themselves, that there is no such thing to be found in those places of their books as he hath set down: but only that S. Jerome, and Eusebius above a thousand year sithen, doubted of the authority of those Epistles & books. And you have heard, and it is universally known, that S. Hieroms Prologue and Epistle, wherein he noteth those books to 
Hierom. Prologue. Galeat. & epistola ad Paulinum.  be Apocrypha, have been joined with all Bibles that have been written and printed ever since S. Hieromes time, by the space of a xi. hundred years and more, until now of late sithen the Tridentine Council, some Popish Printers have left them out. And you have heard, that not only now of late, the Council Tridentine hath made the Apocrypha of equal authority with the undoubted Canonical scriptures: but also that it is set down in the B. of Rome's Canon law, that his Decretal epistles are to be numbered together among the Canonical scriptures: & so finally you see what injury these men do themselves to the holy scriptures, & what blasphemy they have committed, in matching their fables with the Canonical scriptures, who do most unjustly charge us with those crimes.  
Sherwin said, but you should have told withal, what we have answered to all those points.  
We said, your answer is to be looked for, when you can bring forth your copies which you speak of, and promised: for in any books by you named, & extant and to be had, there is nothing of that which M. Campion hath set down to be found. And here the time being spent we made an end for that forenoon's conference.  

The after noon conference.  
IN the fore noon conference both Master Campion himself, & others of his companions, had oftentimes required us that we would deal with them in some matter of doctrine, and leave that course that we began with, in the examining of his book.  
Whereunto we answered, that we were minded (if the time would suffer us) to examine other parts of his book, and lay it open to the audience there, how that as he had most untruly charged Luther and others, with the mangling and spoiling of the body of the holy Scriptures in the beginning of his book: so had he likewise most untruly and impudently in other places slandered other worthy men: and upon the same his good grounds, he had charged us all, as razors and manglers of the holy Scriptures. And surely our opinion was, that if any thing at all, (that laying open before his face of his continual untruths, which he hath so braggingly advouched in his book) might have reclaimed him. For undoubtedly he could never have endured the manifestation of those his lies, as they were in the confutation of his book shortly after set out, had they been laid open before his eyes: which might manifestly appear to all that did mark his gentle and mild behaviour and speech in the After noon conference, in comparison of his bragging and lewd words used in the forenoon.  
Notwithstanding at our meeting at after noon, we said unto Master Campion, seeing your desire is so much to dispute in some matter of doctrine, we will not refuse. But first we pray you, let us (qd we) peruse the Canon that followeth, that which we last dealt with in the fore noon concerning the Pope's Canons, and the Canonical Scriptures, for that the time would not then suffer us to read it. The words of Pope Leo the fourth, there 
Distinct. 20. Cap. De libellis. The Pamphleter here saith, that M. Day (meaning the Dean of Windsor) having belike of old store an other Canon to read etc. But the truth is their affirming the word Canonical, to make all writings so named to be of equal authority, occasioned us to read that Canon before. Distinct. 19 Cap. In Canonicis. The Decretal Epistles are together numbered with the Canonical Scriptures. To the which if you join the saying of Pope Agatho, Distinct. 19 Cap. Sic Omnes, which is near to it. All the Sanctions of the Apostolic Sea, are to be taken as established by the divine voice of Peter himself sayeth Pope Agatho. To the which if you join this, which Pope Leo magna voce, with a great voice saith here, would you not think that Satan or Beelzebub bellowed out most horrible blasphemies? for even as Lucifer by pride would have made himself equal with God: so this Lucifer's vicar in earth would by a Luciferian pride make his word, Canons and writings, equal with the Majesty of God's word, and the Canonical Scriptures.  translated word for word, are these: For this cause I fear not to pronounce more plainly and with a loud voice, that he that is convinced not to receive indifferently the statutes of the holy fathers (which we have spoken of before) which with us are entitled by the name of Canons, whether he be a Bishop, a Clerk or a lay man, that he is proved neither to believe, nor to hold profitably and effectually to his effect, the Catholic and Apostolic faith, nor the four holy Gospels. This saith Pope Leo. You may see, (quoth we) whereunto this boldness of matching men's writings with the holy Canonical Scriptures, is come. Fore here Pope Leo with a loud voice pronounceth, that whosoever doth not indifferently receive the Canons, is convicted, neither to retain effectually, nor believe the Catholic and Apostolic faith, nor the four holy Gospels: whereby he matcheth the believing, receiving, or refusing of his Canons, with the believing or refusing of the four holy Gospels: for so we said that the proof of that Canon, and the word indifferently did import.  
Master Campion endeavoured very much to qualify this word indifferentèr, indifferently, and so to mollify the Pope's blasphemy if he could: and he confessed that there was difference between the Evangelists and other writers, for that the Evangelists and writers of the Scriptures could not err in memory or any other circumstance, but Councils might be deceived in some such small matters of circumstance. As for example, sayeth he, I am bound under pain of damnation to believe that Tobias dog had a tail, because it is written he wagged his tail.  
It was said by us that it became him not to deal so triflingly in matters of such weight.  
Why then, saith he, if this example like you not, take another. I must believe that Saint Paul had a cloak, because he willeth Timothy to bring his cloak.  
We said these things were nothing to purpose, unless he could prove, that such a promise was made to the bishop of Rome and his Councils, that whatsoever they should determine, was sure to be true and certain.  
They alleged Christ's saying: He that heareth not the 
Matt. 18.  Church, let him be reputed as a publican and heathen.  
We answered that text served them for all purposes. But first they must prove themselves to be the true Church before that text would belong unto them. And where they alleged out of the 15. of the Acts, So it seemeth to the holy Ghost and us. We answered, 
Act. 15.  we knew well enough that that Council was governed by the holy Ghost, wherein the Apostles were precedent. But what maketh that to the wicked Councils of Popes? And after much reasoning about the word indifferenter, we said, were that word put out, yet were it blasphemy to say, that he that believeth not the Pope's Canons (which are with other there mentioned) believeth not the four holy Gospels. After this we began our disputation concerning justification, both for that it is first of all other mentioned in your book (quoth we to Master Campion:) and both Luther and we all, are most grievously charged by you, with error therein: and also for that it is in deed a matter of the chiefest controversy between us. And first, for that you do in your book, untruly charge Luther, and us by him, with the cutting away of Saint james epistle, for that the wretch (as you say of Luther) 
Miser. Confossus & diruptus.  was by this epistle vanquished and overthrown, and for that, that epistle doth so manifestly convince his and our error in this matter of justification (as you do write) we do protest that we will neither refuse, nor make any exception to that epistle of Saint james, nor to any other part of the new Testament, which you untruly have charged us to have cut off from the body of the holy scriptures.  
It is well, said they, that you do receive this Epistle of Saint james.  
We have ever received it said we, How much the more untruly, have you charged us with the contrary? And so entering into the matter, we said, Whereas you do charge Luther, & with him us all, for teaching a new and false doctrine, yea heresy also, in that we say and write, that we are justified by faith only: we say for our defence against this your slander, that the same doctrine is taught, both in many places of the holy scriptures most effectually, and is also expressly affirmed and pronounced by the ancient holy fathers and doctors of Christ's Church, both Greeks and Latins, in the very same words that we do use.  
Let us hear your scriptures and doctors said they. Then, for that we came purposed to examine the untruths of Campions book, rather than to dispute: we did very briefly, as our memory did then serve us, note rather then thoroughly allege many places out of the holy scriptures, for the proof of our justification by faith, and consequently by faith only, to this effect.  
Our saviour Christ said we, as it is in sundry places of the Evangelists recorded, saith often: Thy faith hath saved thee. 
Matth. 9 Mark. 5. & 10. Luk. 7. 8. & 12. & 18. Act. 26. 18. john 1. 12. john 3. 16.  Only believe, believe only. They shall receive remission of their sins, and inheritance among them that are sanctified by faith in me. As many as believe in me, to them hath God given power, to become the sons of God. Whosoever believeth in me, shall not be condemned, shall not perish, but have everlasting life. Thus saith our saviour Christ, etc. And Saint Paul saith, Believe in the Lord jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved. God doth justify thorough faith. We are saved by grace 
Act. 16. 31. Galat. 3. 8. Ephes. 2. 8. Rom. 4. Rom. 3. 22.  thorough faith. We are blessed by faith. We are the children of Abraham: yea we are the children of God by faith. The righteousness of God by the faith of jesus Christ unto all, and upon us all that believe. If thou confess with the mouth the Lord jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart, that God raised him up from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness, and with the mouth man confesseth unto salvation. We are freely justified by his grace thorough 
Rom. 3. 24.  faith.  
Then said they, we know right well that the scriptures do contain great commendations of faith, but in all these there is not this word faith only, which is your doctrine.  
But the ancient holy fathers said we, upon these grounds of the scriptures by us alleged, do gather and plainly pronounce, that only faith justifieth, as you shall hear anon. And how many things said we, do you yourself teach us as necessary articles of religion, not having for you one plain word therefore, but do affirm, that in effect they are contained in the holy scriptures. And you have heard that justification and righteousness, yea, salvation and the kingdom of heaven, are attributed to faith, and that without any addition of any other thing. And you have heard the words of our Saviour: believe only, only believe. And of Saint Paul, you are freely justified by faith, which are in effect as much as faith only, and to more effect exceedingly, then are your proofs of a great many of the principal points of your Popish religion. And where as we mean none other by faith only, but faith without the works of the Law, and without our good works: if the former place can not satisfy you, hear what Saint Paul sayeth further. Know ye that a man is not justified by the works of the Law, but by the faith 
Galat. 2. 16.  of jesus Christ. The righteousness of God is made manifest without the Law, by the faith of jesus Christ unto all, and upon all that believe. We hold that a man is justified by faith, without the deeds of the Law. It is one God that justifieth circumcision 
Rom. 3. 21. 22▪ 28. 30.  by faith, and uncircumcision through faith. Every one that believeth is absolved from all, from the which they 
Act. 13.  could not be absolved by the Law of Moses. Thus saith Saint Paul, and to the like effect in exceeding many places, declaring that we are justified by faith, and not by the Law, by faith and not by works, which is all one as to say, by faith only.  
No it is not all one, said they.  
But the ancient doctors of the Church said we, do upon these very places of the holy scriptures by us alleged, gather and in express words set down, as we do, that we are justified by faith only, as ye shall see. Saint hilary (quoth we) sayeth thus, reading his words out of the book itself, Movit scribas remissum 
D. hilarius in Matth. cap. 8.  ab homine peccatum: hominem enim tantum in jesu Christo contuebantur, & remissum ab eo quod lex laxare non poterat: fides en●…m sola justificat. That is to say, It moved the scribes that sin was remitted by man: for they beheld man only in jesus Christ, and that was remitted by him, the which the Law can not release: for faith only doth justify. Thus far Saint Hilary: 
Faith only doth justify.  who as you do see of this doctrine of Saint Paul by us alleged for justification by faith without the Law, gathereth and setteth down the same doctrine in the same words that we do teach, that faith only doth justify.  
But he saith not so in the same sense that you do, saith Master Campion.  
We shall see of the sense anon said we: but we pray you hear the other doctors also, who do agree with us in the same words. Saint Ambrose also upon the place by us alleged out of the third to the Romans, among many other sentences hath this, Non justificari hominem apud Deum nisi per fidem. That a man is not justified before God but by faith. And shortly after Saint Ambrose saith, Tam Gentiles quam judeos, non aliter quam credentes iustificavit. Quia enim unus Deus est, una ratione omnes iustificavit. That is, both the Gentiles and the jews God hath justified none other ways, but believing. For because there is one God, he hath justified all by one means. And most plainly upon the words by us before alleged, he sayeth, justificati gratis per gratiam ipsius: justificati sunt gratis, quia nihil operantes neque vicem reddentes, sola fide justificati sunt dono Dei: 
Rom. 3.  That is, they were justified freely by his grace: They were justified freely for working nothing, neither making any recompense: they were justified thorough only faith by the gift of God. Thus far Saint Ambrose, who doth very often in his expositions 
D. Ambros●…in cap. 4. & 9 ad Rom.  upon that Epistle to the Romans repeat, That we are justified by faith alone. And Saint Basil most worthily named the great sayeth, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 
Basil. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. That is, perfect and sound rejoicing in God is this, when a man doth not boast of his own righteousness, but knoweth that he wanteth himself true righteousness, and that he is justified by only faith in Christ. And Saint Paul doth glory in the contempt of his own righteousness. Thus far Saint basil. 
Gregor. Nazianzen. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  And Gregory Nazianzen saith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Confess jesus Christ, and believe that he is risen from death, and thou shalt be saved: For to believe only is righteousness. Thus saith Nazianzen surnamed Theologus the divine for his excellent learning in the scriptures. And the same doctrine of justification by faith alone, do many other ancient, godly and learned fathers and doctors set down most plainly in their works. After that these sayings of these ancient doctors were read, we said, 
A●…an. in Galat. 3. Chris●…st. in Hom. 2. in Rom. Origen. in Rom. cap. 3.  You see that this doctrine and the very words themselves, which we do use, we are justified by faith only, or faith only doth justify, are not any new invention of ours, but are set down and pronounced by many ancient and holy fathers of the Church above a thousand year sithen and more, and that, being grounded even upon the same places of the holy scriptures, that we do allege for our justification by faith only.  
Master Campion said, but those Doctors and you do not agree in sense, as I said before.  
It is well said we, that you cannot deny but that they do agree with us in words, and that they do gather these words even of the same scriptures, which we alleged for only faith to justify: and that therefore these words, we are justified freely thorough grace by faith: faith without the law, without the works of the law doth justify, (which are the words of Saint Paul) are all one with these words, faith only doth justify, which was before by you denied.  
Master Campion said, but the truth of the matter resteth in the sense and meaning of the Doctors.  
What sense is it that you do speak of, said we.  
Master Campion answered, We do grant that it is true that only Faith doth justify in this sense, that is, that when we be first brought into the state of grace, no good works do go before primam gratiam the first grace or justification, but that our first justification is by faith only, without any works going before: but the works that follow the first grace and justification (said Master Campion) do both justify and merit also.  
We alleged Saint Augustine's saying, Opera non praecedunt 
August. de fide & operibus.  iustificandum, sed sequuntur justificatum: Works do not precede a man to be justified, but do follow him being justified.  
That is true, said Master Campion, as I said before of the first grace and justification: but good works do go before the second justification.  
It is but a small matter (said we) to grant that no good works do go before the first grace or justification, when before the same grace there can be no good works at all. And concerning the second justification, we replied to that, that Saint Paul speaking 
Rom. 4.  of that justification, and alleging the example and saying of king David therefore, sayeth expressly, that to a man that doth believe in him that doth justify the wicked, his faith is reputed to righteousness, according to the purpose of the grace of God. Even as David setteth down the blessedness of a man, unto whom God reputeth righteousness without works. Blessed are they whose wickedness is pardoned, and whose sins are covered, etc. Thus sayeth Saint Paul, thus sayeth the King and Prophet David, teaching plainly that our justification is by Gods pardoning of our evil works, and not by the merits of 
Psalm. 32.  our good works: for he saith expressly that justice is without our works. And S. Paul and King David were in the state of grace when they did thus write, and yet do show that their justification then, as well as before, was without works.  
Master Campion said, a man being in the state of grace, may write of the first grace and justification, why not? and so did they in that place.  
Yea (quoth we) but if he be set down for an example himself, after that he hath obtained the first grace and continued therein, and yet saith that God reputeth his justification without any his works, though he have done many good, as Abraham first, and then David are here set out for example, and as Saint basil, as was before alleged, setteth out Saint Paul himself for an example, 
D. Basil. de Humilitate.  who doth glory in the contempt of his own righteousness: it is evident, that that justification or righteousness which is before God, is without any works of ours at all, and that all justification of all persons, and in all times, is by the grace of God through faith only, without any merit of our works.  
Then they alleged Saint james words, Faith without charity is dead, making thereby charity the soul and life of faith.  
Hereunto we made answer, that faith without charity was in deed dead, and altogether vain and unprofitable. But Saint james meaning herein, was not to make charity the principal part, or the form of faith: but only to show, that by charity faith is approved and declared to be a true and a lively faith, which we do most willingly grant. And therewith we alleged the saying of Thomas de Aquin. being a schoolman of their own side, who saith, Deus justificat effectiuè: fides justificat apprehensiuè: opera iustificant declaratiuè. That is, God doth justify effectually, faith doth justify apprehendingly, works do justify declaringly.  
Master Sherwin said it was Fides justificat instrumentaliter, Faith justifieth instrumentally.  
That word (quoth we) doth make no alteration in sense at all. And here you may see how Saint Paul teaching that we are justified by faith without works before God: and Saint james teaching that we are justified by works, that is, do declare ourselves by our works unto men to be justified, do agree.  
Master Campion said that he could yield and subscribe unto that saying of Saint Thomas.  
And we said, that we would do the like, for that it is the very true doctrine that we teach: howbeit he held his pen from subscribing.  
Then Master Sherwin alleged these words of Saint Paul, If 
1. Cor. 13.  I had all faith, and have not charity, I am nothing. And he did very vehemently urge the words, all faith, all faith without charity is nothing worth.  
Here saith one of the Pamphleteers, silence was the answer: but how truly, let himself see: for it was strait answered, Master Sherwin you may see, that the Apostle speaketh there of faith in working of miracles, even by the words of the Apostle himself, who saith, If I should have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. And when he cried still omnem fidem, all faith, and that therefore it must contain our faith also, else we had none at all.  
It was answered by us: If you will not believe us, yet let Saint Chrisostomes' exposition be of some authority with you, who calleth it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, faith not of doctrine, but of miracles, saith Saint Chrisostome, even as we also do say: which faith the wicked may have as our Saviour Christ teacheth, and therefore all faith to work miracles, doth not contain that true 
Mat. 7. 22. 23.  faith, which doth justify him that hath it.  
Further they objected Saint Paul's words in his Epistle to the Galathians, Faith worketh by charity. 
Galat. 5.   
We answered, that unless faith do work by charity, it is no faith at all: but that made nothing against our justification by faith only. But here they reasoned against us thus.  
If faith only justify, than it justifieth without charity: But that was contrary to the text of the Apostles: Therefore only faith doth not justify.  
We answered, this Syllogism consisteth of four terms. For it is one thing to say that faith only doth justify, and another, that faith is not without charity. For when we say that only faith justifieth, we mean not to deny that charity is joined with that faith which justifieth, being inseparably united unto it: but that only faith and not charity is the means, by which we embrace jesus Christ our justification and righteousness. And this we endeavoured to make manifest by an example. The fire (quoth we) hath heat and light, which qualities can not be severed in that subject, yet the fire burneth by heat only, and not by light. Now if any will reason thus: If the heat of the fire only burn, than it burneth without the light of the fire: but that it can not do: Therefore it burneth not by heat only. They should show themselves to be absurd that so would reason, said we. And such is your reason against the justification of faith only, because it can not be separated from charity. Likewise though the parts of man's body be joined together, and one is not without another in a perfect body, yet doth the eye only see, and the ear hear only, and every part hath his distinct office.  
Then Master Sherwin alleged out of the Epistle to the Ephesians: Ipsius sumus factura, creati in Christo jesu in bonis operibus. 
Ephe,;  That is, We are his workmanship, created in Christ jesus in good works.  
We looked in the Greek Testament and found 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ad opera bona: unto good works, and so answered, that Saint Paul saith not, we are the creatures of God in Christ thorough good works, but that we are created of God in Christ to do good works: which Master Sherwin (looking upon the greek Testament) could not deny. Further we told Master Sherwin, that if he took that place in that sense, that we were created in good works, he was contrary to Master Campion, who granted that good works do come after the first grace, and not to be joined with our first creation in Christ jesus, as Master Sherwin would have it. And besides that we did admonish him, that the place by him alleged, did of all others most effectually make against them, and for us. For immediately before the words by him alleged, Saint Paul saith thus: Gratia enim estis saluati per fidem, & hoc 
Ephe. 2. 8, 9  non ex vobis, (Dei enim donum est) non ex operibus, ne quis glorietur. That is, You are saved by grace through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God, not of works, lest any man should boast himself. In this sentence of Saint Paul, every parcel (quoth we) maketh for us, and against you. The cause of our salvation is the grace of God, the instrument whereby we receive it, is faith, the false cause alleged by you is here excluded, that is, our works.  
Master Campion alleged, Qui instus est, iustificetur adhuc. 
Apoc. 22.  He that is righteous, let him be more and more righteous. And thereupon he said, he would not refuse to subscribe, that we be justified by faith only, so that we would subscribe, that being so justified, we ought afterward to walk forward more and more in the works of righteousness.  
We granted that we would so subscribe.  
But M. Sherwine said unto M. Campion, Take heed what you do.  
Then said Master Campion, If you will so subscribe and grant withal, that those good works are meritorious, or do merit, I will subscribe to faith only.  
Do you now come in with your merit, (said we?) we will none of it, neither will acknowledge any merit (quoth we) in respect of our justification, or of the kingdom of heaven, but only the merits of Christ's passion. And so our subscribing was dashed by master Campions' addition of merit to that, which before he 
The pamphleteers do say, that we refused to subscribe, not showing M. Campions addition of merits.  promised without any mention thereof.  
But you do know well (said master Campion) that often mention is made in the scripture of this word merces, that is of reward for our good works. And that at the last judgement it shall be said, Come into the kingdom ye blessed: For I was bungrie, and ye fed me, etc. So that these good works are mentioned as a cause or a mean at the least, of entering into the kingdom of heaven.  
We deny not (said we) but the word merces is often mentioned in the holy Scriptures, and that God will reward our good works, far above our deserving: but that merces, is ex mis●…ricordia Domini dantis, & non ex merito hominis accipientis. That reward is of the mercy of God giving it, and not of the merit of man receiving it. For when it is said, He that giveth a cup 
Matth. 10.  of cold water, shall not lose his reward: if you take that reward to be the kingdom of heaven, and the land of the living to be given for the merit thereof, surely you make it to be of more easy purchase, than any land in this world can be, be it never so little. And concerning the last judgement, the words of our Saviour, Come possess the kingdom prepared for you before the beginning of the world, may give you to understand, that it is not given for the merit of any their good works, which they could not do, before they were any thing. And the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Take ye the inheritance of the kingdom, showeth that it is given to us in Christ, as inheritance, which the Father giveth to his children freely, and is not purchased by our good works. Besides that, though our Saviour Christ will of his special grace and favour, remember those alms done to the poor in his name, and take them as done unto himself: yet were it an intolerable arrogancy for us to say, We fed thee when thou wast hungry etc. Or to say, Give us the reward of our cup of cold water, which thou promisedst we should not lose. Wherefore as we said, that merces and reward or hire, is of the grace and mercy of God giving it, and not of the merit of man receiving it, which is according to the true doctrine of the holy scriptures, that not flesh or man 
1. Corinth. 1. 29, 30, 31. Ephe. 2. 8, 9  do glory or rejoice, but that he who doth glory or rejoice in his justification and salvation, may glory and rejoice in the Lord only: For Saint Paul sayeth, Where is then thy rejoicing? 
Rom. 3. 27.  It is excluded, By what law? of works? Nay but by the law of faith. Therefore we conclude, that a man is justified by faith, with out the works of the law. And again: If Abraham 
Rom. 4. 2.  were justified by works, he hath wherein to rejoice, but not with God. For to him that worketh, the wages is not counted by favour, but by debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth in him that justifieth the ungodly, his saith is counted for righteousness. And again: Now if by grace, than not of works, for so grace is not now grace, etc. Thus far Saint Paul. Whereby you may see, that if justification and salvation should be attributed to the merits of man's good works, it would occasion boasting and glorying in the flesh, and challenging of our justification and salvation as due unto the merit of our works, & so much abate & abase the glory of God's grace, that grace should then no more deserve the name of grace. But if justification and salvation, be as it ought to be, given wholly unto God's grace and mercy, promised unto us in Christ jesus, which we do apprehend and lay hold of by faith only, as the only instrumental cause under God's grace: then is all the glory and honour of our justification given unto God only, without any merit of man. And so we conclude as we said before, that we mean not by faith only, to exclude the doing, but the meriting of good works.  
One of them alleged the words of our Saviour, He that 
Mark. 16.  believeth and is baptised, shallbe saved. And hereupon he said, We grant that n●… merit doth precede this faith.  
Whereunto one of us said, when he was baptised, and obtained that first grace and justification which Master Campion speaketh of, he may safely grant, that no good works do precede or go before that justification which he had in his infancy, the which no work at all do or can precede: but for his part (said he) when he doth consider, how after that first grace, he hath most ungraciously broken the vow made to God in Baptism, and how few and small good works he had done towards the attaining of any second justification which Master Campion speaketh of: how many and great evil works he hath done: how much of his life, his time and goods he had misspent: how little he had spent in the service and to the honour of God: how late he came to the lords vinyeard, and how loitering a labourer he had been in that short time: Surely (quoth he) for my part, when I do look upon my righteous works so few and so imperfect, and on the other side upon my unrighteous deeds so many and so sinful, I can not but think it to be a most damnable arrogancy, to challenge any part of that second righteousness, or of the kingdom of heaven, by so few and small good works: and do see how great occasion I should give thereby, that God should condemn me for my so many and great evil works, in respect of which I cannot but despair of any desert or merit towards that second justification that you do speak of. Here Master Campion, to show belike that he was no Pharisee: I must confess also (said he) that I have been most defective in all good works, and in deed a loitering labourer (as you term it) in the Lord's vinyeard.  
What remedy then quoth the other?  
The remedy (quoth Master Campion) is, the mercy of God in Christ jesus.  
That is (quoth the other) that I believe, and this my belief only in his mercies thorough Christ, and not in any late and loitering work, is that faith, that shall save me and you too, I trust: and therefore (quoth he) here (as in some good hope of our agreement, in this point of justification by faith only, without any merit of works, which we trust we have by the holy Scriptures, and by the ancient Doctors both Greeks and Latins, by examples, yea and by our consciences sufficiently proved) if it shall so please Master Lieutenant, let us make an end: and so we ended our conference.   

A brief recital of certain untruths scattered in the Pamphlets, and libels of the Papists, concerning the former conferences: with a short answer unto the same.  
WE thought it not amiss, here in the end, to note some of the principal points untruly set down by the authors of such Pamphlets, as have hitherto come to our hands concerning this conference. First, they leave no circumstances of Master Campions' imprisonment, his racking, sickness, lack of his note books, of his library, our sudden coming upon him etc. untouched. But they that will consider his bragging challenge made in his book, and prompt readiness to dispute with all protestants: how lately his book was before by him set out, and how fresh in his memory, and how we dealt with him only in his own book, and in a few points in the very beginning thereof: and did bring with us all those books which he himself had noted and alleged, and gave them into his hands: and ourselves also having made ready the places in the said books by him noted to ease his travel in seeking of them: who will (I say) consider these things, may hereby easily understand, their allegations of sudden taking of him, and his lack of books, to be most vain. And he himself by his loud speeches, and bold and busy gestures, showed no token of any either sickness or weakness: neither did himself then complain upon those difficulties, which the Pamphleteers hath so diligently & largely noted sithen.  
They do charge some of us and specially one with uncourteous words, and uncomely for professors of the Gospel (as they say) spoken to Master Campion and others. But they show not upon what occasion by Master Campion and others of his companions offered, these words were spoken. For when Master Campion did rise up from the form whereon he fate: did cast up and fling with his hands and arms: did knock and beat upon his book at every other word, with an exceeding loud voice and sharp countenance, affirming that all our printed books were false, and that he would procure true copies to be sent from the emperors Majesty, & from the Duke of Bavaria, and from another prince (whom we remember not) unto the Queen's Majesty: was it I pray you so outrageous in the Latin tongue, as severally to admonish Master Campion himself, without the understanding of the common auditory, for one of us to say, Qui hic mos est mi homo? Quis hic gestus? Et loqueris & pultas fores? Gloriosus miles. Proijcis ampullas, & sesquipedalia verba? We may be bold to say, that considering Master Campions bragging in English, and the admonition of the other in Latin, there was no such outrage as they do note. But this they much disdain, that he said once, Os impudens. Truth it is, but upon his often and fierce affirmation that all the printed books of Luther in England were false: and upon Pounds odious interpellations (as, we know you to be a good Terence man) and his most scornful looks through his fingers, staring upon him continually whiles he was reasoning with Master Campion, to put him out of his memory: he being offended both with pounds mockings, words and looks, and with Campions shameless sayings, broke out with Os impudens, as he thinketh, most deservedly on their parts.  
Yea, but he used the word obgannire, or oggannire. He denieth not, but coming by commandment to confer with Campion only, when two or three of them spoke together, and many other of them muttered, and sometime broke out into scornful laughter, he said, Siccine tam multos oggannire & obstrepere? This is the rage and railing wherewith the Pamphleteers do charge him.  
They say that he by a Commissioners check, put the priests that would have spoken, and Master Sherwin to silence. The truth is, that though we were sent only to Master Campion at that time, yet others did speak sometime, and Master Sherwin specially very much, & almost as much as did Master Campion. Whereupon not we, but Master Lieutenant told him, that he should be dealt with another time, and willed him then to quiet himself. Hereupon it is, that the Pamphleteers say, we should have used them as the Queen's prisoners. We say, they should have remembered, and behaved themselves as becomed prisoners, and not as Ruffians in all liberty, or licentiousness rather, as they in deed, and specially Master Campion in the forenoon behaved himself. And yet the Pamphleteers are not ashamed to write, The Catholics used no such words as did the Protestants, (and one of them specially) but being passing modest, went directly and soberly toche cause. And again, God gave Master Campion (speaking very mildly as he ever used) such modesty in answering. Thus writ they, etc. Then surely his speaking did much differ from his writing, as is to be seen by that his challenge and book, the most bragging and vain glorious, that ever was written. Now Sherwin hath his contrary commendation, of whom they writ thus. But Master Sherwin like himself, with excellent courage spoke. Master Sherwin here notably took the advantage. Cross blows were continually given to the Protestants, by Master Campion and Master Sherwin. Master Campion and Master Sherwin framed their reasons exceedingly well, with many such like commendations. But of us they writ, The Protestants shuffled up the matter. They answered to an argument of the Catholics, there be four terms in this syllogism, and no further answer. Silence here was their answer. M. day having belike of old collection an other place in store, spent much time in that impertinent question. The Dean of Paul's when he could do nought else, grinded with his teeth for despite & rage. And so the Catholics by the judgement of those that were not wholly wedded to will, did get the goal. Scilicet.  
But the Pamphleteers labour about nothing more, then to deliver Master Campion from the note and blemish of ignorance in the Greek tongue: whereof one of them writeth thus, The Dean of Paul's and Master Beale showed great ostentation towards Campion, in offering him a Greek Testament to read a text of Paul. To whom Master Beale said, Graecum est non potest legi, calling upon him to read if he could, etc., to the others utter defacing, if he could have procured it. But our good Lord gave the other such modesty in answering him, as all indifferent persons were edified by it. And refusing there to read (whereby Beale and the rest, were flatly then persuaded it was for lack of skill) in the end it fell out that Saint basil was offered him in Greek, and the book holden him by a minister, wherein he read skilfully, and by the hearing of all the auditory confessed the text to be as they alleged it, answering it as before. And withal (quoth he) let this man witness, whether I can read Greek or no? who in open hearing answered, Very well. Whereupon being confounded, We confess (quoth the Dean of Paul's) you can read Greek, whereat some might have blushed, if they had had any such good humour in them. Thus writeth one of them.  
Another of them reporteth the matter thus. It happened in process of their disputations, by occasion incident there was talk of a text of Scripture (which forsooth must be viewed by Master Campion) & to make the matter most plausible (as the Protestant's imagined) they caused a Greek testament to be brought unto him, which he refused to take, saying merrily to his contrary, it shallbe yours. At which doing many laughed, condemning him for ignorance of the tongue, and therefore gestingly by the Protestants it was said, Graecum est non potest legi. It is Greek, perhaps it cannot be read. Whereunto Master Campion gave no answer but rested at the matter, as a man unable to read Greek, or to understand the same. But it chanced not long after, that the Protestants as they had prepared before, were to allege a place out of Saint Basil the Greek doctor: and again thinking to give the Catholics another bob, they commanded again the book of that ancient father to be given to Master Campion that he might read, whom before they derided as not able to do the same. But he took the book, and having one of their ministers at his elbow, both read and gave the sense of the writer, and bade him bear witness that he was able to read and understand Greek: whereat there was some admiration made among the Protestants. and he was demanded why he did not so before? who mildly answered, that the print was over small. Why said they, had you not declared so much before? that had been sufficient. The like trial they made of an other Catholic, to wit Master Sherwin, who by report of his fellows and companions, is very well seen in the Greek and Hebrew tongues: yet he took the book and viewed it, but openly did not read, which was imagined that he did to be accounted ignorant in the tongue, or rather for that he was willed to hold his peace, for that there should be other times to talk. Thus they writ of this matter, far more largely and earnestly, then of any other. But the truth is, that when we had read the sentences out of the Greek Testament and Doctors once or twice ourselves, we offered the Greek Testament first, and afterwards Nazianzene in Greek to 
Both basil & Nazianzen were offered, but it was Nazianzen & not basil as they report.  Campion to read, that he might credit his own eyes, and that we alleged their words truly. But he refused to read in the Greek testament altogether, as themselves do here confess. And when Saint basil and Nazianzen in Greek were offered to him to read, he said once or twice, I know, I know, it is as ye have alleged: which we took to be a shift, to avoid the reading of it himself. But when he was urged, & Master Stollard who stood by, took the book and held it to him, he read, but so softly as it were to himself, that we may with good conscience protest before God, that we heard not one word: so far off was it that he read skilfully, & in the hearing of all the auditory, as they do write. But surely, whosoever did know Campions vain, may think that he would have read in the hearing of all the auditory in deed, had he had any knowledge in that tongue: and not so have whispered to himself, or in Master Stollardes' ear. Truth it is, that he said, Let this man witness whether I can read Greek or no. But why did he not read so, that not he alone, but that all we might have been witnesses thereof?  
But say they, Master Stollard said, he read very well. They only heard him so say belike: for of truth he said to us, If he did read at all, he read the worst that ever I heard, which some of us thought that Master Stollard spoke, for that we having read those few words of Nazianzen, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 once or twice before the book was given Campion, he might seem out of his memory to have repeated them, rather than to have read them out of the book. Now, that we should be in any admiration hereat as they writ, what cause was there? For that we should ask him why he did not so much before, who heard him then not read one word: or that the Dean of Paul's confounded should say, We confess you can read Greek: or that there was any cause given why we should blush or be confounded, are most impudent lies, and most meet for such reporters. Nay, rather may all Papists blush for Campions' sake, who making such a challenge, as though he had had all knowledge, in all learning and languages, when it came to the trial, upon conscience of his ignorance, durst not read openly one short sentence in Saint basil or Nazianzen, the books being of a large and fair print. Surely we before our coming thither, upon Campions own bragging challenge and book, and other men's reports of him, thought we should have been sore encumbered by his learning, and overmatched by his knowledge in the tongues: so far off was it, that we meant to make any ostentation therein towards him (as they writ:) but upon experience and trial with him, we found him not to be that man that we looked for, and went away with that opinion, that the book which was so suddenly after his bragging challenge, put in print, was none of his writing, much less penned by him as he was in his journey, as he reported himself: but that it was elaborate before, by the common and long study of all the best learned jesuits, to serve at all opportunities. To the same effect is the report of Sherwin, who looking upon the Greek Testament, and reading never a word, goeth yet away thereby, not only with the commendation of a man very well seen in the Greek and Hebrew tongues: but also of singular modesty and contempt of all praises, as seeking to be accounted ignorant in that, wherein he had great skill. For that they would have the cause of his not reading to be, for that he was willed to hold his peace, is very ridiculous: for he did oft speak, after he was so willed to hold himself contented: and then he was specially desired to read, and not to hold his peace. But we thought the truth to be, that when Sherwin had alleged out of the second to the Ephesians after the old translation, Creati in bonis operibus, we were created in good works: and the original Greek being showed unto him, when he found it to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ad bona opera, created to do good works: he looked in the beginning and in the end of the Greek Testament, trusting as we thought, that if he might have found, that it had been printed in any place, where the Gospel is preached, he might after Campions' example, have made a challenge to the print as false, (which is now become a special shift of the Papists, and the last refuge when all other do fail) but when he did see that it was Plantines print, he held his peace. Notwithstanding we do not think, but that Sherwin could read Greek, the ignorance whereof we neither objected to any, nor did make any ostentation (as they writ) of any our knowledge therein. Only we offered the books themselves unto Campion, that his own eyes might be witnesses, that the ancient fathers both Greeks and Latins did teach justification by faith alone, even as we do. By which occasion, God as we think by the opening of his ignorance, meant to control his vain glorious bragging of all knowledge and ability to deal with all men. Thus much, and to much of this matter, were it not that the reader may hereby understand, what vantages these writers and reporters do take unto themselves: yea and by speedy and continual spreading and beating of the same into the ears and heads of many, do much prevail also, until time the mother of truth, shall discover their untruths.  
But we may by no means dissemble another matter, by these Pamphleteers sore laid to our charge. Saint Augustine in the fourteenth chapter of his book De fide & operibus, was by some of them in our conference (as we think) alleged, as against our doctrine of justification by faith alone: but in that confusion of many speaking at once, it was not greatly by any of us marked or said unto, that we remember. But the authors of the Pamphlets do report this place of Saint Augustine, as by them of all other most effectually alleged against us. Their words be these. Unto this was added by the Catholics the authority of Saint Augustine out of his book De fide & operibus and the fourteenth 
August. De fide & operibus.  chapter, where he hath registered that this doctrine of justification by faith only, was an heresy taught in the Apostles time: for reformation whereof he declareth that Saint john, Saint Peter, S. Jude, and Saint james, did write their Epistles, wherein they so much inculcate the doctrine of good works. Thus they writ, thus they whisper in every ear open unto them, to the slander of us and our doctrine of justification by faith only, as not only an error, but an heresy also. But we do pray all indifferent readers, to consider of these manner of dealings. For Saint Augustine in that place writeth against the wicked opinion of those, who mistaking Saint Paul's words of justification by saith without works, do by an evil security neglect to live well, not seeking by true faith the help of God, to the overcoming of their own evil concupiscences, but do despise the works of righteousness, & by a dead faith do promise to themselves everlasting life. These be Saint Augustine's express words in that place truly translated, which they have most untruly and maliciously alleged against us, & against the heresy (as they term it) of justification by faith only: which they would have the simple people to mistake, as though we would exclude all things universally saving faith only: and did utterly cast away all care of good works, & godly life, yea, and all desire of God's grace to assist us, as did they against whom S. Augustine in that place did write. But we protest before God and all good men, that we never meant to make faith the chief and only cause of our justification, but that the grace and mercy of God by our saviour jesus Christ promised to the faithful in his holy word, is the principal and original cause, and very fountain of our justification: and that faith, not a dead faith (as they thought against whom S. Augustine doth write) but a lively faith (being wrought in our hearts by the said word of God, and by the operation of the holy ghost) believing Gods promise of his mercy in Christ, is the instrumental cause in us, whereby only we receive our justification, without the merit of our works: and yet being justified, we are most bound to walk in all good works, as much as it shall please God to give us grace thereunto, for the which we ought to sue by continual & most hearty prayer. Which our doctrine, you may see to be most contrary to the wicked opinion of those, against whom S. Augustine writeth in that place, and that therefore it is most falsely and maliciously alleged as against us, who by faith only justifying us, mean not to exclude the doing, but the merits of our good works, which is no heresy, wherewith these men would charge us, but the very truth itself taught in the holy Scriptures, and by the ancient godly fathers and learned doctors set down in the very same words which we do use, as hath been before at large declared.  
Of the conclusion of our conference the Pamphleteers writ thus. At the last, the Protestants did make a do, as though some thing had been won, when in my soul I protest there was not, but in any indifferent audience the adverse Protestants had been quite confounded. For Master Campion and Sherwin too, would have said much more in defence of their cause, but one of them by his Commissioners authority suddenly made an end, cutting them off from all further speech. Thus they do write. In deed when we had continued very long, and the sun shining upon our faces in at the South windows, and the throng being very great, and by occasion of both, the heat so intolerable, that some of us were fain to go out of the chancel to take breath, and to return again: and Master Campion and we being now come to a very near point of agreement in the question of justification, (as is afore noted in the end of our conference) we turning to Master Lieutenant, said, If it shall so please you, let us here make an end. With a good will said he: and so we broke off. And here is all the Commissioners authority, which they speak of, that we or any of us did take upon us. And thus ended our conference with Campion: the judgement of the truth of their or our reports whereof, we do leave unto God, and to those who were present thereat. Surely we by our notes set down, whiles our conference was yet fresh in memory, and by sundry conferences amongst ourselves sithen, and with other also, who were there present, yea and by diligent perusing of the pamphlets written against us, have endeavoured to set down all points that were dealt with, in our said conference, with as much truth concerning the substance of the matter, as our diligence and memory, and the remembrance of other also, could possibly attain unto.  
Alexander Nowell. William Daiie.    

¶ The three last days conferences had in the Tower with Edmund Campion jesuite, the 18: 23: and 27. of September. 1581. collected and faithfully set down by M. john Field student in Divinity.  
Now perused by the learned men themselves, and thought meet to be published.  
januarij. 1. 1583.   

❧ To the Christian Reader, grace and peace.  
THou hast here, gentle Reader, a true report of the whole substance of the conferences had in the Tower the last three days, faithfully gathered out of the notes of divers that wrote there, and afterward perused by the learned men themselves, and now lastly published by authority. If any man be inquisitive why they were set forth no sooner, he may understand, that being private conferences, it was thought not much requisite to make them publicly known, neither had they been now set forth, if the importunity of the adversaries, by their sundry untrue and contrary reports made and scattered amongst their favourites, had not even perforce drawn them forth. If Campions answers be thought shorter than they were, thou must know that he had much waste speech, which being impertinent, is now omitted: although I protest, nothing is cut off from the weight and substance of the matter: for of that, I made conscience, and had special regard. Again, if the repliers speeches seem to be more ample: it is, because their authorities then alleged only in Greek or Latin, are now at large put down, both in Greek, Latin, and English. But for the arguments and answers, I was even religious faithfully to report them, as they were. Wherein, I appeal to all the hearers in God's sight, to whose grace I commit thee.  
john Field.   

❧ A remembrance of the conference, had in the Tower with Edmund Campion jesuite, by William Fulke, and Roger Goad Doctors in Divinity, the 18. of September, 1581. as followeth.  
AFter that Master D. Fulke had made a godly prayer for direction in that action, that it would please God to confirm the faithful, and to confound the obstinate and wilful, & that Campion denying to pray with them, had superstitiously all to be crossed himself, Master D. Fulke began with this preface in effect.  D. Fulke. 
Where as there hath been some proceeding with you before, and we are come by order to the third chapter of your book, where you slander our Church of England & the whole Church of God, for the definition of the Catholic Church, for that we define it so, as it should be invisible: we come to prove both by the Scriptures and Fathers, that it is invisible. But this I would have known unto you, that our purpose is not to deal by discourse, but briefly by Logical arguments, according to the order of schools, etc.  
After he had inquired D. Fulkes name, Campion also spoke after this manner.  Campion. 
The disputation that I desire, is yet behind: for I desire it might be in the Universities. This may be called a conference, but it is not the disputation which I require. Besides, these conferences are unequal, both in respect of the suddenness of them, as also for want of such necessary helps as were fit and convenient. I see that you have some appointed to note, as if it were made a solemn matter. I should have the like, so should I have come better furnished, and all these might have been better profited. Besides, I have been ill dealt withal already, & things heretofore spoken by me, have been mistaken, and published in print otherwise then I ever meant.  D. Fulke. 
For the suddenness, it is all alike with us. Master Lieutenant sent you word by my request, to choose the question yourself on Saturday last at noon: so that you had knowledge of the question as soon as we, and also the choice and appointing thereof. As for the noting, it is not made so solemn a matter that 
Here was speech, that nothing was meant by the noting, but a private matter, & to prevent false reports.  it can prejudice you, but to prevent false reports that may be spread of the conference, injurious as well to you as to us. As for the disputation you require, it is not at our appointment: It must be ordered by them that are to appoint both you and us. We come by commandment, etc. but let us go to the matter. You slander us, and Master Caluine likewise, in the third chapter of your book, for defining of the Catholic Church as we do. You say we make it a Platonical Idea, an airy thing, that is no where etc. But I will prove that it is against the nature of the Catholic Church, at any time to be visible.  Campion. 
Where do I slander you or Caluine? Read my book, I will maintain my book and every part of it. And as for the Catholic Church, I will maintain, that from the time of Adam to Christ, and from Christ unto us, the Church hath been visible. But because you say I slander you and Caluine, show my words.  D. Fulke. 
These are your words. Non est ausus contravenire sonitu, videri noluit Ecclesiae quam toties Scripturae commemorant, refragari, nomen callidè retinuit, rem ipsam funditùs definiendo sustulit etc. And ye quote Cal. Institut. lib. 4. cap. 1. Sect. 2. & 3. Here you plainly slander Caluine and us, for defining the Catholic Church (comprehending all the elect of God that have been, are, or shallbe) to be invisible.  Camp. 
The Catholic Church is considered according to her parts, triumphant in heaven, and militant on earth: generally, & particularly: and I am ready to maintain, that always the militant Church in earth is visible: every 〈◊〉 in his mayor knoweth this, who in their prayers pray for the Church militant: therefore this is the point, whether this be always visible?  Fulke. 
Well then it appeareth in the very beginning that you serve from the title of your own book, slandering us without cause, for the definition of the whole Catholic Church, and Sophistically you go from the whole to a part, from the Catholic Church to the Church militant, which is but a part of it, when as the whole Catholic Church comprehendeth all the elect, and is the full body of Christ, that filleth all in all things, as the Apostle sayeth, and as we confess in the articles of our faith, We believe the Catholic church. We deny not that the church militant sometime is visible: but we affirm that the whole Catholic Church, whereof our definition is given, is not visible. And what cause have you then to exclaim upon Caluine and us, for defining the Catholic Church to be invisible: This we are here ready to prove.  Camp. 
I have said, that upon earth the Church is always visible. But I pray you let us speak of the Church militant. I am sure these gentlemen would hear, not of a Church of Saints in 
And this he spoke with great jollity & scoffingly.  heaven, but of a Church in earth, w●…etd they may join themselves, what should we talk of the Church in heaven? They would rather know I am sure, of what Church they are here: Ask them.  Fulke. 
Well then you are found recreant in this paint, openly to slander our definition to be such as should take away the nature of the Church, in that we make it invisible, and now when it cometh to the trial, you will not deal with the Catholic Church, whereof our definition is given: but with a part of it, to wit, that which is upon earth, which we never denied in some sense to be always visible, because it consisteth of men upon earth, although it be not always seen, because it is oftentimes hidden from the world, and sometimes also from the true members thereof. But this Church upon earth you will have to be always visible. Seeing therefore you give over the defence of your slander of our definition of the Catholic Church, which we came prepared to maintain: we are ready also to reason of the church militant.  Campion. 
The state of the question is, that the Church militant upon earth, can not be hidden, but it is always known, so that a man may understand of what Church he is. etc.  Fulke. 
The case may be such as a member can know no more but himself: what mean you by visible?  Campion. 
I mean to be visible, is to know one another, to meet at Sacraments, when I can tell that I am of this church, and you of that, I a Catholic, and you a Protestant, as I certainly know there is a Church in France, a church in Spain, and in Flaunders, though I be far from it, and we may know 
Here was much a do about writing, & yet I never knew any thing imprinted that might prejudice him  one another: a member can say, This is my pastor, these are my prelate's and governors. This is plain. I would to God I had one also to write for me. I pray you let me not be mistaken, for I have had great wrong that ways, and things have been put in print, that I never spoke or meant.  Fulke. 
If we have this discoursing, we shall never have done: I would you would be brief. I will prove from a place of scripture, that the church militant (understanding visible as you say) is not always visible in earth. Elias complaineth, that he was left 
1. Argument.  alone etc. Ergo the Church was not then visible.  Campion. 
I deny the Antecedent, & further declare the meaning of the place, which maketh altogether for me. For Elias setteth out the schismatical church of the Samaritans. In this schismatical church, a member being driven out, (as sometime it falleth out to be) the world turning and changing, he might not know the rest: but yet knew there were 7000. that never bowed their knees to Baal. Again, you must not bring a particular to overthrow a general. There were none there: therefore there were none in other places. But this place is an excellent place against you. For as the Prophet complained there, so we may justly complain now, O Lord they have forsaken thy covenant, they have destroyed thine altars, and slain thy prophets with the sword, and I am left alone etc. Yet no doubt, there were many: as for example, I might have complained of Geneva, when I was there, that I had been alone, not knowing of any other Catholic there. Were all the Protestants in England in Queen Mary's time gone? were there none? and are all Catholics now gone? Whatsoever they be, I know certainly there is a Church in France etc. And so then there was a flourishing church in judea, under Asa, and jehosaphat, whither Elias was flying for succour and relief etc.  Fulke. 
I thought we should have discoursing. You declare yourself utterly ignorant in all this matter. For where were these words spoken?  Camp. 
They were spoken as he was flying into judea, to the church whither he knew to repair, teaching us what to do in the like case.  Fulke. 
That is not true, they were spoken in mount Horeb, as he was in the wilderness, after he was fled from the persecution of jezebel, when she had determined his death.  Campion. 
The text is plain, Venitque Beersebae judeae etc. He came to Beerseba of judea etc.  Fulke. 
His flight was into the wilderness, & Beersheba was in his way, where he left his servant, & so went forward into the wilderness. For Beersheba was the utmost town in judea towards Horeb, & both Beersheba & the wilderness of Arabia, were from judea towards Horeb. And therefore the text saith, Ipse verò perexit He went forward etc. continuing his journey to the wilderness, and therefore it is not true you said, he went into judea, to join himself with the Church, or to seek relief there.  Campion. 
But his complaint was of a particular place, for the Church flourished in judea under two notable kings, Asa and jehosaphat. And when he sayeth, Ego solus, he meaneth that he was the only prophet that was left etc.  Fulke. 
This answer cannot stand with the oracle, which pronounceth that God had left 7000. true worshippers. Wherefore it is manifest, that Elias thought himself the only true worshipper that was left in Israel, except you will say there were 7000. prophets, whereof he was ignorant. But ye answer that the church was then so visible, that he knew whither to resort. But I will prove that the church of judea, (unto which the congregation of Israel, if they be a true church must be joined) was so invisible at some time, that it had not so much as the face of a church, whither any man in Elias case might resort. It is written 2. king. 16. that under the reign of Achas, there was taken a pattern of the Altar of the idolaters of Damascus, & that Urias the high Priest removed the Altar of the Lord. Whereby it appeareth, that the priesthood was corrupted, 
Here the words of the text were read.  the altar was removed, and the sacrifices utterly ceased, etc.  Campion. 
That might well be. For there might be such a time, and the case might so fall out, that there could be no exercise of the priestly function, & yet it might remain visible enough, etc.  Fulke. 
Very well, what visibility could there be in those days of Achas, Manasses, and such like, when there was no face at all of an outward Church, neither in the head nor in the members, when the high Priest was become an idolater? How could they know whither to resort, the Temple being defiled, and the priesthood itself so defiled with idolatry? etc.  Camp. 
What mean you by the face of a Church? It might for all this be known, though they could not exercise their function.  Fulke. 
How could that be? when there was no outward form of a Church, it failed in the head, in the chief, & in the members. There was no place for their public sacrifices, seeing that only place, to which they were bound to resort, was defiled with heathenish idolatry. For it must be there and no where else. And I doubt not but there were particular members, that were known to God, or might know one another: yet was there not a visible Church, as you determine of the word visible, to be, when men know their pastors & prelate's, and the place whither to resort, etc.  Campion. 
I say, the days were as these days are now to Catholics, or as they were to you in the days of Queen Mary, to them that are in prison: & yet we know there were protestants left, and those that were in prison knew well enough to resort unto them, that were abroad: and so of the Catholics, though now Mass be forbidden, and the execution of their priesthood, yet Catholics know Catholics, and whither to resort for the exercise of Catholic religion.  Fulke. 
But in judaea they knew not whither to resort, when the temple itself was defiled, where only by the law of God the sacrifice was appointed to be offered. Therefore although there were a Church then, yet it could not be visible.  Camp. 
Read the words: The kings of juda were as our kings, & as I said, before the times turned, there was many changes. But doth this follow: there is no church in England where Mass is said (which I dare say many catholics love, & would go 
Bold asse●…●…rations.  a great way to hear with all their hearts:) Ergo there are no Catholics in England. They had no open Communions in Queen Mary's time: ergo there were none, etc.  Fulke. 
You make bold comparisons, you cloy us with words and go from the matter. We say not that the Church could ever perish out of the earth for one moment of time, or that they were not, because they were not seen, but we say against your assertion, the Church in judaea was not visible, because there was neither place nor sacrifice, nor high Priest, etc. The Priest was wicked, the Temple was defiled, etc. Now all kingdoms may profess religion, and have their exercises thereof in all places, though they could not do so in judaea.  Campion. 
You have made a good argument for me, Master Doctor. I will knit it up with this: though they might only exercise in the Temple, yet we may every where: and though Elias saw them not, yet there were thousands: so though it be not permitted now to say Mass publicly, and to exercise our functions, yet there are thousands.  Fulke. 
Here is nothing but repetitions. All this is not denied, but where is the visibility of this Church upon earth known to men, (as for God he always knoweth them that are his) when the head Pastor, and the only place of exercise of jewish religion was corrupt.  Campion. 
And yet there was Tobias in Israel, and other. 
Tobias was of another time, for it was from the days of Achab unto Salmanazar 140. years at the least.   Fulke. 
That is not the matter: it was not visible, because they had no other place to exercise in but the Temple at jerusalem, which at these times was polluted, the very Altar of God being removed, and an idolatrous altar set in the place.  Campion. 
That is not alike, for we have our functions free, we may sacrifice every where, & say Mass upon every mountain.  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 be no visibility. You answer nothing to the matter, but abuse the presence with multitude of words, and therefore committing the judgement to them that be wise and learned, I will give place unto my brother.  Mast. D. Goad. 
Concerning the short warning, the case is all one with us, as it was with you, we had no longer deliberation than you had, little above one days space, concerning the question, and therefore you have no cause to complain, etc.  Campion. 
What shall I call your worship's name?  Goad. 
My name is Goad.  Campion. 
Yes that may appear by this preparation, as it were to a set and solemn thing, these books also declare, besides the bringing of a writer with you, etc.  Goad. 
Well, all these concern not the matter, you had word assoon as we, and were so made acquainted with the question, as it was of your own choice, etc. but in deed you are gone from the state of the question, against which we came prepared, being of the whole Catholic Church, as your own book doth import, and it is apparent that you have wrongfully challenged our definition, being (as hath been truly said) of the Church in general: well we must I see now, follow whether you lead us. We must leave the Catholic Church, and talk of the militant Church, the general, & go to a particular. One thing before I join with you I would wish you to forbear, namely your dealing with the present state and personal speeches, it will better beseem modesty, and pertain more to the matter we have in hand, etc. which may be performed with less waste of words and more humility. You answer not to the report I have heard of you, for modest behaving yourself in conference.  Campion. 
Concerning myself, I will lay my hands under your feet, but I must not humble God to you, you know who saith, Ne sis humilis in sapientia tua, be not humble in thy wisdom. I must with courage maintain religion. Haec est sapientia vestra coram populo, this is your wisdom before the people, etc. I must not be prayed in religion.  Goad. 
How fitly those places of Scripture are applied, I will not now stand to discuss: but concerning the state of the question as yourself set it down, you are fallen from it. And the Church even as it is upon earth, being but a part of the Catholic Church, I will prove sometime to be hidden. But what mean you when you write that it must be of the nature of the Church, to be visible?  Campion. 
I mean that it must be an essential mark of the Church, and such a quality as is inseparable. It must be as visible, as fire is hot, water moist, etc.  Goad. 
Very good: but as you understand this quality of 
Campion ●…greeth not with others of his own side.  visibility, you declare yourself to dissent from others of your side, who by visible, understand a notable glorious Church, who hath her beauty and pomp & as your Bristol writeth her continual succession of Bishops, etc.  Campion. 
That same outward pomp and glory, may be wanting, and yet the Church be visible enough. I would be loath to meddle with that question of succession. You know why I would not willingly deal in it.  Goad. 
Well, as hath been proved out of the old testament that there was a time when the Church militant was hidden, so will I prove it out of the new. There was a time when our 
2. Argument.  Saviour Christ being smitten, and all the rest of the Apostles scattered and hidden, that visibility was not an inseparable quality, ergo this quality is not always inseparable.  Campion. 
I deny the Antecedent.  Goad. 
I think any here might prove the Antecedent: the story of that time showeth it plain. The face of the visible Church was then not in Christ & his Apostles, but in the jews amongst the Scribes and Pharisees: they had the succession of the Priesthood and held the chairs. Christ was crucified, put to death and buried, the Apostles scattered and fled into holes and corners, so that if visibility be such a certain mark of the true Church, than the high Priests, Scribes and Pharisees, were the true Church, and not our Saviour Christ and his Apostles.  Campion. 
It was a Church in choate, beginning, not perfect.  Goad. 
Therefore it was at sometime hidden, etc. namely in the beginning of the Church: where was then this visibility?  Campion. 
In the virgin Marie, Zacharie, john baptist, Peter, etc.  Goad. 
What show you me these to prove the Church visible? who was Pastor, when the Pastor was smitten and killed? who occupied the chairs? where was the outward face of the Church, which you will have to be so glorious? and where was the Pastor and outward exercise of Religion?  Campion. 
I have said before, that it is not necessary, it should have always that outward pomp and glory. In the beginning, it is not apparent, as afterwards.  Goad. 
Ergo there is a time, when it may be hidden.  Campion. 
Not hidden, for they were gathered together. It was in deed pusillus grex, a little flock, but prove that it was not visible.  Goad. 
Because you make light account of these times, as being but the beginnings of the Church, let us go on to the proceed and increase. In those great persecutions under the cruel Emperors, the Church became hid and invisible, ergo visibility is not an inseparable mark: specially in thee time of Dioclesian, Christians were so wasted as to the judgement of men, there were none remaining: their books were burnt, their churches destroyed, and themselves put to death with sundry torments.  Camp. 
You answer yourself. For against whom was this ●…secution so hot, against whom fought they, were they shadows: I am sure there were Christians, or else they could not have stood forth to have endured those torments: but I could show you Rome in that time. Some escaped till Constantine's time, much about three and twenty years. All were not eaten up: for then every man would be a Christian, and well was he that could show himself so. I could name you the Bishop of Rome that then was.  Goad. 
But in the end after that great havoc was made, and cruelty had wasted all that could be found, where was then 
Pillars were erected in every place with this blasphemous inscription; superstitione Christi ubiq▪ deleta, etc.  the visible Church: In the end it was enforced to be hidden. It had lost that which you say must needs be of the nature of it, the glory 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, all were Christians: Whereby it appeareth that divers remained.  Goad. 
That is not to the point: though some remained, yet they were hid. All being persecuted and put to death that could be known or found.  Campion. 
The time of these persecutions, was even like to our times. For then the Christians were exiled, put to death, driven into corners, as the Catholics are now, and yet there remained enough, etc. and they were known.  Goad. 
Surely you make evil and untrue conparisons, you have no such cause to complain of bloody persecutions in the time 
The Papists call justice for treason, persecution for religion.  of our gracious Queen, and do not well to compare her highness peaceable and mild government with those tyrannical persecutions: ye might better liken your cruelty showed in Queen Mary's time to those examples. I had thought to have found more modesty in you.  Campion. 
Well, let the comparison be of Q. Mary's time: then Protestants were put to death, & yet there remained many.  Goad. 
The question is not whether they remained, but whether they were seen. But you said of those emperors times, that there remained many, and they were not unknown. They were unknown both to the faithless and faithful: ergo they were altogether unknown.  Campion. 
I deny both parts of the antecedent.  Goad. 
Then I must prove both distinctly, and first touching the faithless. The faithless could not know the Church: therefore they did not know it.  Camp. 
They knew it not by faith, but by sense they knew it.  Goad. 
john 3. The world knoweth not us, because it knoweth not him.  Campion. 
I told you they did not know him as they ought to know him, to salvation. They knew, but not fruitfully and effectually. As I know you are a Protestant, but yet believe not your religion. And a man that saith Mass is known, and yet you do not believe in it.  Goad. 
But though the persons were known, yet they knew them not to be of the Church. I will come to the other part of the antecedent.  
As is the whole so are the parts:  
But God only knoweth the whole:  
Ergo he only knoweth the parts. For the members of Christ are known to Christ alone. By reason of many hypocrites, men are not able to judge who are truly faithful. There are many wolves within, and many sheep without: Deus novit qui sunt sui, 2. Tim. 2. God knoweth who are his, therefore the true members of Christ can not be known but to God alone.  Campion. 
I know not who is elect, but I know who is a Catholic: I know not whether the Bishop of Rome be elect or no, etc.  Goad. 
Only the elect are of the Church, whereof Christ is the head.  Camp. 
I say that both good & evil are of the visible Church.  Goad. 
Christ hath no dead members of his body: therefore the reprobate can not be of the Church. I will help you with a distinction. They may be in the Church, but not of the Church.  Campion. 
The distinction is Caluins, and therefore I refuse it. But you answer yourself, for evil men may be viva membra Christi, the lively members of Christ in respect of faith, but not in respect of charity. A man may be a member of the body of Christ, as it is here in earth, being a wicked man: but only the godly are 
Strange Divinity.  members of his body as it is in heaven. Your own argument doth confound you. It is impossible to know the elect: therefore it is impossible the Church should be invisible.  Goad. 
It is your part to answer, not to oppose: you use many words & grant absurdities. Your argument doth not follow.  Campion. 
You cannot know any particular man to be elect, you cannot pronounce it of yourself: therefore you cannot measure the Church by election. than it remaineth the Church must be visible, because it must be known.  Goad. 
To be elect or true members of Christ is one thing, & to be in the visible Church is another.  Campion. 
This was Wickliefes error that only the elect were true members of the Church: but as I have said, no man can know who is elect, and therefore you teach that no man can know a member of the Church, nor no man can know that he shall be saved.  Goad. 
Particular election is not so unknown as you would make it: for a man may have knowledge of his own election by undoubted testimonies, and see the signs of election in others.  Fulke. 
You said before that visibility was an inseparable quality of the Church, whereupon I reason thus.  
If it be an inseparable quality, it is an inseparable note: 
The third argument.   
But it is not an inseparable note:  
Ergo not an inseparable quality.  Campion. 
I deny both the Mayor and the Minor: both may be doubted of.  Fulke. 
I will prove both.  Campion. 
Give me leave: A note is more than a quality. The quality is to go right, to go the nearest and gainest way, the safest way. A note is a mark that may be removed, that teacheth to turn on the right hand, or on the left, by this cross, or by that windmill or mark, etc.  Fulke. 
I grant there is a difference between a note and a quality, and you needed not so many words to have showed that, but I speak of an inseparable note, and an inseparable quality. That quality which is inseparable, being also a note, must needs be an inseparable note. Also of that yourself have said, that it is an essential quality. I will prove the Mayor.  
Whatsoever mark is of the essence or nature, is inseparable:  
The visibleness is a mark which is of the essence and nature of the Church:  
Therefore it is an inseparable mark.  Campion. 
It is an inseparable quality, but not an inseparable note, but after a sort: for a quality must evermore stand, but a mark may be taken away.  Fulke. 
The question is, whether it be an inseparable note of the Church that cannot be taken away.  Campion. 
I say it may be, in a sense.  Fulke. 
I know not what sense you speak of, but this is evident by your own confession, the visibleness of the Church is a mark, and it is of the nature. Ergo it is inseparable. so my Mayor is plain.  Campion. 
Prove your Minor.  Fulke. 
There was a time when visibleness was no note of the Church: ergo it is not an inseparable note.  Campion. 
I deny the Antecedent.  Fulke. 
There was a time, when the Church was only known by the Scriptures: therefore there was a time when visibleness was no note of the Church.  Campion. 
I deny both the Antecedent and the consequent.  Fulke. 
I will prove both, and first the Antecedent.  Cam. 
Nay prove the consequent first, & then the antecedent.  Fulke. 
Why, the other is first, both in order and nature.  Campion. 
Nay. Whensoever the consequent is denied, you must strait prove the argument.  Fulke. 
That is, if the consequent only be denied, but seeing you deny both, I will first prove that which in nature & order is first, and afterward I will prove the other, (if it need.) It is but a sorry shift of you, to decline from the point of the question. Chrysostom saith, that Christianity which is the Church, is to be known only by the Scriptures. He hath these words, Tantummodoper scripturas: nullo modo: nulla probatio, etc. 
Homil. in Math. 24. There is no other proof, there is none other way to know the Church or true Christianity, but only by the Scripture.   
Wherefore thus I frame my argument out of Chrysostoms' place.  
The Church is to be known only by the Scriptures:  
But visibility is not the Scriptures:  
Ergo the Church is not to be known by visibility. Or thus.  
The only note to know the Church by, is the holy Scriptures:  
Uisibilitie is not the holy Scriptures:  
Ergo visibility is not a note to know the Church by.  Campion. 
Yea, out of the Scriptures the Church may be known, for the Scriptures appoint visibleness to be a mark of the Church. But I deny the Minor.  Fulke. 
Do you say then, that visibility is the Scripture?  Campion. 
I say, visibility is contained in the Scriptures.  Fulke. 
My Minor is, that visibleness is not the Scripture, & so upon my Mayor, which is Chrysostom's authority, I conclude that visibleness is no mark of the Church.  Campion. 
I know Chrysostom's place, he denieth not visibleness to be a note. You may go to an other argument.  Fulke. 
You would not hear Chrysostom by your will, but he shallbe read by your leave.  
Tunc cum videritis abominationem desolationis stantem in loco sancto, id est, cum videritis haeresim impiam, quae est exercitus Antichristi stantem in locis sanctis Ecclesiae: in illo tempore qui in judea sunt, fugiant ad montes, id est, qui sunt in Christianitate, conferant se ad scripturas. Sicut enim verus judeus est Christianus dicente Apostolo, non qui in manifesto, sed qui in occulto: sic vera judea, Christianitas est, cuius nomen intelligitur confessio. Montes autem sunt scripturae Apostolorum aut Prophetarum, de quibus dictum est: Illuminas tu mirabiliter a montibus aeternis. Et iterum de ecclesia dicit: fundamenta eius in montibus sanctis. Et quare jubet in hoc tempore omnes Christianos confer se ad Scripturas? Quia in tempore hoc, ex quo obtinuit haeresis illas Ecclesias, nulla probatio potest esse verae Christianitatis, neque effugium potest esse Christianorum aliud volentium cognoscere fidei veritatem, nisi Scripturae divinae. Antea enim multis modis ostendebatur, quae esset Ecclesia Christi, & quae gentilitas: nunc autem nullo modo cognoscitur volentibus cognoscere quae sit vera Ecclesia Christi, nisi tantummodò per scripturas, etc. Then when you shall see the abomination of desolation standing in that holy place, that is, when you shall see an ungodly heresy, which is the army of Antichrist, standing in the holy places of the Church: in that time, they which are in jury, let them fly to the mountains, that is, they that are in Christianity, let them get them to the Scriptures. For as the true jew is a Christian (as the Apostle sayeth) not which is in open sight, but which is in secret: so true jury (whose name is understood to be confession) is Christianity. And the mountains are the Scripture of the Apostles and Prophets: of whom it is said, Thou dost give light marvelously from the everlasting mountains. And again he sayeth of the Church, Her foundations are in the holy hills. And wherefore doth he command all Christians in this time, to get them to the Scriptures? Because in this time, since heresy hath obtained those Churches, there can be no trial of true Christianity, neither can there be any other escape of Christians, which would know the truth of the faith, but the Divine Scriptures. For before times, it was showed by many ways which was the Church of Christ, and which was gentility: but now to them that would know which is the true Church of Christ, it is known by none other means, but only by the Scriptures. This is plain for the Antecedent. And these particles are plain, Nullo modo cognoscitur, It is known by no means, there is no other proof, but tantummodò per Scripturas, only by the Scriptures.  Campion. 
Master Doctor you know the order, I deny the consequent, you prove the Antecedent.  Fulke. 
You denied the Antecedent, and therefore it was necessary for me to prove it. But this place also doth prove the Consequence of mine argument, which you denied. Let me see how you can answer to the place.  
All other marks in time of heresy or schism, by Chrysostom's judgement are excluded, but only the Scriptures:  
Therefore visibility also is excluded from being a mark of the Church.  Campion. 
When the Church was first planted, there was miracles, by which it might be known: but now they ceasing, it is to be known (sayeth Chrysostom) only by the Scriptures: meaning that it is not to be known by miracles, etc.  Fulke. 
This answer is a senseless cavil, which is easily avoided. For there is an Antithesis or opposition in Chrysostom's words: how it was known before, that is, multis modis by many ways, and how it may be known now, by one only way, tantummodo per Scripturas, only by the Scriptures. For now that Antichrist is revealed, he excludeth all ways, except one, & sayeth it must be known only by the Scriptures. Therefore he excludeth visibleness as well as miracles, from being an inseparable note of the Church.  Campion. 
It excludeth miracles, etc.  Fulke. 
Well then your answer is, that nullo modo: nulla probatio: & tantummodò: excludeth nothing but miracles.  Campion. 
Yea, and that appeareth by the words, Ante tempus Antichristi. For whereunto else should nunc and ante be referred, except it had meant by aunt, before the primative Church, and nunc now by the present and instant time.  Fulke. 
You do but talk. you cannot so put away, Nulla probatio, No proof. Nullo modo, by no mean it is known, but tantummodo per Scripturas, only by the Scriptures, etc. He speaketh of all times since heresies have occupied the Churches. If you will answer no otherwise, I will rest upon judgement.  Campion. 
I have answered, but I would to God I had a notary: well, I commit all to God. But I pray you note that I say, that visibility is included in the Scriptures.  Goad. 
I will examine this cause by a manifest place, one of the strongest that is alleged by those of your side, to prove the visibility of the Church: namely, that out of the 5. of Matthew, A city that is builded on a hill, can not be hid, whereupon they infer, therefore the Church must needs be always visible.  Campion. 
If it please you, though it be commonly alleged, yet it is allegorical. There are many stronger places, and you were best take a more pregnant place, etc.  Goad. 
It is alleged by Hosius, and others on your side, to this purpose, and therefore I chose it: notwithstanding, if you shun it and would have me to omit it, I will.  Campion. 
No, I say there are apt and stronger places: nevertheless I shun it not, but because of these hearers, we should seek most for edification, and it is the special cause of our meeting.  Goad. 
Thus than I reason:  
This special place alleged by those of your side, can not be 
4. Argument.  understood of the Church: Ergo it proves not this visibility  Campion. 
I deny the Antecedent.  Goad. 
I would be glad, for the better weighing of this place, that you would remember what yourself hath written, concerning the finding out of the sense of any place of Scripture, in the second chapter of your book. I would you had been as reasonable in other things of your book, and then we should have agreed better: for the rule is very good to help to the true sense, that the circumstances of the place be considered, the words that go before, 
Camp. ratione secunda. Hanc pervestigemus ex verbis adiacentibus. voces, clausul●…, tota connexio.  that follow after, the scope, the clauses, and whole context. Now both out of that which goeth before, and of that which followeth, out of the whole scope and drift of the place, it is evident to be spoken only of the Apostles, and their successors in the ministery: Ergo it is only to be understood of them, and not of the whole Church.  Campion. 
I deny the Antecedent.  Goad. 
Whatsoever is spoken properly of the Apostles doctrine and life, can not be understood of the whole Church:  
But this is properly spoken of their doctrine and life:  
Therefore it can not be understood of the whole Church.  Campion. 
You must not petere principium. It was not only spoken in respect of the Apostles function, but of the whole church, no otherwise then as the Apostles were Christians, including the whole Church.  Goad. 
Then that commandment, Bibite ex hoc omnes, Drink ye all of this, spoken to the Apostles, much more must include the whole Church, being spoken of the sacrament which appertaineth to all, and yet ye exclude the people from the cup.  Campion. 
This was not spoken to them as they were Christians, but in respect of their function, as they were priests: the other was spoken as they were Christians.  Goad. 
Neither of these is true: but briefly deny one part of my argument.  Campion. 
I deny the minor.  Goad. 
Out of the circumstances of the place and conclusion, it is manifest, that it is properly spoken of the Apostles doctrine and life, and not of the whole Church. Consider the words. Vos estis sal terrae, You are the salt of the earth. Vos estis lux mundi, etc. You are the light of the world. Non potest civitas abscondi, etc. A city can not be hid. Then the conclusion: Sic luceat lux vestra, So let your light shine, etc. You are the salt of the earth, noteth the Apostles doctrine, wherewith they should season others. You are the light of the world, noteth their life, whereupon all men's eyes are cast, and so can no more be hid then a city upon an hill. Both these points are proper to the ministery, and hereupon the conclusion inferred, So let your light shine, etc.  Campion. 
You have very well answered yourself: For the text containeth both. There is the salt and the earth: the light and the world: who must season, and who must be seasoned: who must shine, and to whom they must shine. Do you not see plainly, that he includeth both the teachers, and them that are taught? etc.  Goad. 
Now you fall to discoursing clean besides the purpose. It is true that the one can not be without the other, but yet it is plain, that to season, to lighten, and to be set as upon an hill, is proper alone to the Apostles and their ministery. For the drift and scope of the place, is only to set forth the Apostles doctrine & conversation, and you violently wrist it to the whole Church. The life of the ministery, is as it were set upon an high stage, the light of their conversation is looked unto of all: what is this to the 
Absurdity: ergo precepts given to the M. his calling are given to the family.  visibility of the whole Church?  Campion. 
Very well, doth a candle shine to itself? and is not a master of a family, a Master? and that which is spoken to him, may it not be said also to them?  Goad. 
I pray you how holdeth this argument? The life and doctrine of the ministery is as it were set upon a stage for all men to look unto, and therefore they are called the salt of the earth, the light of the world: Ergo the whole Church is visible. This is the force of your argument from this place.  Camp. 
I have said the text maketh not for you. It is not understood of their ministery and life only, as they were Apostles, but as they were Christians.  Goad. 
As I have proved this out of the text, so now I will show this to be the sense out of the Fathers, both Chrysostom and Jerome upon the place.  Campion. 
You may spare your labour, you shall never find 
Here M. D. Goad was turning for Chrys. upon this place, and he willed that it might be showed at the next meeting.  Doctor that understandeth it only of the ministery: I tell you that aforehand.  Goad. 
Yes I will show out of Chrysostom, that it is only understood of the ministery, and of their life: in the afternoon according to your request, the place shallbe showed.  Campion. 
It is a common and an usual kind of speech, to utter that to the master, which is meant to the servants.  Goad. 
Will you believe none but yourself? hearken what Saint Jerome saith upon this place.  Campion. 
Yes, if you would believe Jerome, as well as I, we should be soon agreed. What think you, is Jerome of your religion? would you be of his?  Goad. 
I would not be of any man's religion, to build upon man. I hold neither of one nor other, but of Christ, and ground my religion only upon his word. But remember your strong place you spoke of, to prove the perpetual visibility of the church. Let us hear what it is.  Campion. 
Shall I then have one argument?  Goad. 
Yea let us hear it: you shallbe answered, though it be not your part to oppose.  Campion. 
It is out of Matthew chap. 18. Dic Ecclesiae, Tell the Church. I will prove out of this place, that the Church of necessity must continually be visible. I prove it thus.  
This is a commandment that is perpetual, and must be always executed in the Church:  
But that can not be, unless the Church be visible:  
Ergo the visibility of the Church is continual.  Goad. 
I distinguish of the mayor. When the Church is gathered & may retain a face, when it doeth-execute government, & hath a consistory to hear matters, than it ought to be done: but this cannot be always had, being often hindered by persecution.  Camp. 
Offences between brother & brother happen always, and this is the medicine and remedy. There is no age, wherein there are not offences, & where shall I seek the perpetual remedy that is appointed, unless the Church be perpetually visible?  Goad. 
I have said before. When there is a state, & an established Church, this remedy is to be sought for. But this cannot always be had, because the militant afflicted church oftentimes can not be suffered to exercise this medicine of wholesome discipline.  Camp. 
The disease is continual, ergo the remedy is continual. I must tell my Prelates: where shall I tell them, if they be not.  Goad. 
The remedy is continually necessary & wholesome, but can not continually be used. divers most necessary things are not always in use. It is most necessary the Gospel should be continually preached, it is Christ's commandment, & yet this oftentime faileth: as in persecution, when the church is driven into straits, and the public exercise of the word restrained. I deny your argument: It is always necessary, therefore it is always in use and practise. Many other necessary things are wanting many times that ought to be, and yet this taketh them not away, neither maketh them vain or unnecessary, etc.  Campion. 
The disease is common: it is perpetual. To whom should I have gone before Luther's time? What Prelates should 
Ad nauseam ●…sque.  I have made my complaint unto in those days? I must tell my Pastor, etc.  Goad. 
You are answered, that in times of persecution this could not be, and specially in those times of general Apostasy foretold by the Apostle, 2. Thess. 2. this could not be practised, no more than the true preaching of the word. You deal strangely with us. When you had shut us in prison, imbrued your hands with our blood, driven the true Church as it were into the wilderness, through your grievous persecutions and tyrannies, so as there could be no meetings for public exercise of religion: than you ask where was our Church, and to whom we should have gone before Luther's times.  Campion. 
Where was your Church for 900. years ago? 
Here Camp. after his bold manner did insolently insult by these vain questions.  Whose were john hus? Jerome of prague? the Waldenses? etc. Were they yours? Help him Master Doctor.  Fulke. 
It needeth not: this is beside the matter, your place is answered. The remedy is not idle or vain, though sometimes men are restrained from the use of it. Cyprian complaineth above 1200. years ago, that for the great persecution that was against the Church, they could not meet so often as they desired, to execute discipline, and yet who will deny but the discipline of 
The discipline of the Church perpetual & necessary, though it be not always had & put in practice.  the Church is perpetual? It must be used when it may be had. A medicine is not an idle medicine in the Apothecary's shop, nor Galens' prescription thereof is vain, because sometimes it can not be had.  Campion. 
Though of some at sometimes it cannot be had in one place, yet it may be had in another. There may be some cases wherein I can not tell where the Church is, to tell it: but if I will seek it, I may find it. 
Therefore it is not always visible.   Fulke. 
The words are spoken generally to every man, Si peccaverit aduersus●…te frater, If thy brother offend against thee, &c: and yet every man can not obtain it. You that are in prison, what Church can you tell, if you be offended? will you say the remedy is vain, because you can not use it? Again, there are mean remedies before a man come to this, that he should tell the Church: he must first give private admonition, and before witnesses, which every man can not do that is offended. As to whom should Elias have complained, when he knew none but himself? Therefore it is no more necessary, that there should be a visible Church always to complain unto: than it is necessary that every man should always be able to admonish privately, or to have two or three witnesses to call unto him. Again, you answer yourself, that there may be some cases wherein I can not tell where the Church is, to tell it. Therefore it was very ill concluded of you, that if a man can not always have a visible Church to make his complaint unto, the remedy prescribed by our Saviour Christ is vain or idle. And concerning the name Ecclesia in that text, when it is said we should tell the Church, ye abuse the audience: for it meaneth not the whole Church, but the consistory and eldership, that have the government of every particular congregation. For how can a man tell the whole Church on earth, or yet the whole parish where he dwelleth: but he may tell the company of Elders and governors, when such are established to have the execution of discipline, and this also may be interrupted by persecution.  Campion. 
Master Doctor you have said well for me: the word Ecclesia is taken for the governors of the Church, and they are always in sight. In what place of the Scripture is the word Ecclesia taken for an invisible Church, you can show me no place. Show me one place: show me one place if you can.  Fulke. 
I can show you a great many. But because you call so earnestly for one, I will show you one.  
It is taken for the whole body of the Church: therefore for an invisible church, in the first chapter to the Ephesians, in the latter end, where the Apostle sayeth, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: And he appointed 
Ephes. 1.  him head over all things unto his Church, which is his body, and the fullness of him which filleth all in all. So that it is taken for the whole Catholic Church, as it containeth all the elect of God, those that have been, are, and shallbe, etc. which universal Church is invisible.  Campion. 
I grant it is there taken for the Church triumphant and militant.  Fulke. 
Ergo it is there taken for an invisible Church. For we speak of it as it containeth every member, and is the whole body of Christ, whereof some are yet unborn.  Campion. 
I grant it of the whole: but the Church militant is visible, the other invisible.  Fulke. 
But the Catholic Church of Christ being the body of Christ, is mystical: ergo insensible.  Campion. 
Prove it according to all parts to be invisible.  Fulke. 
It is sufficient for me to prove, that the Catholic Church, which is the whole body of Christ, is mystical: & therefore it is invisible. I speak of the Catholic Church, as it is an article of faith. For, we believe the Catholic Church according to the articles of faith: Now faith is of things which are not seen: ergo the Catholic Church is invisible.  Campion. 
I know that the whole Catholic Church and every part of the same, as it is of faith, is invisible: but what is this to the Church militant:  Fulke. 
You urged me to show a place where the word Ecclesia is taken for an invisible Church: and I have showed you, that it is taken for an invisible Church, wheresoever it is taken for the Catholic Church, which you confess to be invisible, both in the whole and every part.  Campion. 
So far as it is of faith.  Fulke. 
And we speak of it, as it is of faith. For the whole Catholic Church, being an article of faith, is considered no otherwise then as it is of faith, neither any part thereof by your own confession: whereof it followeth that the visible Church, for which you strive so much, is no article of our faith, because it is seen, faith being of things that are not seen. You have granted many absurdities this day, while you labour to defend that the Church on earth is always visible. And now the conclusion is worst of all, that the visible Church (for which you are so earnest) is proved to be no article of faith.  Campion. 
Why may not a man see & yet believe. Peter saw him whom he believed, saying, thou art Christ the son of the living God, etc.  Fulke. 
That which he saw of Christ, was experimental knowledge: but that which he confessed, Christ to be the son of God, was of faith, and not of sense. For flesh and blood revealed it not unto him, but God from heaven. That which Peter saw of Christ with his bodily eyes, was seen of many unbelieving jews, and of judas the traitor: but his confession (which came of faith) he had not by bodily sight, but by divine revelation. 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: therefore that which is seen of the Church is not of faith.  Camp. 
Why, you said the Church might be seen by experimental faith, as Peter saw Christ and believed.  Fulke. 
When said I so?  Campion. 
Even now when you spoke of Peter.  Fulk. 
I never thought it, much less did I speak it. It is needful there should be writing, else I see you would outface the matter: I said the clean contrary. That which Peter saw of Christ, was experimental knowledge, and not faith: that which he believed and confessed, he saw not. Even so I say, that which we believe and confess in our Creed of the Catholic Church, we 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 Catholic Church in her parts, although I cannot see it all at once, or in one place.  Fulke. 
Whatsoever you can see at several times, and in several places of the Catholic Church, is no article of faith, For that which we believe of the Catholic Church, is not seen at any time, or in any place.  Campion. 
That is true.  Fulke. 
Ergo the whole Catholic Church, and every part thereof, as it is of faith, is not visible.  
Here Campion of himself broke up.  Campion. 
Shall we meet again. It were to be considered of what question we shall talk.  
Here question being made, what point they should deal upon, and being asked whether he would defend the Church of Rome to be the true Church of Christ, he denied to meddle therein, as being dangerous, unless leave might be obtained of her majesties most honourable Counsel. Then being demanded whether he would deal with that question in the after noon, Whether the Church might err, he consented, the company present agreeing thereunto. And so the hour was appointed at two of the clock after dinner: the replier's having no longer time to provide their arguments.  

In the after noon. ❧ The Question. whether the visible Church may err.  
FIrst, because promise was made in the forenoon, that those places which were omitted, should be showed, D. Goad brought forth his place out of Chrysostom upon Math. 5. Rursus eos per ista ad bene vivendum ac diligetiam cohortatur, ostendens ut studeant esse soliciti, quasiante omnium oculos constituti, & in medio orbis terrarum theatro. Nolite inquit aspicere, quia in isto nunc residemus loco, in exigua sumus part certaminis. Sic enim eritis manifesti cunctis quemadmodum civitas in montis vertice collocata, vel sicut lucerna in domo super candelabrum relucens. Again by these things he exhorteth them by diligence of well living, that they might stand to be careful as they that are set before all men's eyes, and in the midst of the Theatre of the whole world. Do not you regard (saith he) that we remain now in this place, and are but in a small part of our battle: for you shallbe so manifest to all men, as a city placed upon the top of a hill, or as a candle shining in a house upon a candlestick, etc. Here you see by the judgement of Chrysostom, expounding the place, that it only respecteth the Apostles which you denied to day. For he exhorteth them to live well, as those that are set in the sight and eyes of all, and therefore must be careful how they bear themselves upon that open stage of the whole world, being as a city upon an hill.  Campion. 
The place is nothing against me, for it pertaineth to the whole Church. Doth Chrysostom contrary any thing spoken by me? doth not their function, their faith and religion, their place show that this is not spoken only to them?  Goad. 
These are but words. It is plain, he noteth their doctrine by the salt, and their conversation by the light.  Campion. 
He speaketh not any thing contrary to that which I have said.  Goad. 
Yes, you say the place meaneth the whole Church to prove the visibility thereof, as a city set upon an hill, can not be hid. Whereas Chrysostom interpreteth it of the ministery only, 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 flocks, as I have showed you by the example of a Master of a family.  Goad. 
It belongeth in deed to the flock also to live well, but this place is not directed unto them. It is absurd, 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 faithful, they include the whole Church, as they were Christians, and not Apostles.  Goad. 
Why then, that which was spoken to the Apostles, was likewise spoken to the Church. But it was said to the Apostles Drink you all of this: ergo to the whole Church.  Campion. 
That was personal, and in respect of their function, he spoke only in respect of those that were present, but there was none present but the Apostles: like that which was said to the Apostles, Go ye and preach to all nations, baptizing, etc. doth he therefore command the people also to preach and minister the Sacraments?  Goad. 
The race is far unlike. The receiving of the Sacraments belong to all Christians: they must all receive. And though preaching the word, and ministering, in respect of the funetion, be only appropriate to the Apostles and Ministers: yet the word and Sacraments, are common to all Christians. So by manifest difference it appeareth, that the commandment, Go & preach, is personal, belonging to one calling: and the commandment 
Absurd. The commandment in the institution bindeth Christians to receive the cup. And Paul saith 1. Cor. 11. That which I received of the Lord: whereby he teacheth that he had a commandment.  Drink ye all of this, is general to all the faithful.  Campion. 
There is no place in the institution that commands the common people to drink, or not to drink.  Goad. 
The Apostle (the best interpreter of Christ's institution) apply it to the whole Church, 1. Cor. 11. verse 23. That which I received of the Lord, etc. And by the same reason you may say as was said before, there is no commandment to receive the Communion.  Campion. 
There is no commandment in that institution, that the lay people should receive the Communion.  Fulke. 
That is a shameful absurdity. But now seeing the place is showed, let us come to the question agreed upon. Whether the Church militant 〈◊〉 err? That it may 〈◊〉, I prove thus.  
Whatsoever error is incident to every member, is incident to the whole:  
But it is incident to every member to err:  
Ergo to the whole.  Campion. 
I deny both the Maiorand Minor. 
Absurd. Who can dispute with him that denieth the grounds of disputation?   Fulke. 
Why, the Mayor is from a place in Logic: that which is incident to every part, must needs be incident to the whole: as every part of a man's body, is subject to corruption, therefore the whole body is subject to corruption.  Campion. 
There is no such place in Logic. Every man may err, but not the whole gathered together. Your example is not like: for the whole hath a promise, and so hath not every particular man.  Fulke. 
The whole hath no promise that it shall not err, more theu every particular member: for every member of Christ hath the spirit of Christ, which is the spirit of truth, and therefore the same promise that the whole hath.  Campion. 
Why, then there should be no heretics.  Fulke. 
Yes, heretics may be within the Church, but not of the Church: Si ex nobis essent permansissent nobiscum saith Saint john, If they had been of us, they had abidden with us.  Camp. 
They were of us in appearance, & in outward show.  Fulke. 
I deny that they were of us, though in outward profession they seemed to be of us: for in deed they were never of us. john. 3. They went out from us, but they were never of us. And he addeth the reason: For, if they had been of us, they had remained with us. They were within the Church, but they were never of the Church.  Campion. 
Christ saith of them that fall away in persecution, that they believed the Gospel: therefore before persecution they were of us, but they departed from us, etc. they were of us according to faith, though they were not according to election.  Fulke. 
Christ speaketh not there of true justifying faith, nor of the elect, but of those that believed for a time. For if they had been of us, they would have remained still with us: but they were not of us, neither according to justifying faith, nor according to election.  Camp. 
The meaning of john is, they were not of us according to the election of God, yet they were of the militant Church, which containeth both good and evil.  Fulke. 
It is true, that in the visible Church be contained both good and evil: but the elect only are of the Church.  Campion. 
Why, what say you by David when he committed adultery, was he elect and the child of God?  Fulke. 
I say he did wickedly, but yet he was and remained elect, and the child of God.  Campion. 
This is strange. But I say, when he committed adultery, he was the child of the devil: for it is plain,  
He that committeth sin is the servant of sin:  
But David committed sin:  
Ergo he was the servant of sin and the child of the devil.  Goad. 
The meaning of the place is, that he that giveth himself over to sin is the servant of sin, to be led wholly by it, in whom sin reigneth. But no particular sin in the elect, doth make the children of God to become the children of the Devil, neither doth separate them from the hope of salvation.  Fulke. 
He that is once a true member of Christ, can never become a member of the Devil.  Campion. 
Then once good, and never evil.  Fulke. 
That followeth not. He may fall into evil, but never finally.  Goad. 
The place is to be understodde of him that falleth of malice, and not of him that falleth by infirmity.  Campion. 
He that falleth into adultery, falleth maliciously: for he may resist if he will. For every member of the Church hath power to withstand sin if he will.  Fulke. 
Now, we shall have free will. 
This discontented others also that stood by.   Campion. 
I mean not of himself, but by grace. For when God hath given him grace, he may if he will resist. Answer me this place, He is the servant of sin that committeth sin.  Fulke. 
You were answered before.  Campion. 
Why then you hold, that a Catholic falling into adultery is still the child of God. I grant that for every offence God doth not cast out his sons. For in a great house, In magna domo, there be many sons, which though they be disobedient, they cease not to be sons till they be cast out, etc. but when they are cast out, they are no more the sons of God.  Fulk. 
God casteth out none of his sons. For, if they be sons, they are also heirs. They are the Apostles words.  Camp. 
I say they are sons for the tune, which are cast out. Eijcit in exteriores tenebras. He casteth them out into utter darkness. He that had not the nuptial garment, maketh this claim to be the son of God, and sitteth down amongst God's children, but he is cast out into utter darkness.  Fulk. 
But he was never any son, but an hypocrite, & therefore no marvel if he were cast out: S. Paul saith, that a son is an heir.  Camp. 
Why, are not all that are baptized the sons of God?  Fulk. 
No, for they have not all the spirit of adoption.  Camp. 
Why then, what judge you of infants that die without Baptism, or immediately after they are baptised: are they not the children of God:  Fulke. 
I take not upon me to judge. But if they be not Gods 
They may be reckoned borne within the covenant, but they are not his children, if they be not elected, though we judge them not: because their not being elected, doth not appear unto us.  elect, baptism cannot make them his children.  Camp. 
Then Christ commanded baptism in vain, if it save not those that are baptised.  Fulke. 
That is not so: for there is a necessary use of baptizing, though the holy Ghost be not given to every one that receiveth baptism. I baptise with water (saith john Baptist●…) but Christ baptizeth with the holy Ghost.  Camp. 
I will prove that infants are without sin, & therefore must needs be saved. For if they have sin, they must either have original sin, or actual sin: but being baptised, they have neither of both: (for original sin is taken away by baptism, & as for actual sin, they never committed any) ergo they are without sin.  Fulke. 
Original sin is not taken away from any in this life, but it is not imputed to the elect.  M. Lieutenant. 
M. Doctors, the question that was appointed before dinner, was, Whether the visible Church may err.  Goad. 
M. Lieutenant, he continually draweth us into new questions to avoid the matter in controversy. Shall I enter that question? I will recite some Churches in the Apostles times, & ask your judgement of them, & then go to mine argument. The Churches of Corinth & of Galatia, what say you to them▪ The Church of Corinth (though they had a promise, as you said) did err about the matter of resurrection: the church of Galatia, about the matter of justification  Camp. 
The Apostle though he wrote to all, yet he meaneth but some few of them. And what are these to the whole Church, being but particular churches? the militant Church of Christ comprehendeth the whole number of churches on earth. As for the error of the church of Galatia, it was no otherwise reproved then as preachers are wont to reprove, who are wont to rebuke all for some that are faulty.  Goad. 
In deed you say some thing concerning that of Corinth. I grant that the error was not so general. For he said, Quidam inter vos, etc. Certain amongst you, etc. But for the Galathians it was otherwise. For the whole Church was justly reproved, according to that, O you foolish Galathians, who hath be witched you, that you should not believe the truth? These wholly fell & were not particular members, but whole Churches, planted by the Apostles themselves, replenished with special gifts of the holy Ghost. And if these faded in the Apostles time, & in so great a matter, what privilege have any other churches since, that they should not likewise err & so consequently what privilege hath the militant church:  Camp. 
Make your argument, & then we shall see what ye will conclude.  Goad. 
So then I make mine argument.  
Whatsoever congregation doth err in matters of faith, is not the true Church: 
The second argument.   
But the Church of Rome erreth in matters of faith:  
Ergo the Church of Rome is not the true Church.  Campion. 
This is from the question. M. Lieutenant might do well to put us in mind of the question.  Goad. 
I remember the question well. I bring an instance according to your meaning, because you in saying that the Church cannot err, mean that the church of Rome cannot err: this privilege agreeth not to the church of Rome, which you say is the true Church.  Campion. 
I deny your Minor. The Church of Rome hath not erred. You suppose the Church of Rome to be the true Church, and I believe it.  Goad. 
In deed I only suppose it for disputations sake, & believe it not: but the errors are infinite, & I should weary myself & all the company, to rehearse many. I omit inferior errors of less weight and moment, and come to those that shake the foundation of faith.  Campion. 
We shall then run into all controversies: bring some, proper error that I myself shall coufesse to be an error, that the church of Rome holdeth.  Goad. 
Why a general must be taken away by particulars.  Campion. 
That is true.  Goad. 
Then I reason thus. It hath erred, and doth err in the foundation, touching salvation by Christ: Ergo it is subject to error.  Campion. 
It doth not, God forbidden it should. But if you will properly prove it hath erred, show me that some general Council hath erred.  Goad. 
Well, I will follow you in this point. The Council of Trent hath erred in m●…ny points of doctrine, and namely in the matter of justification: ergo a general Council hath erred.  Campion. 
I deny the Antecedent. etc.  Goad. 
It ascribech whole or part of righteousness to be inherent in ourselves:  
But this is an error:  
Ergo it errcth in justification, etc. The very words I do not remember, but this is the effect of the doctrine, that Inhaerens justitia est pars iustificationis, That inherent righteousness is a part of justification.  Campion. 
The Council hath no such words, or if it have, it 
Here was promise that the place should be showed.  doth not ascribe any thing to righteousness cleaving in ourselves as of ourselves, but as given of God. In deed it is in us, but as the gift of God. As there are virtues, faith, hope & charity, which must be in us serving to this righteousness, which yet are not of us.  Goad. 
Whatsoever is in us that must justify us before the just judgement of God, must be perfect:  
But our righteousness is not perfect:  
Ergo our righteousness cannot either in whole or part justify us.  Campion. 
I answer your Mayor: it must be perfect, according to that perfection that God requireth of us in this life.  Goad. 
This is most corrupt. For God will have a perfect & undefiled righteousness, such as he hath set down in his own law. Qui fecerit etc. He that shall do them, shall live in them. Gal. 3. Again, Maledictus est omnis, qui non permanserit in omnibus quae scripta sunt in libro Legis, ut faciat ea, etc. Cursed is every one that abideth not in all things that are written in that book, to do them, etc.  Campion. 
I say, God doth not exact such a perfect righteousness according to the law, for we are delivered from that by Christ, etc.  Goad. 
Then we must rest on Christ alone: but if we will be justified by any part of righteousness in ourselves, it must be perfect. For God's justice alloweth no unperfect righteousness. Do you think you can fulfil this law: etc.  Campion. 
Yea that I can.  Goad. 
Can you love God above all things, & your neighbour as yourself? Can you love him with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your strength?  Campion. 
I can. For when I prefer God before all things, and love him chiefly, I love him above all.  Fulke. 
Note that Blasphemous absurdity.  Goad. 
If a man may fulfil the law to justification, than Christ died in vain.  Campion. 
What now, shall we have hissing? etc.  Goad. 
Sure it is worthy of hissing, and of blushing too, if 
Here there was a little whispering amongs the company, as if it had been a soft hissing.  you had any fear of God before your eyes, or conscience. I pray God make you to understand the absurdities that you hold, that you may be ashamed of them, and renounce them.  Campion. 
Why, is every motion to sin deadly sin: etc.  Goad. 
You are like the Pharisee, that thought the keeping of the law to consist in the outward letter. What say you, is not concupiscence, & the motions of the flesh against the law of God, sin?  Campion. 
No that they are not: for if I being tempted, refrain myself, and when I have a motion to evil, bridle myself from it: as, if I see my neighbours goods, and have a motion to steal, and do not, do I not herein love my neighbour as myself: If a man be in the Queen's jewel house, where he may take some precious thing, and bridle himself of it and abstain, shall this man be condemned? What will you condemn a man for every little tentation? It is a good thing to be tempted. etc. jam. 1. Blessed is he that endureth temptation.  Goad. 
Ye abuse the place. For it is understood of afflictions. 
Scripture most absurdly applied.  And as for concupiscence, it is the transgression of the law: Thou shalt not lust, ergo it is sin. But I will leave this as impertinent to the purpose. Consider that notable place in the end of the fift chapter to the Corinth. Epist. 2. Him that knew no sin he made sin for us, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him, not in ourselves, to show that it is no righteousness cleaving in us but in Christ, & is made ours by imputation, even as our sins were imputed to Christ: consider the place hereafter with yourself.  Fulke. 
Mark here his absurdities. First he holdeth, that he can keep the law in such perfection as God requireth: and he 
Campions' absurdities.  can love God with all his heart, with all his soul, and with all his strength, and his neighbour as himself. Secondly, he affirmeth that though he have a lust to steal, yet if he bridle that lust, he loveth his neighbour as himself. Thirdly, he holdeth that we are justified by inherent righteousness, which he thinketh to colour by the grace and gift of God. But nevertheless, ye are in the case of the Pharisee, Luke 18. which trusteth in his own righteousness, & yet ascribeth all to the grace of God, saying, I thank thee, etc. He boasted not before men, but humbly gave thanks unto God, acknowledging his righteousness to be God's gift, and yet Christ told this parable against him and such as he is, which trust in themselves that they are righteous, that is, by justice inherent, although they confess they have it by the grace and gift of God.  Campion. 
But this was of pride that he gloried in his righteousness, and therefore the parable is told against himself.  Fulke. 
I grant that he was proud, and so are all justiciaries that trust in themselves that they are righteous, howsoever they would cloak their pride, by ascribing it to the gift of God: but he is condemned for trusting in himself that he was righteous, that is, for inherent righteousness, which nevertheless he ascribed not to his own strength, but to the grace of God, saying, I thank thee God, etc. But I will go to another argument.  Campion. 
I pray you let me answer this argument first, for it shallbe reported that I said this and that, and my words shallbe depraved. I say therefore, there are two ways of justification: one in us, another without us. Christ is a cause of justification by his grace and merit without us, and so we are justified by baptism: and we are justified by the gifts of God in us, faith, hope, and charity. how say you, were not these my words: And why then do you challenge me for saying we are justified by God's righteousness, saith, hope, and charity, which is within us. For how say you, are we not justified by faith? and is not faith within us?  Fulke. 
I challenged you for blasphemous absurdity, in saying you could love God with all your heart, with all your soul, and strength. And albeit hope and charity follow that same faith, (by which we are justified) in the regenerate that are the children of God: yet we are not justified by them, no nor by faith, otherwise then instrumentally, as by apprehending the righteousness of Christ, which is without us, and is no otherwise ours then by imputation. And how can you love God with all your heart etc. when you can not give him an entire love, according to his law?  Campion. 
I said a man may love God with all his heart in this life, according to his law, when he doth prefer God before all the things in the world: as when a man doth chiefly prefer him, etc.  Fulke. 
But can you love God only?  Campion. 
A man loveth God only, when he loveth him chiefly, etc.  Fulke. 
Chiefly and only is all one: writ that.  Campion. 
Why, think you the law was given to no purpose? I am sure it was given to be fulfilled, and we are notbidden to keep it, if it were impossible.  Fulke. 
The law was given for another cause, then that we should be justified by fulfilling it: namely, to show us our infirmity, that we may be convicted of sin.  Campion. 
That is a wise cause in deed. Belike a father commandeth his children, not that they should do his will, but because he would have them to see that they can not do it.  Fulke. 
As though almighty God can have none other end of giving commandments, then mortal men use to have. But this is not to the question. I would go forward with another argument, if you would suffer me.  Campion. 
You will give me leave to declare my meaning.  Fulke. 
Belike you have an ill opinion of the auditory, that they can understand nothing, except you tell it them twenty tunes over. If you will not suffer me to proceed, I must desire Matter Lieutenant to command you.  
If a general Council may err, than the Church may err: 
3. Argument.   
But a general Council may err:  
Therefore the Church may err.  Campion. 
I deny the Minor.  Fulke. 
A general Council may be corrected, as Augustine saith: therefore it may err.  Campion. 
It may be declared or explained, but not corrected by a contrary decree.  Fulke. 
Will you hear the place? it is Tom. 6. lib. 2. contra Donatistas' cap. 3. Quis autem nesciat sanctam Scripturam canonicam tam veteris quàm novi Testamenti, certis suis terminis contineri, eamque omnibus posterioribus Episcoporum literis ita praeponi, ut de illa omnino dubitari & disceptari non possit, utrum verum vel utrum rectum sit, quicquid in ea scriptum esse constiterit. Episcoporum autem literas, quae post confirmatum Canonem vel scriptae sunt, vel scribantur, & per sermonem fortè sapientiorem cuiuslibet in ea re peritioris, & per aliorum Episcoporum graviorem auctoritatem doctiorumque prudentiam, & per Concilia licere reprehendi, siquidem eye forte à veritate deviatum est. Et ipsa Concilia quae per singulas regiones vel provincias fiunt, plenariorum Conciliorum auctoritati quae fiunt ex universo orb Christiano, sine ullis ambagibus cedere: ipsaque plenariasaepe priora posterioribus emendari, cum aliquo experimento rerum aperitur quod clausum erat, & cognoscitur quod latebat, sine vllo typho sacrilegae superbiae, sine ulla inflata ceruice arrogantiae, sine ulla contentione lividae invidiae, cum sancta humilitate, cum pace catholica, cum charitate Christiana. That is to say, Who knoweth not, that the holy canonical Scripture, both of the old & new Testament is contained within her certain bounds, and that the same is so preferred before all latter writings of Bishops, that of it there cannot be any doubt or question at all, whether it be true or whether it be right, whatsoever is certainly known to be written therein. But that the letters of Bishops, which since the canon confirmed, either have been written, or be now in writing, may be reprehended both by the saying which is perhaps more wise of any man that is more skilful in that matter, & also by the more grave authority & wisdom of other bishops, that be better learned, if any thing in them perhaps be declined out of the way of truth. And that even those Councils which are held in every region or province without all doubt must give place to general Councils, which are gathered of all the Christian world: and that even the general Councils themselves are often corrected, the former by the latter, when by any trial of things, that is opened which was shut up, and that is known which was hidden, without any swelling of sacrilegious pride, without any stiff neck of arrogancy, without any contention of malicious envy, with holy humility, with Catholic peace, with Christian charity. Here you have a plain place, that only the Scripture cannot err, that all other writers may err, that all provincial Councils may err, and last of all, general Councils themselves may be corrected, the former by the latter: therefore without question they may err.  Campion. 
I answered before you read, that a general Council may be declared and better explained, but not corrected.  Fulke. 
It may be amended, and therefore corrected. There is no difference between amending and correcting.  Campion. 
So far forth it may be corrected, as it may be 
And yet who knoweth not that general Councils have been contrary one directly against another Here the Papists in a libel brought out of Lancashire, do report this far otherwise, as they do all the rest: but none truly, they that were present can tell.  better explained, but not to set out things that are contrary. For general Councils are not one contrary to the other.  Fulke. 
Saint Augustine sayeth, The general Council may be ignorant of some thing at the beginning, that afterwards by experience may be amended: something may be close, which afterward may be opened: it may be hid to one Council, that may be known of another. And the Antithesis in these words must needs stand, that only the Scriptures cannot err, and therefore are not to be corrected. As for Councils general and provincial, and Bishops writings of all sorts, may be corrected, and therefore they may err.  Campion. 
A general Council may err in matter of fact, as in condemning and absolving some Bishops, etc. but it can not err in matters of doctrine.  Fulke. 
Do you know whereof Augustine speaketh in this place? etc.  Campion. 
Yea, as well as you.  Fulke. 
Why then declare it before this company.  Campion. 
He speaketh of a matter of fact.  Fulke. 
Now you show yourself altogether ignorant of the matter: for he speaketh of the Council of Carthage, that was held in Cyprians time, wherein was concluded an error of faith. For they had decreed, that such were to be rebaptized, as had been baptised of heretics, With which decree, and Cyprians authority (who was Precedent of the Council) when Saint Augustine was pressed, he answereth, that only the Scripture could not err, but all other both Bishop's writings, and Councils might err, and therefore might be reform, etc.  Campion. 
He speaketh not of a matter of faith, as appeareth by the word experiment. For there can be no experiment in a matter of faith: heresy cannot be amended.  Fulke. 
These are vain shifts. Men may find by experience they have erred.  Campion. 
The word amending, showeth that it was in manners.  Fulke. 
To be corrected and amended is all one, and may be as well in faith as in manners, and the argument whereof he entreateth, and the Antithesis he maketh between the Scriptures, and all other authorities, showeth plainly, that he meaneth of error of faith. But seeing you have nothing else to answer, I will leave it to the consideration of them that be wise and learned, and so long as you bring no matter, I will not answer your words.  Goad. 
Seeing you stand upon Councils, I will proceed that way.  
General Councils have erred, ergo etc. 
4. Argument.   Campion. 
I deny the Antecedent.  Goad. 
They are contrary one to another, etc.  Campion. 
I deny it.  Goad. 
The Council of Constantinople, and the Council of Nice are contrary.  Campion. 
They are not.  Goad. 
They are contrary in the matter of Images, namely the Council of Constantinople condemning the setting up of Images in the Church: and the Council of Nice afterward allowing 
Here for lack of the book present it was referred to the showing of the place afterward.  Images.  Campion. 
You can not show, that they were contrary one to an other.  Goad. 
It shallbe showed afterward. I will come to another general Council. The Council of Constance hath erred in matter of faith, ergo a general Council hath erred.  Campion. 
I deny the Antecedent.  Goad. 
The Council of Constance erred in taking away the cup from the common people: this was a matter of faith: ergo that Council erred in matter of faith.  Campion. 
Thus we shall run into all questions, and then we shall have done this time twelve months. This was no error in the Council, for I say there is no commandment that the people should be partakers of the cup.  Goad. 
By the same reason you may aswell exclude the people from the bread also, but though you have in this point denied the force of Christ's institution: yet the commandment in the same is plain, Bibite ex hoc omnes, Drink ye all of this. And Paul interpreteth it so, 1. Cor. 11. delivering aswell the cup as the bread to the whole Church, even as he had received of the Lord. The Council of Constance decreeth against it: ergo a manifest and foul error in that Council.  Campion. 
Doth Saint Paul make it a precept, that the lay people should receive the cup?  Goad. 
Paul iudued with the spirit of God, giveth a flat precept in the same chapter, verse 28. Probet seipsum homo, Let a man try himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. These are plain precepts, Let him eat, Let him drink: and here is as great a commandment to the whole church for the one, as for the other.  Campion. 
The place is to be understood, when he doth receive, and under the obedience of the Church, it may be done. And this that you make so much a do about, I have seen it done to many Catholics myself: but it is not so necessary, that you should make such ado about it.  Goad. 
It is not left free, but an express commandment, and therefore necessary. It is the Imperative mode, and therefore a commandment. I marvel how you can stand in this being so plain?  Fulke. 
Here are two things, Probet, & Edat & bibat, Let him examine himself, and let him eat and drink, and both be commandments. First, he must be prepared, and then he must eat, and not only eat, but he must drink also. For as the institution is of eating and drinking, so is the commandment of the Apostle drawn from the institution. And if there be no commandment, then is no man bound to receive the lords supper.  Camp. 
No, it is a thing indifferent by the institution touching 
Absurd. For there is as great necessity of the one Sacrament as the other.  the common people, saving that only the authority of the Church hath laid it upon us: here you may see the authority of the church, in things not commanded.  Goad. 
It is a commandment, both in the institution and by the Apostle, 1. Corinth. 11. saying, That which I received I delivered, grounding his commandment upon the institution, and therefore commanded in the institution.  Camp. 
Yea, he saith when he will, or when he doth receive, then let him examine himself.  Fulke. 
These are your own words, there is no such word here. When he will, and when he doth, he must prove himself, and so he must eat. The words which the Apostle useth here, are both the imperative mode in the Greek text: Let him examine himself, and let him eat and drink. 
The Greek testament being reached unto him, he refused to read it in the Greek. All this is but a vain brag: for his sight in Greek was very little or none at all as may appear in the first days conference, here all▪ so, and afterwards.   Campion. 
I grant there are two precepts, but this is the sum and end, Vt dignè edat, That he may eat worthily.  Fulke. 
Here is the book, see it and read it: this is the original, give him the book, it is a reasonable great print.  Campion. 
You are still urging me to read Greek, what childish dealing is this, can I not see the imperative mode aswell in the Latin as in the Greek, shall this disadvantage the cause? I have (I thank God) and you shall know it, as much Greek as will serve my turn, and when there is occasion to use it, I will show it. But is not the Latin tongue as good a tongue as the Greek? etc.  Fulke. 
You were best confess your ignorance. We make not tongues the measure of the truth, but we bring the original to prevent your cavillations, and your finding fault with translations. But I will deal with you with an other argument.  
The whole Church did think it necessary for infants to receive: 
Argument. 5.   
Ergo the whole Church hath erred, etc.  Campion. 
Now we shall have a question whether infants may receive, so we shall run into all questions.  Fulke. 
Not so. But I will prove that Innocentius Bishop of Rome, and all the Church with him, as S. Augustine confesseth, held this error, that it is necessary for infants to receive the communion, which you yourself hold to be an error, seeing you affirm it is not of necessity by Christ's commandment, that any lay men should receive it. You shall hear the words of Augustine and of Innocentius both, as Augustine citeth them. Why are you afraid of the place before you come at it, let me read it. Saint 
Here Campion interrupted him, saying, there was no such place & made much a do.  Augustine citeth the words of Innocentius, out of his Epistle to the Bishops of Numidia, Lib. 2. ad Bonifacium contra duas epist. Pelag. cap. 4. Haec enim eius verba sunt. Illud vero quod eos vestra fraternitas asserit praedicare, paruulos aeternae vitae praemijs etiam sine baptismatis gratia posse donari, perfatuum est. Nisi enim manducaverint carnem filii hominis, & biberint sanguinem eius, non habebunt vitam in semetipsis: qui autem hanc eis sine regeneratione defendunt, videntur mihi ipsum baptismum velle cassare. For these are his words. But where as your brotherhood affirmeth them to preach, that little children may be rewarded with the gift of eternal life, even without the grace of Baptism, it is a very foolish thing. For except they shall eat the flesh of the son of man, and drink his blood, they shall have no life in themselves. But they which defend this unto them without regeneration, seem to me that they will make frustrate baptism itself. Upon which words of Innocentius, Saint Augustine inferreth, Ecce, beatae memori●… Innocentius papa, sine baptismo Christi, & sine participatione corporis & sanguinis Christi, vitam non habere paruulos dicit. Behold, the Pope Innocent of blessed memory saith, that little children cannot have life without the participation of the body and blood of Christ. In these words Saint Augustine showeth the general practice of the Church was, that infants should receive, because it was thought necessary unto salvation.  Campion. 
It was only a practice, it was no opinion of necessity of salvation.  Fulke. 
Saint Augustine writeth against the Pelagians, that held that Baptism was not necessary for infants, and that infants might be saved without Baptism, against whom he reasoneth 
Augustins argument.  thus. Infant's cannot be saved without they receive the communion: but they cannot receive the communion unless they be first baptised: ergo infants cannot be saved unless they be baptised. And to prove that they cannot be saved except they receive the communion, he alleged the decree or definitive sentence of Innocentius.  Campion. 
Saint Augustine saith not, that the whole church thought it necessary to salvation. But when Innocetius commanded that infants should communicate, it was but a necessity of the commandment, the necessity was not in the thing, but to keep the unity of the Church, and so no error of faith, but a lawful practise of the Church: but show the decree.  Fulke. 
You have heard the words of Innocentius, out of his synodical Epistle, and thus Saint Augustine citeth his decree: Ecce, beatae memoriae Innocentius papa, sine baptismo Christi, etc. Lo, Innocentius the Pope of blessed memory, etc.  Campion. 
There is no such decree: I will believe none of your notes. He saith they be damned unless they be baptised, but he sayeth not, they be damned except they receive the communion.  Fulke. 
He saith both: you shall see the book, seeing you will not credit my notes. 
Here the book was promised to be brought & the place to be showed. 6. Argument.   Goad. 
Upon supposition as before, I will suppose as you believe concerning the Church of Rome. The head (as you hold him) of that Church, hath erred in matter of faith: ergo the Church being the members, are subject to error.  Campion. 
I deny your Antecedent.  Goad. 
Saint Peter did err in faith, and that, after the sending down of the holy Ghost upon him and the rest▪ therefore the principal head of the Church, as you account of Peter.  Campion. 
He did not err in faith. I know the place, Gal. 2. It was a matter of manners not of doctrine. For it was but a little dissimulation.  Goad. 
It was matter of doctrine, for it was somewhat concerning that, where about the Council was gathered at Jerusalem touching Circumcision.  Campion. 
Ye utterly mistake it, for it was about the observation of the Law by the Gentiles, and not concerning Circumcision.  Goad. 
I now well remember it was not directly about the question of Circumcision. But it is certain, Peter was in that error, that the Gospel pertained not at all to the Gentiles, until he was reform by vision, Act. 10: For then at length he said, Nunc tandem comperio, etc. Now at length I find, &c: so he was for a time in error. But for the place, Gal. 2. it is said, Non ambulavit recto pede ad veritatem evangelii. He walked not with a right foot according to the truth of the Gospel, etc.  Camp. 
It was but a small matter of dissimulation in manners.  Goad. 
The text saith, Paul withstood him to the face, because he was blame worthy, and justly to be reproved: therefore it was no small matter. And Augustine against Jerome, De Petro iure reprehenso, Epist. 19 doth justify this open reproof by S. Paul, though Jerome laboured to lessen this fault, etc.  Campion. 
And so do I. But this proveth not that it was any matter of faith.  Fulke. 
It was against the truth of the Gospel:  
Truth is contrary to error:  
Ergo it was an error of faith.  Camp. 
I have said the fault was in manners, for dissimulation. When I saw that he did not walk well, or right, etc. as at this day any poor Priest may tell the Pope, seeing the Pope to err in manners, and may say unto him, Sir, why do you so?  Fulke. 
But that is against your own Canon Law. For what so ever the Pope doth, no man may say: Sir, why did you so?  Campion. 
I think there can be showed no such words in 
Here it was promised that it should be showed.  the Law.  Fulke. 
I pray you answer me, Did Peter dissemble against his conscience, or with it? Surely he did it not for any worldly respect, but because he thought it was his duty in so doing to bear with the weakness of the jews, & to think that aman may dissemble in such a case, is a matter of faith, therefore his error was a matter of faith, and not of fact only.  Camp. 
Why, in some case the Catholics think they may communicate with you, come to your Churches, & you again communicate with us, & go to our churches, dispute & confer with us, etc.  Fulke. 
I would wish you to contain yourself, I know where you are. It is a matter that doth not belong unto you. You draw to a thing you ought to be silent in. It is a matter of state, it were best for you to leave such things.  Camp. 
I mean to dispute, what do you threaten?  Fulk. 
No, but I give you good counsel, I am more your friend than you are aware of. I think you are already found deep enough in such matters. But to an other argument.  
The general Council confesseth that it may err: 
The seventh argument.   
Ergo the Church may err.  Camp. 
In deed this is to the point, if you can prove it.  Fulke. 
Answer directly, and you shall see I will prove it so, as you shall not be able to avoid it. The whole council prayeth 
This D. Fulke read out of his note book.  in the end of every general Council, in a set form of prayer, that God will pardon their error: ergo they confess they may err, etc. for thus they say, Te in nostris principijs occursorem poposcimus, te quoque in hoc fine iudiciorum nostrorum, pro excessibus indultorem adesse 
Concilior. Tom. primo de ord.. concilii.  precamur, scilicet ut ignorantiae parcas, ut errori indulgeas, etc. This is the very form of their prayer. We prayed that thou wouldst be an aider in our beginnings, thee also in this end of our judgements we pray to be present as a pardoner of our excess, that is to say, that thou wouldst spare our ignorance, and pardon our error. Here you see plainly, they confess they may err, when they desire pardon of their errors.  Campion. 
Master Doctor they pray against your errors, do they not? that God would pardon your errors.  Fulke. 
They pray that if they themselves have erred, they may be pardoned, they speak of their own errors committed in their own Council, and the words that follow do plainly express the same.  Campion. 
I would see the printed book, and first I would know whether they speak of any error of faith: then secondly I would know if it can be showed wherein the Council erred.  Fulke. 
Seeing the Council by this prayer confesseth that it may err, what need it be showed wherein it erred.  Campion. 
Was this prayer said in the Council of Trent?  Fulke. 
I know not, but it is the prayer that is appointed to be said after every Council.  Campion. 
I answer, the Council of Trent will not acknowledge any error: it was some matter of fact.  Fulke. 
Their words are plain that they may err, not only in fact, but also in faith: and therefore they pray to be pardoned in both. Et quia conscientia remordente tabescimus, ne aut ignorantia nos traxerit in errorem, aut praeceps forsitan voluntas impulerit justitiam declinare, ob hoc te poscimus, te rogamus, ut si quid offensionis in hac Concilij celebritate contraximus, condonare ac remissibile facere digneris. And because our own conscience accusing us we do faint, lest either ignorance hath drawn us into error, or hasty will perhaps hath driven us to decline from justice, we pray thee, we beseech thee, that if we have committed any offence in the celebration of this Council, thou wouldst vouchsafe to forgive it, and to make it pardonable.  Campion. 
That very word declareth, that they mean of some error in fact, & not of doctrine. They pray that if they have ignorantly erred from justice, they might be pardoned.  Fulke. 
Those things which the Council doth wisely distinguish, you do unwisely confound. They acknowledge, that ignorance might draw them into error, and heady will draw them from justice, they distinguish error from injustice, and desire to be pardoned of both. As for the book, it shallbe brought. We could not have books here, for we agreed upon the question but immediately before dinner, and could not go out of the place since for books, but it shallbe showed.  M. Lieutenant. 
Here M. Lieutenant told them the time was past, but M. D. Fulke desired to have one argument more.  Fulke. 
The Council of Nice 2. decreed an error, therefore the 
Argument 8.  Church may err.  Camp. 
Now we shall have the matter of Images.  Fulke. 
You are Nimis acutus, you will leap over the style or ever you come at it: I mean not to speak of Images.  Campion. 
Well then, I deny the Antecedent.  Fulke. 
The Synod decreed, that Angels, Archangels, souls of men, etc. have bodies, are visible & circumscriptible, and this is an error: ergo they decreed an error, etc.  Camp. 
They decreed no such thing.  Fulke. 
You shall hear the words of the Council, Actione 1. First, that saying of one johannes, Bishop of Thessalonica, was read in these words. De angelis & archangelis & eorum potestatibus quibus & nostras animas adiungo, ipsa Catholica ecclesia sic sentit, esse quidem intelligibiles, sed non omnino corporis expertes & invisibiles. Concerning Angels and Archangels, and the powers of them, to which also I adjoin our souls, the Catholic Church herself doth so think, that they are in deed intelligible, but not altogether without bodies, and invisible. Which words of johannes Thessalonicensis, the Archbishop of Constantinople Tharasius, who was prolocutor of the Council abridgeth, and concludeth upon them saying, Ostendit autem pater quod & angelos pingere oporteat, quando circumscribi possunt & ut homines apparuerunt. This father hath showed that we must paint the Angels also, seeing they may be circumscribed, & have appeared as men. Sacra Synodus dixit, Etiam domine. The holy synod said, Yea my lord. Here you see the decree of the whole Synod approving the saying of johannes Thessalonicensis, and the conclusion of Tharasius thereupon.  Campion. 
Show me the decree, and let me see the Canon. many things are spoken in Councils that are not the Canons.  Fulke. 
I have read the decree.  Campion. 
Show me the Canon, read their Canon.  Fulke. 
As though every Council hath set forth Canons: many Councils have no Canons, neither hath this any that I know. You show yourself a man well read in the Councils, that will exact Canons of every Council, but this was that consent & the agreement of the whole Council, the whole Council answered Etiam domine.  Campion. 
Show me the book.  Fulke. 
If I do not show it, then let me bear the blame.  Camp. 
Well, admit it be so: first, they might mean that Angels and spirits had a certain definite substance of their being, which they called their bodies.  Fulke. 
Then belike they knew not how to speak: but I am sure, they knew what difference there was betwixt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 substance & body: if they had so meant, they wanted not words to have expressed their meaning.  Camp. 
They might think they had certain subtle bodies, according to the forms that they did take, as Augustine and some other have held. beside, this was not an error of faith.  Fulke. 
Ergo it was of manners belike.  Camp. 
It was a small error, neither of faith nor manners.  Fulke. 
I prove it was an error of faith. We believe that God is the creator of all things visible and invisible: but if Angels and spirits be visible, then are there no invisible things whereof we believe God to be the creator. Besides, they do not only make them visible, but circumscriptible also: and therefore they do mean bodies, and not substances generally, for only bodies are circumscriptible.  Camp. 
They mean not such bodies as we have, but such as they took, how could they else be painted.  Fulke. 
But they (say they) were visible and circumscriptible.  Campion. 
Because they do Assumere corpora, not because they had bodies in deed, but seemed to have.  Fulke. 
But the Council saith, they have proper bodies of their own, & are circumscriptible, & have been seen in their proper bodies.  Campion. 
It was no decree.  Fulke. 
Sacra Synodus dixit, Etiam domine: All the holy Synod confirmed it, saying, Even so my Lord.  Campion. 
Many a saint in heaven have thought as hard matters as this, and they are saved.  Fulke. 
I deny not that, but yet this was an error of faith, neither doth every error in faith shut out a man from salvation.  Camp. 
In deed so you say in your book against Bristol, that the Church may err in matters of faith, for you say that Invocation of Saints, and prayer for the dead, were errors in faith, and yet that they which used them, are saved. I wonder therefore why you cry out so loud in your pulpits against Invocation of saints, and have nothing more in your mouths than Blasphemy, Blasphemy, when the Catholics maintain it.  Fulke. 
I say in deed, that Invocation of saints, as it was held of some of the later sort of ancient fathers, was an error in faith: but yet not such as could exclude them from being members of the true Church, and yet the same error as it is used of Papists, is blasphemous. These fathers held the foundation Faith, and therefore that error was not damnable in them.  Campion. 
In deed you say, that if a man have faith, what errors soever he have beside, it is well enough so long as he hold your faith: it makes no matter what errors soever ●…e hold with it, he cannot perish.  Fulke. 
You slander my book, I never writ so.  Camp. 
Let me see your book, and I will show it you.  Fulk. 
In what book will you show it?  Campion. 
In your book against Bristol.  Fulke. 
You shall see the book at our next meeting, and if you be able to show any such words, or matter either, I will lose my head. I may say, and have said, that the Fathers had their errors, among which some allowed invocation of saints, and yet holding the foundation, they may be saved.  Camp. 
Very well, that is all one, why should you then make so much a do against invocation of saints? Why do you not say in your pulpits, that it is an indifferent matter?  Fulke. 
Because as you hold it, it is in deed a blasphemous error: but as the Fathers held it, it was no blasphemous error, but yet an error, and no indifferent thing.  Goad. 
Are you ignorant that they which hold the foundation, though they err in some particular points of doctrine, they may be saved? Shall every particular point of error in doctrine deprive a man of salvation, holding sound the foundation Christ?  Campion. 
Well he saith it in his book, etc. If a man have only faith, it maketh no matter what errors he hold beside.  Fulke. 
You shamefully slander my book, and I know you can show no such thing out of my book. Now you have granted so many absurdities, ye know not how to make up the matter, but by slandering my book.  Campion. 
I have granted no absurdities, but I will defend them, bring me the book, and I will show it you. And thereupon I challenge you, you and I at Cambridge M. Doctor, to try it.  Fulke. 
Very well Sir, you show yourself according to your public challenge, more bold than wise, you that have challenged all the Realm, no marvel if you challenge me.  Campion. 
I will stand to my challenge, and here I challenge you to dispute with you at Cambridge, if you dare.  Fulke. 
It lieth not in me to remove you to Cambridge. I came hither upon commandment at this time, otherwise you are not the man whom I would choose & take for to be mine adversary, if you were at liberty. There are twenty of your side, whom I would rather take if I should choose mine equal, which make no such challenge. Non tibiplus cordis, sed minus oris inest.  Goad. 
Your Church denieth an article of faith: ergo it erreth, 
9 Argument.  etc.  Campion. 
God forbidden, it doth not.  Goad. 
You deny the bodily ascension of Christ into heaven: ergo an article of faith.  Campion. 
We do not deny it.  Goad. 
You deny that he is bodily in heaven, for you say that he is bodily in earth: but he can not be both in heaven and earth at once, if he have a true body.  Campion. 
I deny your argument. For he is, and may be in many places at once; touching his body.  Goad. 
It is contrary 〈◊〉 the nature of a true body, to be in many places at once. For a true natural body, must have the properties of a very natural and true body, and so you make Christ to have a fantastical and not a true body. You say, at the same time he is in earth and in heaven. Saint Augustine confuting the lik●… error of those that denied that Christ had a true body, saith: Cavendum: no ita divinitatem astruamus hominis, ut veritatem 
Ad Dard. Epist. 57  corporis auferamus. We must beware that we do not so maintain the divinity of Christ, that we take away the true nature of a body. jesus Christus ubique est per id quod Deus est, in coelo autem per id quod homo, etc. jesus Christ is present every where, according to his Godhead, but he is in heaven according to his manhood. And in joh. tractatu 3. Corpus Domini in quo resurrexit, uno tantum loco esse potest: veritas autem eius ubique diffusa est, etc. The body of Christ wherein he rose again from the dead, can be only in one place: but the truth of Christ is spread every where.  Campion. 
All this is true according to nature, but in the sacrament it is a miracle.  Goad. 
Augustine denieth any miracle to be in the Sacraments: therefore you can not flee to miracle. The very words I now remember not, but I am sure I have read it to that effect.  Fulke. 
His words are as I think, Sacramenta honorem ut religio sa habere possunt, stuporem ut mira habere non possunt. Our Sacraments may have reverence as things religious & holy, but they can not be wondered at, as things strange & miraculous.  Goad. 
Peter saith Act 3. Whom the heavens must hold till the restoration of all things.  Campion. 
What will you make him a prisoner now in heaven? must he be bound to those properties of a natural body? Heaven is his palace, and you would make it his prison.  Goad. 
They are the words of the holy Ghost, Whom the heavens must contain until etc. It becometh not you so to jest at them, and specially considering your state, being a prisoner, ye should not so play with the word of God. I see now, the modesty I heard reported to be in you, is clean contrary. I would to God you would make more conscience in speaking more reuere●…ly of such Divine matters.  Campion. 
I am a prisoner for religion, but touching Christ his body, why I pray you, might not tha●… same natural body, which by nature being heavy, and yet ascended upward step by step, and pierced those thick Crystal heavens which are harder 
A fancy in philosophy.  than any crystal, walked upon the waters, and ●…orow the door being shut, why may not the same ●…y like 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 many places at once?  Fulke. 
It were a hard matter for you to prove, that the heavens are harder than crystal.  Campion. 
I can prove it.  Goad. 
The text doth not say, that he came thorough the doors being shut, but he came when the doors were shut, the doors by his divine power giving place to his body, as the brazen gates in the Acts did unto Peter of their own accord. Besides, these other things you speak of, they were extraordinary works. etc.  Camp. 
The text is plain, that he came in by a great miracle.  Fulke. 
First there is no words in the ●…xt to enforce a miracle, notwithstanding I am content to grant that he came in miraculously, which might be, either the doors opening of their own accord unto him, as was said they did unto Peter, or by giving place unto his divine power.  Camp. 
If he neither came thorough the doors, nor wrought a miracle, how came he in? Belike he played some juggling trick.  Fulke. 
That is a vile blasphemy. It appeareth you have great 
Here it appeared that many were offended with the indignity thereof.  reverence of Christ, that speak so blasphemously of him, and bear no more reverence to his holy word.  Campion. 
Why what would you call it? if it were not a miracle, it must be some such thing.  Fulke. 
It might be a miracle, though he came not thorough the door, for he came after the doors were shut. Is it a necessary consequence, to say such a one came in after the doors were shut: ergo he came thorough the doors? What tempus is the verb?  Campion. 
I think it be the Aoriste.  Fulke. 
The word is, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. I pray you what tempus is it?  Campion. 
The perfect tempus, even as clausis the Latin word is.  Fulke. 
But you did English it before, the doors being shut, which is the present tempus.  Campion. 
You know it is the phrase of our English speech.  Fulke. 
Our English phrase will bear as well, after the doors were shut.  
Here Master Lieutenant showed them the time was past, and so they left off.  
William Fulke. Roger Goad.   

A remembrance of the conference had in the tower with Edmund Campion jesuite, by William Fulke and Roger Goad Doctors in Divinity, the 23. of September, 1581. as followeth.  
The assertions of Campion were these. 1. Christ is in 
The questions  the blessed Sacrament substantially, very God and very man, in his natural body. The 2. After the words of consecration, the bread and wine are transubstantiated into the body and blood of Christ.  
FIrst Master Lieutenant in a short and pithy speech, exhorted Campion to consider what great favour her Majesty showed him, that he might have conference with the learned to reform his errors, when they should be plainly convinced out of the word of God. etc.  Campion. 
I do acknowledge, that I am beholding to her Majesty. If she have appointed this conference to instruct me, thinking me to be out of the way, I can not but be thankful to her Majesty for the same. Yet I protest (being resolute in my conscience) that I come not with my mind so suspended as to doubt of my cause, but my intent is to do you good: as you would instruct me, so would I instruct you: as you would draw me, so would I draw you. Therefore take my intent in good part, as I would do yours. I come to give an account of my faith, I am not unresolute. This said, he crossed himself after his superstitious manner.  Fulke. 
Let us begin with prayer. O eternal and most merciful God, we humbly thank thy Majesty that thou hast lightened our minds with the knowledge of thy truth: we heartily beseech thee, to confirm & increase our faith always in the same, and at this time grant, that we may so defend thy truth, that thou mayest have the glory, the obstinate heretic may be confounded, the weak may be strengthened, & we all may be edified in jesus Christ, through whom we make our prayers, and to whom with thee and the holy Ghost the Spirit of truth, be all honour and glory, Amen.  
We are earnestly moved, because of the confusion the other day, that it might be avoided now, to desire that we might have some Moderator, if we might entreat any of these learned men that 
Here M. Lieutenant was content, that any learned man present might moderate, but none would take it upon them.  are present to take the pains: otherwise that it might please Master Lieutenant when one argument is done, to command us to go to another. And also when we have accepted an answer, not to suffer the adversary to carry the matter with multitude of words: so that we be neither forced to leave our argument, as though we could follow it no longer, nor the adversary permitted with large discourses to spend the time unprofitably, contrary to the right meaning of this conference.  
But before we enter into the matters appointed, we have to discharge our credit for the authority of the Fathers, whom we alleged the last day in the afternoon when we had not the books ready to show, because the question was then upon the sudden both chosen and disputed upon, all within two hours: whereupon we promised to bring the books as this day, because the adversary would not credit our allegations written in our note books, some of them more than twenty years a go, not to deceive the Papists, but to help our own memory.  
The first place that I have to show, is out of Saint Augustine, de Baptismo contra Donatistas'. lib. 2. cap. 2. Quis autem nesciat, etc. as before in the first days conference.  Camp. 
You might have spared this labour, for of this place I did not doubt, my answer was &c. ut supra.  Fulke. 
We have your answer: let us have no repetition.  Campion. 
The greatest matter that was doubted of, was the decree of Innocentius concerning the communicating of infants, the second Council of Nice, and the prayer at the latter end of every Council. You must prove these three to be erroneous.  Fulke. 
I have proved them already: I am now only to show that the books themselves agree with my written notes. I would have showed you them all in order, though you had not put me in mind. The decree of Innocentius cited by Saint Augustine con●…ta 2. epist. Pelag. ad Bonifacium lib. 2. cap. 4. Haec enim eius verba sunt, etc. ut supra. These are the words of Innocentius, concerning the communicating of in●…ts. S. Augustine's words upon the fame are these. Ecce beatae memoriae Innocentius, etc. Behold Innocentius of blessed memory, etc.  Campion. 
This is plain, I will answer you.  Fulke. 
We have your answer.  Campion. 
You read not so much afore.  Fulke. 
I have read no more now than I did before out of my note book.  Campion. 
Mine answer is, to deny that Innocentius maketh it necessary for infants to communicate.  Fulke. 
We have your answer before, I come only to discharge my credit for alleging the book truly.  Campion. 
Mine answer was, that it was never simply necessary, but necessary according to the praetize of the Church.  Fulke. 
What need these repetitions?  Campion. 
I must declare mine answer.  Fulke. 
We have it already.  Campion. 
You come to appose me, as if I were a scholar in the Grammar school.  Fulke. 
You think by multitude of words to carry away the matter: but you shall have no such scope, as you had the last day.  Campion. 
You are very imperious. I trust, I answered you sufficiently the last day.  Fulke. 
The other day when we had some hope of your conversion, we forbore you much, and suffered you to discourse, contrary to the order of any good conference, whereupon it hath been given out by some of your sect, that you had the best part, because you had the most words. And therefore now that we see you are an obstinate heretic, and seek to cover the light of the truth with multitude of words, we mean not to allow you such large discourses, nor to forbear you, as we did.  Campion. 
You are very imperious to day, whatsoever the matter is. My answer I am sure was sufficient, to any thing you could bring, you need not to be so imperious: I am the Queen's prisoner, and none of yours.  Fulke. 
Not a whit imperious, though I will exact of you to keep the right order of disputation. What your answers were the last day, it is well known to so many lawful witnesses as were present: beside, they are registered out of your mouth: they were even such as are like to proceed from a Friar, full of impudency and garrulity.  Campion. 
Well, I must bear this at your hands, and much more. You charge me with multitude of words: may I not add unto my answer?  Fulke. 
We have heard your answer before: we are not now to dispute the matter again, but to deliver our credit for the allegations.  Campion. 
Do forward then.  Fulke. 
This was the second. Of the form of prayer after the Council, which is this: Te in nostris principijs etc. ut errori indulgeas, etc. We beseech thee in these our beginnings etc. that thou wilt pardon our error. And again, Et quia conscientia remordente tabescimus, ne aut ignorantia nos traxerit in errorem, etc. And because our own consciences accusing us, we do faint, lest either ignorance hath drawn us into error, etc. As was alleged in the first days conference.  Camp. 
Where you infer, that the Council asked forgiveness of their erroneous decree: they meant not any error of doctrine, but of words whatsoever had been spoken against the decree, before the determination of the Council: as, many words might be before used, which after the Councils determination it was not lawful to use.  Fulke. 
They fear least ignorance might have drawn them into error, or headlong Will driven them to decline from justice: & therefore they desired pardon, even for their erroneous & unjust determinations if any were: which were needless, if none could be.  Camp. 
I say, they prayed for those that before the determination of the decree were in error, or for those that spoke against the decree before it was concluded: as, when things are disputed of doubtfully, many things are spoken amiss: as, if any words be spoken here to convert an other. etc.  Goad. 
You are full of similitudes, and as evil you apply them. It is well that you make no more account of general Councils: for by your similitude, you make a general Council no better than this meeting.  Campion. 
I do not make this and a general Council a like.  Fulke. 
The next place was cited out of the second Council of Nice, which decreeth that Angels and souls of men, have bodies, are visible, are circumscriptible. Actione 5. Sanctus dixit de Angelis. etc.  Campion. 
Let me have the book.  Fulke. 
You shall have it when I have read the place. De Angelis & Archangelis & eorum potestatibus, quibus & nostras animas adiungo, ipsa Cathol. Ecclesia sentit esse quidem intelligibiles sed non omnino corporis expertes & invisibiles, ut vos Gentiles dicitis: verum tenui corpore preditos & aerio sive igneo, ut scriptum est, Qui facit Angelos suos spiritus & ministros eius ignem urentem: sic autem multos sanctorum patrum sensisse cognovimus. Quorum est Basilius cognomento Magnus, & beatus Athanasius, & Methodius, & qui stant ab illis. Solummodo autem Deus incorporeus, & informabilis. Intelligibiles autem creaturae nequaquam ex toto sunt incorporeae & inimitabiles. Pictura existunt, quare etiam in loco existunt, & circumferentiam habent. Quanquam autem non sunt ut nos corporeae, utpote ex quatuor elementis, & crassa illa materia: nemo tamen vel Angelos vel daemones vel animas dixerit incorporeas. Multoties enim in proprio corpore visi sunt, sed ab illis, quibus dominus oculos aperuit. Nos igitur eos non ut Deum, sed ut creature as intelligibiles & ministros Dei, non tamen ut verè incorporeos, pingimus & colimus. Quod autem hominis formae pinganturin causa est, quod in ea visi sunt, si quando ministerium Dei apud homines obierint. Tharasius sanctiss. Patriarcha dixit, Animaduertamus dictum patris, quod illic, Samaritae imagines Domini & seruatoris nostri, item intemeratae eius matris subverterunt: hic vero, Gentiles. Ostendit autem pater, quod & Angelos pingere oportet quando circumscribi possint, & ut homines apparuerint. Sacra Synodus dixit, Etiam domine. Concerning Angels and Archangels, and the powers of them, unto whom also I adjoin our souls, the Catholic Church herself doth so think, that they are in deed intelligible, but not altogether void of bodies and invisible, as you Gentiles do say: but that they have a thin body, either of air or of fire, as it is written, Which maketh his Angel's spirits, and his ministers a burning fire. And so we have known that many of the holy fathers have thought, among whom is basil, surnamed the great, and blessed Athanasius and Methodius, and them that stand with them. Only God is without body and shape: but the intelligible creatures are not altogether bodilesses, and they are such as may be portraicted in picture. Wherefore they are in place also, and have a circumscription although they be not bodily as we are, as of the four elements, and that gross matter. Yet no man may say that Angels, or devils, or souls are without bodies, for they have been often seen in their proper bodies: but of them, to whom the Lord hath opened their eyes. Therefore we do paint and worship them, not as God, but as intelligible creatures and the ministers of God, but yet not as truly being without body. But that they are painted in the shape of man, the cause is, that they have been seen in that shape, if at any time they did execute the ministery of God amongst men. Tharasius the most holy Patriarch said, Let us mark the saying of the father: that there, the Samaritans did overthrow the images of our Lord and saviour, and also of his undefiled mother: but here, the Gentiles. The father also showeth, that we ought to paint the Angels, seeing they may be circumscribed, and have appeared as men. The holy Synod said, Yea my Lord.  Campion. 
You have answered yourself.  Fulke. 
That is your common answer, when you can coin no better.  Camp. 
I answered then, and so do now: Assumunt corpora, They take bodies upon them, they have none of their own.  Fulke. 
He saith, they may be circumscribed.  Camp. 
That is, they may be painted.  Fulke. 
Nay, he saith plainly, they are not Expertes corporis, void of body, and defineth of what bodily matter they consist, namely of air or fire, and for that he allegeth the scripture: also he saith, they are not invisible.  Campion. 
Look in what bodies they have appeared, in such they may be painted: they did appear as men, they be not men, neither have they bodies of their own.  Fulke. 
He saith expressly, they have been seen in their own proper body.  Campion. 
The judgement of the Council is, that the Angels may be painted: that is all.  Fulke. 
That is not all: for it affirmeth that they are circumscriptible and visible, as I said before.  Campion. 
You have proved no error of the Council.  Fulke. 
We might have brought the Epitome of the Councils, gathered by one Bartholemew Garanza a Spanish Friar, which noteth it for an error in that Council, contrary to the Lateran Council under Innocentius the third, who thought himself as well learned as you.  Campion. 
It is no matter.  Fulke. 
Yes, it is a matter when Papists agree not amongst themselves.  Campion. 
You should have brought it, I would have answered him also.  Fulke. 
Well, let them that be wise and learned, peruse the Council at their leisure. Further, in reasoning of Peter's reprehension, you said his error was a matter of fact, and not of faith: for the Pope you say may so err, and be reprehended of a poor Priest, who may say unto him: Sir, why do you so: To this I replied that so to reprehend the Pope, was against your own Canon law, which now I prove out of the decrees. part 1. Distinct. 40. cap. Si Papa suae & fraternae salutis negligens deprehenditur, inutilis & remissus in suis operibus, & insuper a bono taciturnus, quod magis officit sibi & omnibus: nihilominus innumerabiles populos cateruatim secum ducit primo mancipio gehennae, cum ipso plagis multis in aeternum vapulaturos. Huius culpas istic redarguere praesumit mortalium nullus, qui cunctos ipse iudicaturus a nemine est iudicandus, nisi deprehendatur à fide devius. Pro cuius perpetuo statu, universit as fidelium tanto instantius or at, quanto suam salutem post Deum ex illius incolumitate animaduertit propensius pendere. If the Pope be found negligent of his own and his brethren's salvation, unprofitable and remiss in his works, and also holding his peace of goodness, which doth more hurt him and all men: nevertheless, he leadeth with him innumerable people by heaps, to the chief slave of hell, with whom he shallbe beaten with many stripes for ever. No mortal man doth here presume to reprove his faults, because he himself being to judge all men, is to be judged of no man, except he be found erring from the faith: for whose perpetual state, the university of faithful doth pray so much the more earnestly, by how much it perceiveth their salvation after God to hang more readily of his health. Again, by the Extravagant, De concessione prebendae: titulo 4. cap. 2. ad Apostolatus, in the Gloss, where he showeth that the Pope may do that which to all others is forbidden: Nec est qui audeat dicere, Domine cur ita facis? And in the marginal note: Papae nullus audeat dicere, Domine cur ita facis? No man may be bold to say to the Pope, Sir, why do you so?  Camp. 
Read the decree again.  Fulke. 
Si Papa. etc.  Campion. 
The meaning of the decree is, that no man may judicially reprehend him: I say so.  Fulke. 
Both the decree & the Extravagant, speak generally, that the Pope must not be reprehended of any man, except he be an heretic, whereof it followeth that Gratian'S Decree and the Gloss thought not, but that he might err in faith.  Camp. 
Mine answer is, he may do it soberly, as a man may with humility reprehend his prince, but not judge him.  Fulke. 
Let other men judge, I have showed as much as I promised out of the Canon Law. You charged me to affirm in mine answer to Bristol, that so a man hold the foundation of faith, it is no matter what errors he hold beside. Here is my book, show these words, or any words to that sense, as you promised.  Camp. 
You say that the true Church may err in matters of great weight, so they retain the foundation.  Fulke. 
I say, that so long as a man holdeth the foundation, though he err in small matters, he may be saved.  Cam. 
You say the fathers erred in invocation of Saints, which is a great matter with God's Church, though you call it a small matter, and yet you will not teach the people that it is a small matter.  Fulk. 
I said, that invocation of Saints as it was held by some of the latter sort of ancient fathers, was but a small error in comparison of such gross heresies which the Popish Church doth now hold, and in comparison of such invocation of Saints as is now maintained and practised by the Papists: but your accusation of my book was written, therefore you can not alter it.  Camp. 
Lend me your book that I may charge you. The book being delivered, after a little turning, he said, This is not the book that I meant.  Fulke. 
This is the book that you named.  Camp. 
I meant your answer unto Doctor Allens articles, because Bristol hath confuted it.  Fulk. 
This is a poor shift, when you have slandered my book, and named one, to fly to another: so would you do with that book you name now. For I am sure, that neither in that, nor any other that ever I wrote, your slander can be found.  Goad. 
There is an other thing ye were desirous to see, touching the Council of Constantinople, and the Council of Nice, one of them being alleged to be contrary to the other about setting up of Images in the Church: the Council of Constantinople disallowing Images, and the second Council of Nice allowing them, and condemning the other Council as erroneous.  Camp. 
That of Constantinople, was not a general nor lawful Council, but a certain Iconomachy, and may rather be called a conventicle then a general Council, and therefore no contrariety hereby proved between general Councils.  Goad. 
It appeareth it was general, and solemnly gathered in the chief city: hear the words in the title of the Council. Sancta, magna & universalis Synodus quae iuxtagratiā Dei, & per pium devotorum & orthodoxorum nostrorum Imperatorum Constantini 
Concil. To. 3. fol. 139.  & Leonis decretum, in hac diuinorm●… studiosa & regia civitate congregata est, etc. The holy great and universal Synod which by the grace of God and the godly decree of our godly Emperors Constantine and Leo, is gathered in this holy and royal city. This Council did confute by the Scriptures, the setting up of Images in the Church, out of Deut. 20. Thou shalt not make to thyself any Image nor likeness of any thing. etc. and Deut. 4. For which cause (saith this Counsel) you heard the voice of words in the midst of the fire, but you saw no image. Contrary to this, the Council of Nice doth accurse those that will not worship images in these words: Qui venerandas imagines, non venerantur Anathema. Accursed be they that worship not holy images.  
So it appeareth that these two Councils were contrary, and therefore one of them did err. But I will proceed to the next place. You doubted also, whether it were to be found in Saint Augustine, that there is no Miracle in the Sacrament. Now you may hear his own words. To. 3. De Trinitate lib. 3. cap. 10. Sicut panis ad hoc factus in accipiendo Sacramento consumitur. Sed quia haec hominibus nota sunt quia per homines fiunt, honorem tanquam religiosa possunt habere, stuporem tanquam mira non possunt. As the bread ordained for this purpose, is consumed in receiving the Sacrament. But because these things are known unto men, & are done by men, they may have honour or reverence as holy things, but they can not be wondered at as things strange and miraculous. Here you have Augustine's words against miracle in the Sacrament.  Camp. 
In deed there is no such evident miracle visibly appearing, as when Christ cured the lame, the blind, etc. but yet there is a great miracle which our faith doth acknowledge.  Goad. 
Augustine speaketh simply against miracle: so that whether it be visible or invisible, both is excluded. Beside, it is perpetual in all miracles, that there must be some outward sensible sign. Further, you doubted of Inhaerens justitia, righteousness inherent in ourselves, which I avouched to be erroneous doctrine set forth in the late Council of Trent. The words are these, Concil. Trident. cap. 7. Verè justi nominamur, & sumus justitiam in nobis recipientes unusquisque suam, secundum mensuram quam spiritus sanctus partitur singulis prout vult, secundum propriam cuiusque dispositionem & cooperationem. Et cap. 16. Quae quum justitia nostra dicitur, quia per eam nobis inhaerentem iustificamur, illa eadem Dei est, quia a Deo nobis infunditur per Christi meritum. We are called and in deed are truly righteous, receiving in ourselves every man his own righteousness, according to the measure which the holy Ghost doth divide to every one even as he will, according to every man's own proper disposition & cooperation. For that righteousness which is called ours, because we are justified by it inherent in ourselves, the self same is the righteousness of God, because it is powered into us from God by the merit of Christ.  Camp. 
I did not doubt of inherent righteousness in ourselves, whether it were in the Council of Trent, for I defend & maintain it as the Council teacheth it: you say it is by imputation of Christ's righteousness being without us, whereby we are justified: and I say, we are justified by that righteousness which is within us, though it be not of us.  Goad. 
The place which I urged against you the other day, beside many other in the scripture, is direcly against this doctrine. 2. Cor. 5. 21. He hath made him to be fin for us which knew no sin, that we should be made the righteousness of God in him.  Fulke. 
Well, now we are to come to the question. You hold that the natural body & blood of Christ is contained in the Sacrament of the lords supper. Your words are, Christ is present in the Sacrament substantially, very God & man in his natural body.  Camp. 
I say there is really present in the Sacrament, the natural body and blood of Christ under that bread and cup.  Fulke. 
What mean you by these words under the bread and cup, that we may agree of terms?  Campion. 
You know in the bread is whiteness, etc. that is not in his body: make your argument.  Fulke. 
So I will.  
The cup is not the natural blood of Christ:  
Ergo the other part is not his natural body. 
Argument 1.   Campion. 
There is present in the cup, the natural blood of Christ. Go to my words.  Fulke. 
Well.  
The natural blood of Christ is not present in the cup:  
Ergo the natural body is not present in the other part.  Campion. 
The natural blood of Christ is present in the cup.  Fulke. 
Thus I disprove it.  
The words of Christ's institution be these:  
This cup is the new testament in my blood:  
But the natural blood of Christ is not the new testament in his blood:  
Ergo the natural blood of Christ is not in the cup.  Camp. 
The ward, Is, is neither in the Hebrew, nor in the Greeke.  Fulke. 
Very well, you shall see me find it. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Campion. 
You must add this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Fulke. 
Nay, the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is in Saint Paul, This cup is the new testament in my blood.  Campion. 
The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is understood, is referred to the beginning of the sentence. Hic est calix nowm testamentum in sanguine meo: This is the cup, the new testament in my blood: he saith not this cup is the new testament.  Fulke. 
You pervert the words, you cannot shift it off so.  Campion. 
My text hath it so.  Fulke. 
It cannot be so, you have heard the Greek, and your vulgar translation is according to the Greek: Hic calix nowm testamentum est in meo sanguine. 1. Cor. cap. 11.  Camp. 
No Sir, I was in hand with the 22. of Luke.  Fulke. 
Shall you appoint me my text? I say, my text is taken out of Saint Paul. I have showed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Greek & Latin both.  Campion. 
It is referred to the beginning, Hic est calix nowm testamentum.  Fulke. 
The composition cannot admit that perversion, you would obscure the sense by disordering the words: but Saint Paul is a better interpreter of Saint Luke, in whom the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lacketh, than your vulgar translation.  Campion. 
What do you infer of these words?  Fulke. 
The cup is the new testament:  
But the natural blood of Christ is not the new testament:  
Ergo the natural blood of Christ is not the cup.  Camp. 
M. Doctor this is your argument. The cup is the new testament, etc. I deny your argument.  Fulke. 
It is a syllogism.  Campion. 
It is neither in mode nor figure.  Fulke. 
It is in Baroco.  Camp. 
You take the cup otherwise in the Maior then in the conclusion. For when it is said, the cup is the new Testament, the meaning is, that in the cup, which is the blood of Christ, is the covenant of the new Testament. In the conclusion you take the cup for the chalice, wherein the blood of Christ is.  Fulke. 
I take the cup for the same in both: I speak & mean as the Apostle doth. I take the cup for that which is in the cup. Therefore mark my argument again.  
The cup, or that which is in the cup, is the new Testament:  
The natural blood of Christ is not the new Testament:  
Ergo the natural blood of Christ is not the cup, or that which is in the cup. Answer to this Syllogism.  Campion. 
It is no Syllogism, there be quatuor termini.  Fulke. 
Well I perceive then, you can answer no otherwise.  Campion. 
It is plain taking the cup, for that in the cup.  Fulke. 
Master Lieutenant, you hear his answer: I will rest in the judgement of those which know what a Syllogism is.  Goad. 
I will propound an other argument. You say that Christ is present in the Sacrament substantially, very God and man in his natural body, which I improve thus.  
Look how Christ was present to the Fathers in the wilderness 
2. Argument.  in Manna, and in the rock, even so he is present to us in our Sacrament:  
But he was not present to them in their Sacrament in his natural body:  
Therefore he is not in his natural body present in our Sacrament.  Campion. 
I deny your Mayor or first proposition.  Goad. 
I prove it thus. They received in their Sacrament the same substance that we do: Therefore they had the same presence.  Campion. 
I deny your Antecedent.  Goad. 
I prove it out of the plain words of the Apostle, 1. Cor. 10. 3. Et omnes eandem escam, etc. speaking of our fathers the Israelites, he saith, And did all eat the same spiritual meat, and did all drink the same spiritual drink, for they drank of the spiritual rock that followed them, & the rock was Christ.  Campion. 
They did eat eandem escam spiritualem, the same spiritual grace, but not the same substance.  Goad. 
They received the same that we do touching the substance: you can not so annoyed the force of this place. Spiritual is added in respect of the corporal signs, which differ between them and us, as shall after appear, but the same spiritual substance in both, as the circumstance of that place enforceth.  Camp. 
Why, Christ had yet received no substance of flesh, and therefore could not then be present to them substantially in his natural body.  Goad. 
You reason well for me. Therefore he was present unto them spiritually, as the words are, eandem escam spiritualem: And so he is to us present, and not carnally, because Christ had not then taken flesh, and the Fathers did then eat Christ in substance as well as we, therefore the presence and eating in both must needs be spiritual.  Camp. 
I answer they had the same in a mystery and figure.  Goad. 
This is no answer. I will easily take it away both by the words following in the text, and also by the manifest circumstance of the place, both which proveth to be clearly the same in substance. They had the same Christ, who is the substance of our Sacraments: ergo the same substance that we have.  Camp. 
They had not the same Christ in substance, in their Sacrament.  Goad. 
The words following are plain to expound the Apostles meaning: Et omnes eundem potum biberunt, etc. Petra autem erat Christus. They did all drink the same spiritual drink, for they drunk of the spiritual rock that followed them, which rock was Christ: Therefore they eating and drinking the same Christ, did eat and drink the same substance.  Campion. 
There is a fallation in the word, eandem, the same. In a mystery and in signification the same, but in substance, great difference.  Goad. 
The difference was only in the outward signs, the measure of revelation, and in time, they believing on Christ to come, and we in Christ that is come: but in matter and substance the very same. And that the Apostles meaning must needs be so, I will now manifestly prove out of the circumstance of this text, and out of the Apostles own argument. His purpose is to prove that the Israelites were nothing inferior to the Corinthians, touching the seals or Sacraments of God's favour: and therefore the Corinthians had no more to boast in, touching their Sacraments then the Israelites had. Whereupon he sayeth they did eat the same meat etc. ergo they were equal. Now if they eat not the same in substance, which the Corinthians did eat, but only in shadow & figure (as you say) than the Israelites were much inferior to the Corinthians in their sacraments, and so ye would make the Apostles argument of no force.  Campion. 
The Apostles meaning is, that the old Israelites believed in the same Christ, and did eat him after a sort, as we do: they were not altogether equal, for he speaketh a little before of Baptism, saying, that they were baptised in the cloud, this was not the same with our baptism.  Goad. 
In deed the outward sign differed, as I said before, namely the watery cloud from our water in Baptism, but in matter and substance it was a sign of the same invisible grace. And so the Apostle proveth the Israelites equal to the Corinthians, and consequently to us in both the Sacraments.  Campion. 
Abraham believed in the same Christ, yet Christ was not then incarnate to Abraham, as he is now to us, etc.  Goad. 
To what purpose is this? What doth it help you? doth it not rather confirm that I said to be true, the same in substance, the same Christ before & now, the difference to be in time? These are your old excursions, when ye can not answer the argument. But now, after I have proved the same substance (which you denied) first by the plain words, & then by the evident circumstance and drift of the text, I will yet further urge this argument by the judgement of Saint Augustine. tom. 9 in joh. tract. 26. Sacramenta illa fuerunt in signis diversa, sed in re quae significatur, pariasunt. Apostolum audi. Omnes eandem escam spiritualem manducaverunt, spiritualem utique eandem: Nam corporalem alteram, quia illi Manna, nos aliud: spiritualem verò quam nos. Those Sacraments were in signs divers, but in the thing signified are equal. Hear what the Apostle sayeth. All did eat the same spiritual meat: in deed the same meat spiritual. For touching the corporal meat they did eat one, & we another, but they did eat the same spiritual meat that we do.  Campion. 
You must prove out of Augustine, that they did eat the same Christ.  Goad. 
That hath been already plainly proved out of the text, They drank of the rock, etc. the rock was Christ. But you shall have it proved also out of Augustine, who expounding the Apostles words, saith, they did eat the same spiritual meat that we do eat.  Campion. 
He meaneth the same in effect.  Goad. 
Augustine's words are plain, not the same in effect, but in substance and matter. In signis diversa, sed in re paria. Those Sacraments in matter or thing signified are equal: He maketh difference in the signs, 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 Lamb is said to be slain from the beginning of the world: but Christ in deed was not yet incarnate.  Goad. 
True it is, that touching the purpose and counsel of God, and the efficacy of Christ's death in all ages, the Lamb Christ was slain from the beginning. But what is this to mine argument out of Augustine? The difference of time is no matter, they eat the same thing, they did eat Sacramenta re paria, saith Augustine. And in his treatise de utilitate poenitentiae Tom. 9 he proveth very plainly, the same Christ and the same substance to be in the Israelites sacrament, and in ours.  Campion. 
Read the place.  Goad. 
Eundem inquit cibum spiritualem manducanerunt: quid est eundem, nisi quia eum quem etiam nos? Suffecerat ut diceret, cibum spiritualem manducaverunt: eundem inquit: eundem non invenio 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 evacuatum est scandalum crucis. Quomodo ergo eundem, nisi quia addidit spiritualem? Nam qui Manna illud sic acceperunt, ut tantummodo indigentiae suae corporali satisfieri putarent, & ventrem suum pasci, non mentem: 
Some of these words were then omitted, & not read for brevity sake.  nihil magnum manducaverunt. Quicunque in Manna Christum intellexerunt, eundem quem nos cibum spiritualem manducaverunt. 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, diversa verba sunt, sed idem Christus. He saith they did eat the same spiritual meat. What is the same, but the same that we also eat? It might have sufficed to say, they did eat spiritual meat, but he saith, the same. I do not find how to understand this word, the same, but the same which we also do eat. Then may some say, What, was Manna the same which I now receive? then doth nothing come now but that which was before? then the offence of the cross is become void: how then can it be true that he sayeth, the same, but that he addeth spiritual? For they that did receive Manna in such sort, that they thought thereby to satisfy only their corporal necessity, and to feed their belly and not their mind, did eat no great thing. Whosoever in Manna did understand Christ, did eat the same spiritual meat that we do, and also received the same drink that we do, but spiritual, that is, which was received by faith, and not by the body. Thou hast heard that it is the same drink, the rock was Christ. For there was not one Christ then, and another now: for then Christ was to come, now he is come. To come, and is come, be divers words, but the same Christ. You hear how Augustine, as it were of purpose, often urgeth the word, eundem, the same meat. And afterward explaineth it to be the same Christ in their Sacraments and ours, and notwithstanding the difference in time, yet the same in substance.  Campion. 
I grant to be the same Christ, as I said before, touching the effect and deed, slain to them in hope, but to us in deed: they had the same touching the fruit and effect, and so S. Augustine is to be understood.  Goad. 
Your answer is more absurd than 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 under the law did only figure, but ours do confer and give grace.  Campion. 
This is mine answer: the same in effect and end, touching salvation. If you can say no more, ye may go to another argument.  Goad. 
Your answer is taken away, and can stand neither with the text of the Apostle, nor yet with Saint Augustine's judgement. Beside, it is manifest you would confound those things, which of their own nature must needs be distinguished, namely the thing itself, and the effect, end, or fruit that cometh thereof. For the effect being salvation, is the fruit that followeth the spiritual eating of Christ being the thing itself or substance: whom whosoever first eateth not, can not be partaker of the fruit that followeth.  Camp. 
You have not, neither can take away mine answer. The same I say still, in effect & end, but not equal in the thing signified. As, a man may be sick to day, and to morrow whole: the same man, but not the same in substance of his body and blood.  Goad. 
Well, seeing you have none other answer, I will leave this argument, and commit it to the judgement of the learned to judge of your answer.  Fulke. 
Thus I will prove, that Christ is not present in his natural body in the Sacrament.  
Whatsoever is in the sacrament is void of sense, or insensible: 
3. Argument.   
But Christ is not insensible:  
Ergo Christ is not in the Sacrament.  Camp. 
Your mayor and your minor are both untrue in some sense.  Fulke. 
This is your old shift, to trouble the hearers understanding, with proof of both parts, that you might not be espied in the point of controversy.  Campion. 
That you say unsensible, it is true, if you mean the spiritual grace, which is not subject to sense.  Fulke. 
I mean by insensible, void of life or sense.  Campion. 
Then I deny your mayor.  Fulke. 
I prove it out of Epiphanius. lib. Anchorato.  Campion. 
Read the place.  Fulke. 
The words be these. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc.  Campion. 
What word build you upon:  Fulke. 
I have read the words, where he saith it is insensible, if you understand it.  Campion. 
You might have brought the Latin book.  Fulke. 
Then you would have caviled, that it was not rightly translated: but you were best confess your ignorance.  Campion. 
I pray you help me.  Fulke. 
If you understand it yourself, I need not.  Campion. 
I understand Latin better then Greek. Yet I trust I have Greek enough to answer you withal. Read it in Latin.  Fulke. 
Nay, I will read it in English, that other men may understand it as well as you. For we see what our father took in his hands, as it is contained in the Gospel, that he arose at supper, and took these things. And after he had given thanks, he said, This of me is that. And we see that it is not equal, nor like, neither to the incarnate image, nor to the invisible deity, nor to the lineaments of his members: For this thing is of long shape, or roll fashion, and void of sense, as concerning power. And yet he would say through grace, This of mine is that, and no man doth discredit the saying.  Camp. 
You lose time: we should not credit our eyes, but faith. What have you gotten by this place: Epiphanius saith none must discredit the presence of Christ in the Sacrament, because it is a long white thing.  Fulke. 
You understand not the place.  Campion. 
The meaning is, we must not credit sense, but faith: you have gained nothing by this place.  Fulke. 
Yes, more than you would willingly afford. First, that the sacramental bread in that time, was not such a round thin cake, as you use in your Mass, but a roll of bread: Secondly, that the sacrament was not equal with Christ: and thirdly that it was an insensible thing, void of life, having not so much as that power of sense.  Campion. 
He sayeth that we should not credit our sight, but faith: we must believe Christ to be present.  Fulke. 
As Christ hath said and meaneth.  Campion. 
That which I see is void of sense, it is against yourself, it teacheth us to believe faith.  Fulke. 
You know not the argument of the book, nor of the place.  Campion. 
Yes as well as you.  Fulke. 
Then show it afore this company, you that will challenge the whole Church of England, and make profession of universal knowledge.  Camp. 
I will answer any challenge I have made.  Fulke. 
Yea, even as you do this. Show us the argument which the Doctor handleth in this place, if you can.  Campion. 
I have said, you are not able to reply.  Fulke. 
Yes if you will show the argument, I will reply. Campion. You do not.  Fulke. 
I do not, therefore I cannot: I will first show the argument of the place: he speaketh of images, & namely he showeth how man is made after God's image, & yet is not equal with God, although Christ being the image of the Father, is equal with him. This he showeth by example of the sacrament, which is the image of Christ, in such sort as man is the image of God. For it is not equal with Christ, nor like unto him, either concerning his humanity or deity: but a mere insensible thing, as that which hath no power of life: whereas Christ is all sensible, all of power, all incomprehensible, concerning his Godhead.  Campion. 
Reply against mine answer, if you can. The exterior form or colour which we see, is that which he saith to be insensible.  Fulke. 
He speaketh not of colour, he speaketh of that which Christ calleth his body. Is the exterior form called the body of Christ: Is the colour of bread the image of Christ: Epiphanius sayeth, that of which Christ said, This is my body, is void of sense: Therefore he saith the whole Sacrament, or whatsoever is contained in it, is insensible.  Campion. 
That is, Christ is not seen, but under the exterior form or colour, For no substance can be seen. Are not you Doctor Fulke? and yet I see nothing but your colour and exterior form. I will abide by this, that the substance of any thing can not be seen.  Fulke. 
I will not vouchsafe to reply upon this answer, too childish for a Sophister.  Camp. 
You are very imperious. You come I trow, to pose me as a Grammar scholar, and to take me up with check at your pleasure. I know no cause why I should take it at your hands: I am the Queen's prisoner, and not yours.  Fulke. 
I would you were the Queen's true subject.  Goad. 
Whatsoever is naturally present in the Sacrament, is beneath upon earth: 
4. Argument.   
But Christ touching his body is not beneath upon earth:  
Ergo Christ touching his body, is not naturally present in the Sacrament.  Campion. 
I deny your minor.  Goad. 
Christ touching his bodily presence is in heaven, and only in heaven: therefore not upon earth.  Campion. 
I deny your Antecedent, it is partly true, and partly false, ordinarily he is in heaven, but miraculously his body also is in earth.  Goad. 
I will ease you of your distinction.  
Christ is no way present on earth, touching his body:  
Therefore neither ordinarily, nor yet miraculously. Answer to the argument briefly.  Campion. 
As brief as you wil He is some way present upon earth touching his body. Prove your antecedent.  Goad. 
I prove it thus.  
If Christ touching his bodily presence, be any way present upon earth, than he is to be sought upon earth:  
But he is not to be sought upon earth:  
Ergo no way present upon earth.  Campion. 
I deny your Minor. He is some way to be sought upon earth in the Sacrament, but not by his ordinary presence.  Goad. 
Mine argument is against all distinction.  Campion. 
Will you not give me leave to distinguish:  Goad. 
I say, he is no way bodily present on earth, which utterly taketh away your distinction. And I prove it by the Apostles reason. Colos. 3. 1. Si consurrexistis cum Christo. etc. If ye be risen together with Christ, seek those things that are above where Christ sitteth at the right hand of God, set your affection on heavenly things, and not upon earthly things. The Apostle exhorteth us to seek things above, because Christ is in heaven touching his body, sitting at the right hand of God. If he be beneath on earth bodily any way, than the Apostles reason is nothing.  Campion. 
The Apostles meaning is, that Christ is not to be sought for now, in that sort as when he walked upon earth.  Goad. 
This answer is taken away before. The Apostles true meaning is, to draw them from men's traditions, and earthly ceremonies, by this reason, Because Christ is not beneath on earth touching his body.  Campion. 
He meaneth of all earthly things, and not of ceremonies.  Goad. 
That is but your conjecture, of ignorance or forgetfulness of the Apostles argument in the former chapter next going before.  Camp. 
Is not Christ to be sought upon earth? when I look into my Bible, do I not seek Christ?  Goad. 
I think you do not truly seek him.  Camp. 
Do you?  Goad. 
I will not answer your words. Answer you mine argument, ye would go from the matter.  Camp. 
Your argument is nothing. If Christ be in heaven, I must not seek him in earth.  Goad. 
It is the argument of the Apostle, and may thus be framed.  
Our affection must there be set where Christ is, touching his body:  
But Christ is in heaven alone touching his body, where he sitteth at the right hand of God:  
Therefore our affection must be in heaven.  Camp. 
What is it to seek Christ above? must I fly up into heaven? it is our affection and cogitation that must be lift up.  Goad. 
What is this to the argument, you answer not the Apostles reason, being framed into a Syllogism.  
Our affection must be where Christ is, touching his body:  
But he is in heaven in his body, at the right hand of God:  
Ergo there to be sought, and not upon earth.  
If Christ be any way upon earth, the Apostles argument holdeth not: but contrariwise by the Apostles reason, earthly things were to be sought, if Christ be any way upon earth touching his body.  Camp. 
I must not now seek Christ in conversation in jerusalem: to seek him in the Sacrament, is not to seek him in earth.  Goad. 
But if he be on earth in the Sacrament (as you say) bodily, than he may be sought upon earth, yea and earthly things also, which the Apostle denieth. There is a manifest opposition in the Apostles words between above and beneath, in heaven and in earth: ye may not confound these.  
We must ascend thither where Christ is:  
But he is above in heaven:  
Therefore in mind we must ascend into heaven.  Campion. 
The drift of the Apostle is, we must ascend with Christ, we must die with Christ, in affection, and spiritually.  Goad. 
You never answer directly to the argument. It 〈◊〉 contrary to the Apostles plain words, and against the scope of his exhortation, that we should seek Christ beneath, as any way bodily present on earth.  Camp. 
Mine answer is, that according to his ordinary presence he is above, but according to miracle, he is bodily upon earth beneath.  Goad. 
Now ye fly again to miracle: but this shift is taken away before. For if Christ be any way bodily present on earth, though it be by miracle, than he is to be sought on earth, which the Apostle denieth. You hear his answer, this stone hath been rolled enough.  Fulke. 
If Christ be present in his natural body, he is present in his true body: 
5. Argument.   
But he is not present in his true body:  
Ergo he is not present in his natural.  Campion. 
I deny your Minor: he is present in his true body.  Fulke. 
If he be present in his true body, then wheresoever the Sacrament is, there is his true body:  
But wheresoever the Sacrament is, there is not his true body:  
Ergo he is not present in his true body.  Campion. 
Prove your Minor: Wheresoever the Sacrament is, there is his true body.  Fulke. 
Chrysostom denieth it in cap. 5. Math. Homilia 12. operis imperfecti: Sin vasa sanctificata ad privatos usus transferre peccatum est & periculum, sicut docet nos Balthasar, qui bibens in calicibus sacratis, de regno depositus & de vita. Si ergo haec vasa sanctificata in privatos usus transferre periculosum est, in quibus non est verum corpus Christi, sed misterium corporis Christi continetur, quanto magis vasa corporis nostri, quae sibi Deus ad habitaculum preparavit, non debemus locum dare diabolo agendi in eyes quae vult. Here you see Chrysostom doth plainly deny the true body of Christ to be present in the holy vessels, in the which the mystery or sacrament thereof is contained.  Campion. 
Of all other Doctors he maketh most against you.  Fulke. 
He maketh nothing against us for this question, in any place of his works: but how answer you unto this place?  Camp. 
I say, where the natural body of Christ is present, there is his true body present.  Fulke. 
But this Doctor saith clean contrary, that in the holy vessels is contained the mystery of the body of Christ, but not the true body of Christ.  Camp. 
He speaketh of Balthasar's vessels.  Fulke. 
Although he bringeth Balthasar's example of abusing the holy vessels of the jews, to show how dangerous it is to convert holy things to private uses: yet he speaketh expressly of the holy vessels of the Christians, wherein was the mystery of the body of Christ.  Camp. 
The chalice may be abused, after the true body of Christ is taken out of it, and that is a great fault to abuse it, when the body of Christ is not in it.  Fulke. 
Then he should say, In quibus non erat: but he saith, In quibus non est, In which the true body of Christ is not.  Campion. 
He talketh of all holy vessels, not only of the chalice.  Fulke. 
I grant he reasoneth from the less to the more: if it be dangerous to abuse all holy vessels, namely those, in which the true body of Christ is not, but the mystery thereof: how much more perilous is it, to abuse the vessels of our body, wherein God dwelleth?  Campion. 
Doth he say, that the body of Christ is not in the chalice?  Fulke. 
He saith it is in none of the vessels:  
But the chalice is a vessel:  
Ergo it is not in the chalice.  Campion. 
May not the holy vessels be abused after mass is done? and so he meaneth that though the body of Christ be not in them when they are abused, yet it is an heinous fault to abuse them when the Sacrament is taken out.  Fulke. 
His words are plain, that the true body of Christ is not in them, but the mystery or sacrament thereof. 
Here D. Fulke was admonished to rehearse the place in English, that the people might understand.   
For if it be a sin and danger to transfer the sanctified vessels unto private uses, as Balthasar doth teach us, which drinking in the hallowed cups, was deposed from his kingdom, and from his life. Therefore if it be so dangerous to transfer unto private uses these sanctified vessels, in which is not the true body of Christ, but a mystery of the body of Christ is contained: how much more the vessels of our body, which God hath prepared for a dwelling place to himself, ought we not to yield unto the devil, to do in them what he will. The place is so plain, that no man can deny it: he saith the mystery of Christ is contained in the vessels, therefore he speaketh not of the vessels when they are empty, but when the sacrament is in them, which he denieth to be the true body of Christ.  Campion. 
The thing may be abused after the true body of Christ be taken out, and yet there is a mystery there, because of the spiritual use, the meaning is, you must not abuse the thing referred to holy uses, by the example of Balthasar, and therefore the mystery is always there, when the vessels are empty.  Fulke. 
A very secret mystery in deed; that is in the empty chalice. Well, well, I think that there is none so simple here, but he may see in what case you stand.  Campion. 
A mystery is not always taken in one sense. Why may there not be a mystery of Christ in the empty chalice? there is a mystery of Christ in every thing. I would you might answer me a while to that I could bring out of Chrysostom.  Fulke. 
You are not allowed to oppose at this time, but I will answer you in writing whatsoever you can bring. As for this matter, all men see how unable you are to answer. I could help you with a better answer myself.  Goad. 
If Christ be present in the sacrament in his natural 
6. Argument.  body, than his bodily presence must continue so long as the use of the sacrament continueth, to the worlds end:  
But Christ touching his bodily presence doth not so continue:  
Therefore Christ is not present in the sacrament in his natural body.  Camp. 
Christ doth, and so shall continue his bodily presence to the end of the world.  Goad. 
Christ himself hath denied his bodily presence or continuance:  
Therefore he shall not so continue.  Campion. 
I deny your antecedent.  Goad. 
Io. 16. vers. 28. I leave the world and go to the father. And Math. 26. 11. The poor ye shall have always with you, but me ye shall not have always.  Camp. 
He meaneth, he will not be conversant in the world as then he was, touching his outward conversation, and poor estate: you shall not saith he, have me always with you as you have the poor. Here he was entering into a long tale.  Goad. 
I looked for this shift before. I will take away your distinction, ye are too full of words, ye will not suffer me to go on with mine argument: you are belike afraid.  
It is spoken in respect of his bodily presence simply:  
Therefore not in respect of his poor estate.  Campion. 
Prove what you can: I deny your antecedent.  Goad. 
I prove it by Saint Augustine, expounding the same words of our Saviour Christ. Tractat. in 10. 50. Pauperes semper habebitis vobiscum, me autem non semper: loquebatur enim de presentia corporis sui. Nam secundum maiestatem suam, secundum providentiam, secundum ineffabilem & invisibilem gratiam, impletur quod ab eo dictum est, Ecce ego vobiscum sum usque ad consummationem seculi: secundum carnem quam verbum assumpsit, secundum id quòd de virgine natus est etc. non semper habebitis vobiscum. Ascendit in coelum, & non est hîc, ibi est enim: sedet ad dextram patris, & hîc est, non enim recessit praesentia maiestatis. Secundum praesentiam maiestatis semper habemus Christum, secundum praesentiam carnis, rectè dictum est discipulis, Me autem non semper habebitis. The poor ye shall have always with you, but me ye shall not have always: he spoke this of the presence of his body. For according to his Majesty, according to his providence, according to his unspeakable & invisible grace, that is fulfilled which Christ said, Lo I am with you to th'end of the world: according to the flesh which the word took, according to that he was borne of the virgin, etc. you shall not (saith he) have me with you always. He is ascended into heaven & is not here: for he is there sitting at the right hand of the father. And he is here, for he is not departed according to the presence of his majesty. According to the presence of his majesty, we have Christ always with us: according to the presence of his flesh, it was well said to his disciples, But me you shall not have always. Augustine in his first words expoundeth this, to be spoken of the bodily presence of Christ, simply.  Campion. 
It is spoken according to his visible conversation: Prove any thing against this.  Goad. 
Augustine excludeth all kind of bodily presence:  
Therefore it is not spoken according to his visible conversation.  Camp. 
I deny your Antecedent.  Goad. 
Augustine acknowledgeth only two kinds of presence of Christ: the one, the bodily presence of his flesh: the other, according to his majesty, providence & invisible grace. According to this latter kind he saith, Christ is present with us: which he directly opposeth to his bodily presence. Therefore all kind of bodily presence is excluded.  Campion. 
There is no contrariety to that I said before. S. Augustine excludeth not by majestical presence all bodily presence. Make your Syllogism, and I will answer you.  Goad. 
It is more than the usual order of disputation, to require a Syllogism, when I am come to the issue of mine argument, namely to authority, as now we are come to Augustine: but I will follow your request: Do you answer directly. Thus I make mine argument out of Augustine's words.  
Christ is now present with his Church touching his majesty, and unspeakable grace:  
Therefore by no means touching his body.  Campion. 
I deny your argument.  Goad. 
Augustine's words proveth it, making but two kinds of presence of Christ: namely, presence of majesty, and presence of flesh: and opposeth the one against the other.  Camp. 
He speaketh not of Christ present in the sacrament, but of his presence which every Christian man may have: he speaketh according to Subiectam materiam, he excludeth not his natural presence in the sacrament.  Goad. 
You answer not the argument out of Augustine. But I will follow you, and prove that he excludeth the presence of Christ's natural body in the sacrament.  
He excludeth all presence, save that by his majesty, providence, and grace:  
Ergo he excludeth the presence of Christ's natural body in the sacrament.  Camp. 
To your Antecedent I answer: he excludeth all ordinary presence by outward conversation, and showeth how Christ is present with every Christian by his spirit and grace: he speaketh not of his presence in the sacrament.  Goad. 
He speaketh generally, excluding all bodily presence.  
Therefore aswell in the sacrament, as without.  Camp. 
He speaketh generally, quoad subiectam materiam, according to the matter that he had in hand.  Goad. 
You answer not the argument. Thus I urge it briefly.  
Christ is now present with his Church, only touching his spirit and grace:  
Ergo he is no way present touching his body.  
Mine argument you see is grounded upon Augustine's plain words, opposing the one presence to the other, Secundum presentiam maiestatis, semper habemus Christum. etc.  Campion. 
He compareth these two together, how he was present to his Apostles, and how to us: he talketh generally of an usual presence; as every mammay have Christ present by prayer, etc.  Goad. 
And he maketh Christ present to us, none other way but by his majesty, and invisible grace: and touching all presence of his flesh, saith it is true, me ye shall not have always. I pray you, would or durst Augustine so have written in so plain words absolutely to allow only of Christ's presence by his grace, denying that touching his bodily presence we should not always have him with us, if Christ any way were still bodily present upon earth:  Camp. 
Yea, I warrant you, being rightly understood. For he opposeth his presence then, and his presence now, not any more according to visible conversation. And so your argument ye would make out of Augustine, is not good.  Goad. 
You use not to answer the point of the argument, but your manner is to hold you still to one shifting distinction, though it be often taken away. Your kind of answering is not only against learning, but against common sense.  Fulke. 
I will take an other argument.  
If Christ be present in the sacrament in his natural body, he is 
Argument 7.  present in truth and in deed, not only in a signifying mystery:  
But he is not present in the sacrament in truth and in deed, but only in a signifying mystery:  
Ergo he is not present in his natural body.  Cam. 
I deny your Minor: he is present in the truth of his body.  Fulke. 
I prove it out of the Canon Law. De Consecratione Distinct. 2. cap. Hoc est. Sicut ergo caelestis panis qui Christi caro est, suo modo vocatur corpus Christi, cum revera sit sacramentum corporis Christi illius videlicet quod visibile, quodpalpabile mortale in cruse positum est, vocaturque ipsa immolatio carnis, quae sacerdotismanibus fit, Christi passio, mors, crucifixio, non rei veritate, sed significant mysterio: sic Sacramentum fidei, quod Baptismus intelligitur, fides est●… Therefore even as the heavenly bread which is the flesh of Christ, after a peculiar manner is called the body of Christ, when in deed it is the Sacrament of the body of Christ, to wit, of that body, which being visible, which being palpable, being mortal, was put on the cross, and even that immolation of the flesh, which is done by the Priest's hands, is called the passion, death, crucifixion of Christ, not in truth of the thing, but in a signifying mystery: so the Sacrament of faith, which is understood to be baptism, is faith. And the Gloss. hereupon saith: Coelestis etc. id est, Coeleste Sacramentum, quod ver è repraesentat Christi carnem, dicitur corpus Christi, sed impropriè: unde dicitur suo modo, sed non rei veritate, sed significant mysterio. Vt sit sensus. Vocatur corpus Christi, idest, significat. The heavenvly bread, that is, the heavenly Sacrament, which truly representeth the flesh of Christ, is called the body of Christ, but unproperly: whereupon it is said by a peculiar manner, but not in the truth of the thing, but in a signifying mystery. So that the sense is, It is called the body of Christ, that is, it signifieth it.  Camp. 
All this maketh for transubstantiation. That which we see, is called the body of Christ, where in deed, it is but the colour and the accidents.  Fulke. 
All makes for you: but let us see whether you can so run away with the matter. He saith, Coelestis panis, the heavenly bread: can the colour or accidents be called the heavenly bread:  Campion. 
The meaning is of the accidents and of the sign.  Fulke. 
This is a strange proposition, colour or accidens, is coelestis panis.  Campion. 
It is called Coelestis panis, because it is heavenly bread by consecration.  Fulke. 
That can not be. For he calleth that heavenly bread, which is the flesh of Christ, and after the manner of it the body of Christ:  
But accidents are not the flesh of Christ, nor the body of Christ:  
Ergo they are not the heavenly bread.  Campion. 
If you respect the quality, it is the heavenly bread by consecration.  Fulke. 
It seemeth you know not the place: the Gloss saith the heavenly bread which is the heavenly Sacrament, is called unproperly the body of Christ, not in truth of the thing, but in a signifying mystery.  Camp. 
Saint Augustine there speaketh popularly. You bewray your slender reading of Augustine, in citing this as Gratian'S authority.  Fulke. 
It is Gratian in the decrees of your own Canon law, and the Gloss thereupon. In deed the decree is borrowed of Augustine: but it is more fully against the carnal presence, as it is cited by Gratian.  Campion. 
I will answer both Gratian and the Gloss.  Fulke. 
Set it down then in few words.  Campion. 
It is called coelestis, in respect of consecration and transubstantiation: bread, in respect that it is bread & wine in outward show: and for the accidents it is called Sacramentum the Sacrament, in respect that under those outward shows the natural body of Christ is present.  Fulke. 
So you understand the sacrament (which is denied to be the body of Christ in truth of the thing) to be the accidents: but it is absurd, that accidents should be called the heavenly bread.  Campion. 
It is not absurd, if it be heavenly understood: but accidents visibly considered of themselves, import absurdity.  Fulke. 
The Sacrament is the outward show, which is not the body of Christ. I will prove that he taketh the word Sacrament, for the whole Sacrament, not for the accidents as you do.  Campion. 
He speaks of the whole.  Fulke. 
He speaketh of the whole, and not of the whole: this is manifest contradiction.  Campion. 
The word Sacrament, is here taken for the exterior forms, and not for the whole Sacrament.  Fulke. 
I prove it must be taken for the whole Sacrament, else it could not be compared with Baptism:  
But it is compared with Baptism:  
Ergo he taketh it for the whole Sacrament.  Camp. 
Your mayor I answer: He compareth the element of the sacrament of the altar, with the element of water in baptism.  Fulke. 
He speaketh of the whole Sacrament of Baptism, which is called faith, even as the heavenly bread is called the Sacrament of Christ:  
But the water of Baptism is not called faith:  
Ergo he speaketh of the whole Sacrament.  Campion. 
He respecteth the external signs, and compareth signs with signs.  Fulke. 
That which he spoke of, is called the body of Christ:  
But the accidents are not called the body of Christ:  
Ergo accidents are not that he spoke of.  Campion. 
This is a book, and yet I see not the substance of a book, but whiteness, and other accidents.  Fulke. 
Who would say that whiteness is the book? none but a mad man: neither will any say, that whiteness is the body of Christ, or called the body of Christ. Therefore by the word of heavenly bread, and of the Sacrament, he meaneth the whole sacrament. I see you have nothing but shameless shifts, against so clear authority of your own Canon law speaking against you.  Campion. 
If you dare, let me show Augustine and Chrysostom: if you dare.  Fulke. 
Whatsoever you can bring, I have answered already in writing against other of your side: and yet if you think you can add any thing, put it in writing, and I will answer it.  Campion. 
Provide me ink and paper, and I will write.  Fulke. 
I am not to provide you ink and paper.  Campion. 
I mean, procure me that I may have liberty to write.  Fulke. 
I know not for what cause you are restrained of that liberty, and therefore I will not take upon me to procure it.  Campion. 
Sue to the Queen, that I may have liberty to oppose, I have been now thrice opposed, it is reason I should oppose once.  Fulke. 
I will not become a suitor for you.  Camp. 
Sue to the Queen for me, it is but an easy suit: you being in such credit with your Prince, may (if you dare) procure this matter. Catholics of their prince can obtain a greater matter: and are not you Protestants in such credit with your Prince, that you can obtain so small a matter?  Fulke. 
We mean not to try our credit in this matter. But if you writ any thing, I will answer you in writing.  Campion. 
Procure it.  Fulke. 
It were to small purpose: I have answered already Heskins and Saunders, which are like to bring as much as you.  Campion. 
I am not worthy to carry their books after them. And you yourself Sir, may be scholar to either of them.  Goad. 
If Christ be present in his natural body, he must be present in his true body: 
8. Argument.   
But Christ is not present in his true body:  
Ergo not in his natural body.  Camp. 
I deny your minor. He is present in his true body.  Goad. 
A true body must have the properties of a true body: But this hath not the properties of a true body:  
Ergo it is not a true body.  Camp. 
I deny again your minor. It hath the properties of a true body.  Goad. 
Among the properties of a true body, this is one special, to be circumscribed in place, & not to be in many places at once.  
But in your transubstantiation, Christ's body is made to be in many, yea in infinite places at once:  
Ergo it hath not the properties of a true body.  Campion. 
It is in respect of a miracle, not seen with eye, but with our faith.  Goad. 
Now you run again to miracle. It hath been before showed you out of Augustine, that there is no miracle in the Sacrament, and yourself said that miracles are now ceased.  Campion. 
It is a great miracle to convert a sinner, yea greater than to make the world, and this kind of miracle is daily.  Goad. 
Now you would go from the matter, this is not properly a miracle. But to the purpose, Answer the argument.  
That which is in many places at once, is not a true body.  
But as you teach, Christ in the Sacrament is bodily in many places at once:  
Ergo not a true body.  Campion. 
The property of the fire is to burn, yet the three children in the fire 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ●…ed. Wi●… you ther●…e 〈◊〉 that it was truly fire:  Goad. 
That was in deed and properly a miracle, whereof the Scripture testifieth, which visibly was seen.  Campion. 
So is this a miracle.  Goad. 
Beside, it is not sensible, which must be in a miracle: There is no ground of the word for it. And faith must be grounded on the word of God.  Campion. 
The word teacheth that God is omnipotent.  Goad. 
You that will reason from God's omnipotency, must prove also his will. Omnia quae voluit fecit, He hath done all things whatsoever he would.  Camp. 
Nay, you must prove it is not his will.  Goad. 
I will prove it out of Theodoret. Dialo. 3. qui inscribitur impatibilis, writing of the glorified body of Christ after his resurrection: Non est mutatum in naturam divinitatis, sed post resurrectionem est quidem & immortale, & ù corruption & interitu alienum, & divina gloria plenum: sed tamen corpus est, quod habet propriam circumscriptionem. The body of Christ is not changed into the nature of his divinity, but after his resurrection it is in deed a body immortal, free from corruption, and full of divine glory: but yet it is a body that hath a proper circumscription.  Campion. 
When it pleaseth Christ to work a miracle, he is not bound to the natural properties, he doth not always practise all his properties. His body ascending into heaven, had the true properties of a body, yet did not then practise them. It is against the natural property of a body to ascend upward.  Goad. 
This ascension of Christ's body, being an article of our faith, is grounded upon the word, that his body was taken up, & nevertheless remained a true body circumscribed in place. Augustine saith we must not take away the truth of Christ's body. Epist. ad Dard. 57 Cavendum ne ita divinitatem astruamus hominis, ut veritatem corporis auferamus, cui profecto immortalitatem dedit, naturam non abstulit. We must take heed, that we do not so maintain the Godhead of Christ being man, that we take away the truth of his body, whereunto he gave immortality, but took not away the nature.  Campion. 
You need not bring these places, I grant that Christ hath a true body. But you may as well deny the ascension of Christ, being against the property of a true body to ascend upward.  Goad. 
I answered before, that this is an article of our faith, grounded upon the express word of God. And because we do believe by the word, that Christ's body is ascended, and sitteth at the right hand of God, and from thence shall come to judge: therefore we cannot believe the contrary, that Christ is yet present on earth. So Augustine reasoneth in the same Epistle. Christus jesus ubique est per id quod Deus, in coelo autem per id quod homo. Spacia locorum tolle corporibus, nusquam erunt: & quia nusquam erunt, nec erunt. Christ jesus is every where as he is God, but as he is man, he is in heaven. Take away space of places from bodies, & they shall be in no place: and because in no place, they shall have no being at all.  Campion. 
I think I have answered sufficiently: he is present not naturally, but miraculously.  Goad. 
Why, then ye destroy the property of a true body, and so consequently take away the truth of a body.  Campion. 
I grant the properties, though the same be not always put in practice.  Goad. 
Then sometime Christ may have many, or rather infinite bodies in many places at one time, when the property of a true body ceaseth.  Campion. 
Nay, it remaineth still one and the same body, though in many places at one time.  Goad. 
When Christ delivered his body in his last supper, I pray you, were there not by your opinion two sundry bodies? namely Christ himself the author and actor in the supper, was it not the one: and the bread transubstantiate (as ye will have it) into Christ's body, was it not the other?  Camp. 
Christ the actor in the Institution, yet was then present in the same body in the Sacrament: if he will have it so, who can let him? I say he is miraculously in many places at once.  Goad. 
Now we come again to his will. But I deny that he will have it so, and you can not prove it. Saint Augustine is flat against you in the forenamed Epistle, writing against the like heretics of his time, that would take from Christ the properties of a true body, after his glorification, as to be circumscribed in one place. etc.  Camp. 
Ye urge me much with Augustine. Let me show for myself Augustine, Chrysostom, & others of the father's, if you dare.  Goad. 
This is not to answer. Come you to dare? This is like your bold challenge.  Campion. 
You may if ye list, procure leave that I may oppose. Catholics could easily obtain a greater matter than this of their princes, and can not you obtain this of your Prince?  Fulke. 
We see it is to no purpose. Whatsoever you can bring is known and answered already. Heskins, Allen, and others of your side, who are far your betters, I have already answered. Well, I will go to another argument.  
If Christ be present in his natural body, he is received not 
9 Argument.  only of the godly, but also of the wicked:  
But he is not received of the wicked:  
Ergo he is not present in his natural body.  Campion. 
I deny your minor.  Fulke. 
I prove the minor out of S. Augustine de civitate Dei. lib. 21. cap. 25. Nec isti ergo dicendi sunt manducare corpus Christi, quoniam nec in membris computandi sunt Christi, (ut alia taceam) non possunt simul esse & membra Christi, & membra meretricis. Denique ipse dicens, qui manducat carnem meam, & bibit sanguinem meum, in me manet, & ego in eo, ostendit quid sit, non Sacramento tenus, sed revera corpus Christi manducare, & eius sanguinem bibere. Therefore neither is it to be said, that these ungodly men do eat the body of Christ, because they are not to be accounted in the members of Christ, (for to omit other things) they cannot be at one time, both the members of Christ and the members of an harlot. Finally he himself, saying he that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me and I in him, showeth what it is, not so far as a Sacrament may go, but in very deed to eat the body of Christ, and to drink his blood.  Camp. 
His meaning is, they receive not the grace of Christ effectually to salvation.  Fulke. 
His words are, they receive not the body of Christ, revera in deed, but sacramento tenus, in a sacrament, or sacramentally. Again he saith, that Christ dwelleth not in them: Ergo they eat not the body of Christ.  Campion. 
He dwelleth not in them unto salvation.  Fulke. 
True, and therefore they eat not his body: for whosoever eateth the flesh of Christ, hath Christ dwelling in him to salvation.  Camp. 
Whosoever eateth the flesh of Christ worthily: but the wicked also eat the body of Christ, though unworthily.  Fulke. 
He saith expressly they eat not the body of Christ revera, that is in deed, or verily, but sacramentally.  Campion. 
Wherefore then are they guilty?  Fulke. 
That is an other question. And yet one may be guilty of the Majesty of the Prince, which refuseth to obey the same, or despiseth the same: so are they guilty of the body of Christ, which refuse to receive it being offered.  Campion. 
They receive Christ, but not worthily. He that receiveth Baptism, receiveth the holy Ghost, or else the Sacrament should not be true: so Saint Paul saith, He that eateth the body of Christ unworthily, is guilty of the body and blood of Christ.  Fulke. 
He that receiveth unworthily, receiveth the sacrament: & the Sacrament may be true, though he receive it unworthily. Again, you falsify the text, when you say, he that eateth the body of Christ unworthily. Saint Paul's words are: He that eateth this bread and drinketh this cup of the Lord unworthily.  Campion. 
They must either receive Christ unworthily, or his grace:  
They receive not the grace of Christ unworthily:  
Ergo they receive Christ unworthily.  Fulke. 
Christ can never be separated from his grace. A man may receive the grace of Christ, though he receive not his body. But he cannot receive the body of Christ, but he must also receive his grace.  Campion. 
The wicked receive the body of Christ, but not his grace.  Fulke. 
So you say: but answer to Saint Augustine, which saith, The wicked eat not the body of Christ in very deed.  Campion. 
They eat Christ sacramentally.  Fulke. 
Yea, but not in deed, as Saint Augustine saith.  Campion. 
They receive the same Christ, but not to the same comfort that the godly do.  Fulke. 
They do not receive Christ, saith Saint Augustine: because they are not to be accounted in the members of Christ.  Campion. 
And I say the same.  Fulke. 
He saith, they eat not the body of Christ in deed: you affirm that they eat the body of Christ in deed. Again, Saint Augustine saith. Hoc est in Christo manner. etc. This it is to dwell in Christ, that Christ may dwell in us. For so he said this, as though he had said, He that dwelleth not in me, and in whom I dwell not, let him not say or think he eateth my body, or drinketh my blood.  Camp. 
The wicked eat the same body, but not to the same effect.  Fulke. 
Augustine saith, they eat not his body revera, in deed: I see you have no other shift of answer. Therefore I will leave it to judgement.  
The Apostles received not the same body that afterwards was 
Here M. Lieutenant admonished them that the time was passed.  crucified, therefore your solution of the same body, not after the same manner and quality, cannot stand.  Campion. 
They received the same body, both before and after his passion.  Goad. 
I will follow the confutation of that absurd assertion, that the wicked eat the body of Christ, which is easy to be improved many ways. I frame mine argument thus.  
Whosoever eateth the body of Christ, doth eat Rem sacramenti, The thing or substance of the sacrament: 
10. Argument.   
But no wicked or unbelieving person, can eat Rem sacramenti:  
Ergo no wicked person can eat the body of Christ.  Campion. 
I distinguish of your Mayor. Res sacramenti, is taken two ways: for the body of Christ, or the invisible grace of Christ. The wicked are partakers of the body of Christ, but not of his invisible grace.  Goad. 
You cannot thus distinguish that which in itself is all one, though it differeth in words: as the body of Christ, and the thing or substance of the sacrament. Which I prove evidently out of Augustine in 10. Trac. 25. Huius rei sacramentum sumitur quibusdam ad vitam, quibusdam ad exitium, res vero ipsa cuius sacramentum est, omni homini ad vitam, nulli ad exitium, quicunque eius particeps fuerit. The sacrament of this thing is received of some unto life, and of some unto death. But the thing or substance itself, whereof the outward sign is a sacrament, is received of all men to life, and of none to death, whosoever is partaker thereof. Whereby it is manifest, that S. Augustine doth make but two parts of the sacrament, which he doth distinguish: viz. the outward sign which he calleth the sacrament, and the inward thing or substance of the sacrament, which is Christ himself. And out of the same words of Augustine, I follow mine argument thus against your absurd distinction.  
Whosoever eateth Christ the thing or substance of the sacrament, shall live for ever,  
But none of the wicked or unfaithful shall live for ever:  
Ergo none of the wicked can eat Christ, being the substance of the sacrament.  Camp. 
If you will reply upon mine answer, take my words. The wicked eat not Christ effectually and worthily, according to invisible grace.  Goad. 
You answer not mine argument out of Augustine, and as for your words and distinction, it is too absurd to separate the eating of Christ himself from effectual or worthy eating, seeing that whosoever eateth Christ the substance of the sacrament, doth live for ever, and so consequently must needs eat him effectually. Consider the words of Augustine, he affirmeth the sacrament to consist of two things, the visible sign, which he calleth Huius rei sacramentum, and the invisible grace, or Christ himself, which he calleth Rem sacramenti. As also Irenaeus saith, the sacrament consisteth of two things: the one earthly, the outward element: and the other heavenly, which is Christ himself.  Campion. 
That part of the sacrament, which is called heavenly, is taken two manner of ways: either in respect of Christ himself, or in respect of the wicked. Christ in himself is always heavenly, but to the wicked which receive not the grace of Christ, he is not heavenvly, though he be present, and they receive him to their condemnation.  Goad. 
You answer not the reason nor authority of Augustine. This was taken away before, none can receive Christ, but they must also receive his heavenly grace to eternal life: but my purpose was not to have urged this argument.  Fulke. 
I will use but one brief argument.  
That which Christ promised to give in the Sacrament, was not the same which was crucified:  
Ergo it was not the natural body of Christ which they received.  Camp. 
It was the same which was crucified.  Fulke. 
S. Augustine denieth it, speaking in the person of Christ in these words. In Psal. 98. Non hoc corpus quod videtis manducaturi estis & bibituri illum sanguinem quem fusuri sunt qui me crucifigent: sacramentum aliquod vobis commendavi, spiritualiter intellectum vivificabit vos. You shall not eat that body which you see and drink, that blood which they shall shed that shall crucify me: I have commended unto you a certain sacrament, which being spiritually understood, shall give you life.  Campion. 
This is a fallation: he denieth modum, the manner & not the substance. Your reason is like this Quicquid emisti etc. that which you have bought you have eaten: you have bought raw flesh, therefore you have eaten raw flesh.  Fulke. 
You cannot so avoid it, he denieth the same body, and speaketh not of the manner.  Camp. 
The same body that was crucified we receive, but not eodem modo, after the same manner.  Fulke. 
Was the manner of his blood shed, or his very blood in deed?  Camp. 
His very blood in deed was shed.  Fulke. 
Why then, that blood which was shed is denied to be given.  Camp. 
The same body which was crucified, is given, but not after the same sort: for when he was crucified, he was mangled and wounded, so he is not now, he is given after an other sort.  Fulke. 
So by your Gloss you make Corpus to be in the predicament of quality, which is absurd: Maledicta glossa quae corrumpit textum. You have sodde these coleworts long enough, the place is plain, denying the same body and the same blood, and not the manner and sort thereof.  Camp. 
The learned know mine answer. He is not the same man which he was before, which is altered in qualities.  Fulk. 
A fine answer in deed: As though Christ should mean that the qualities of his body & blood, should be so altered that they might justly be said not to be the same, although they were the same.  Campion. 
Augustine upon the same Psalm, affirmeth the body of Christ is so present in the Sacrament, that it may be adored.  Fulke. 
Doth he say, that the body of Christ may be adored in the sacrament?  Camp. 
He saith, no man eateth that body, except he adore it.  Fulke. 
That is an other matter. I say so likewise, that no man receiveth the body of Christ, except he adore it. But Augustine saith not, except he adore it in the sacrament. But the time will not suffer us to proceed any further.  Goad. 
If Christ be present in the sacrament in his natural 
12. Augument.  body, them he is present either in a mortal, or else in a glorified body:  
But neither in a mortal, nor yet glorified body:  
Ergo he is not present in his natural body.  Campion. 
I deny your Minor. He is present in his glorified body.  Goad. 
If he be present in body, it must be the same body that he delivered to his Apostles in his last supper:  
But that was not glorified, but mortal:  
Ergo if he be present in any kind of body, it must be a mortal body.  Camp. 
The body of Christ was not yet glorified when the Sacrament was instituted. What of that▪ it is no matter whether his body were glorified or not glorified.  Goad. 
Yes, for you affirmed before, that Christ is present in his glorified body, which I have improved, Christ having then a natural and mortal body, wherein shortly after he was to be glorified, not the same it was after his resurrection.  Camp. 
A fallation in the same. Glorification doth not make it not the same body: a man sick and a man whole at sundry times, yet remaineth the same man.  Goad. 
My meaning and words are plain, having made the comparison between mortal and glorified. I made the difference to be not in substance but in quality: but now it appeareth that you must seek an other place then Hoc est corpus meum in the institution, whereon to build your real presence. We talk what was then at the time of the institution.  Camp. 
Nay, we ground sufficiently upon that place: though Christ's body be now glorified, yet we do not build upon glorification, but upon the words, This is my body, which Christ hath spoken, and therefore it is his body.  Goad. 
But you are not yet resolved what kind of body. It is an other now, from that it was then.  Camp. 
Yet the same body, though differing in condition. Christ cannot be wounded now as afore, yet the same flesh.  Goad. 
I do not deny the same body in substance to be now that was then: but you see that the presence of a glorified body which you affirmed, is not grounded upon Hoc est corpus meum. But I leave this argument  Goad. 
Let us conclude with prayer. Almighty Lord and merciful father, we yield thee humble thanks for thy manifold benefits bestowed upon us, especially that thou hast vouchsafed us the knowledge and love of thy heavenly truth contained in thy holy word, which thou hast denied unto many others, leaving them in their own perverse blindness: we beseech thee to increase daily in us more and more the true knowledge of thee, & of thy son jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent, & vouchsafe to make thy truth so much the more dear and precious unto us, for that it hath enemies that daily seek to obscure and impugn the same, and as for those that go a●…traie, so many of them as pertain unto thy kingdom, we beseech thee in thy good time, to call, to lighten their minds, and to mollify their hearts, that we may together with one heart, and one mouth glorify thee, thorough our Lord jesus Christ. Amen.   

❧ The disputation in the afternoon the same day. The second question or assertion of Campion.  
The question. After the words of Consecration, the bread and wine are transubstantiated into the body and blood of Christ.  Fulke. 
LEt us begin with prayer. O almighty God and most merciful father, we humbly submit ourselves before thy majesty, and do unfeignedly acknowledge that our hearts are full of ignorance and blindness, so that we cannot understand thy wonderful truth by ourselves, nor see it when it is revealed by thee, except it please thy majesty by thy holy spirit to lighten our darkness, & give sight to our blindness. Wherefore we humbly beseech thee, to assist us by thy grace, and to give us sight to see thy truth, and strength to defend the same against all thine enemies, that the weak may be confirmed, the obstinate confounded, and thy name glorified through jesus Christ our Lord.  
Because you took a time to find those words which you reported to be in my book, and I see the book in your hand, I pray you read them if you have found them.  Camp. 
The book is mistaken, it is not that book I meant.  Fulke. 
It is the book that you named.  Camp. 
I am sure you do not disclaim the opinion.  Fulke. 
As I told you in the forenoon, I do disclaim it in such sort as it was uttered by you, which you are not able to prove to be affirmed by me.  Campion. 
You make invocation of saints, a matter of great weight.  Fulke. 
The Church did err in that point, but not as you Papists do err in it. There is great difference between their error and yours. But let us come to the appointed question, which is against Transubstantiation.  
I prove there remaineth the substance of bread and wine in the 
The question.  sacrament after consecration.  
Our Saviour drank the same that his Apostles did:  
But our Saviour drank wine:  
Ergo his Apostles drank wine. 
1. Argument.   Camp. 
I deny that our Saviour drank of the consecrated wine.  Fulke. 
The words of the Evangelist are plain, that our Saviour Christ spoke, I will drink no more from henceforth of the fruit of the vine. These words are plain of wine: for the blood of Christ is not the fruit of the vine.  Camp. 
This signifieth that our Saviour did eat indefinitely, whether he did eat of the same bread, or drink of the same cup of wine which he gave, I doubt of it: he did eat & drink with them.  Fulk. 
He protested that he would not drink any more of that which he gave:  
But that which he gave unto them was wine:  
Therefore he drank of the same wine.  Camp. 
This text convinceth it not.  Fulke. 
Yes, plainly.  Camp. 
He speaketh of that wine which was drunk at supper, for all was wine, if there had been 20. gallons before consecration.  Fulke. 
He speaketh of the wine in his hand: for whereto else hath the pronoun (this) relation: After he had taken the cup in his hand, immediately he faith, I will not drink any more of this fruit of the vine.  Camp. 
He had supped with them, he had eaten the Paschal lamb with them, he would not take any more repast with them in this life till his resurrection, as afore: therefore it is to be referred to the action that went before.  Fulke. 
It is plain that he speaketh of the same wine which he had in his hand, & which he gave unto them. And Chrysostom's words declare the same in Math. Homil. 89. Sedcuius rei gratia non aquam sed vinum post resurrectionem bibit? perniciosam quandam haeresin radicitus evellere voluit eorum, qui aqua in mysterijs utuntur, ita ut ostenderet quia & quando hoc mysterium traderet, vinum tradidit: & iam post resurrectionem in nuda mysterij mensa vino usus est. Ex germine autem (ait) vitis, quae certè non aquam sed vinum producit. But for what cause did he not drink water, but wine after his resurrection? His purpose was to pull up by the roots a certain pernicious heresy of them which use water in the mysteries: so that he showed, that both when he delivered this mystery, he delivered wine, and now also after his resurrection, in the only table of the mystery, he used wine. Of the fruit of the vine saith he, which verily bringeth forth wine and not water.  Campion. 
All this makes for me.  Fulke. 
You shall hear how it maketh for you. Here you see, that he drank of that which he delivered to his disciples:  
And he drank wine:  
Therefore he delivered wine to his disciples.  Campion. 
He delivered that which had the show of wine: doth he say that he gave wine:  Fulke. 
He saith, Vinum tradidit, He delivered wine, or he gave wine.  Campion. 
Go to, he delivered consecrated wine: He did consecrate wine and did give it unto them.  Fulke. 
He gave consecrated wine:  
Ergo he gave wine.  Campion. 
I deny your argument: for consecrated wine is not wine.  Fulke. 
Then he gave wine that was not wine: For Chrysostom saith, Vinum tradidit, He gave wine.  Camp. 
He gave that, that was wine.  Fulke. 
Chrysostom saith, That which he delivered was wine when he delivered it, or else how did he take away the heresy of those that brought in water, if he had not given wine.  Campion. 
The meaning of Chrysostom is, to bring in wine against those that would have water. He saith he delivered wine, but consecrated wine, to exclude water.  Fulke. 
He excluded water to bring in wine, and not to shut out both water and wine.  Camp. 
We use wine in the mysteries.  Fulke. 
But he saith, Christ delivered wine: so do not you say when you give the cup  Camp. 
He gave them that which had the name of wine, and had the show of it, but now was not in deed wine. As for example, the rod of Moses was called a rod, after it was turned into a serpent, because it was a rod a little before.  Fulke. 
The rod was miraculously turned into a serpent, and returned into a rod again: both which miracles were to be judged by the sense, and yet you prove not that it was called a rod, while it was a serpent.  Campion. 
Yes that I do. Et devoravit virga Aaron, etc. And the rod of Aaron devoured the rod of the enchanters.  Fulke. 
Yea Sir, That which was a rod while Moses did write, and was a very serpent before Pharaoh, devoured the rods of the Egyptians which were serpents in show, but rods in deed. Moses' called it a rod when it was a rod, and not when it was a serpent. Again, it was a sensible miracle.  Campion. 
So there is great miracles in the Sacrament.  Fulke. 
So you say, but none appeareth to our sense.  Campion. 
They are understood by faith.  Fulke. 
It is an easy matter so to feign miracles in every matter: but God did never show miracle in conversion of substances, or any sensible thing, but it was to be judged by the senses to be a miracle. Bring me one instance of any miracle in conversion, or in any other sensible thing, that could not be discerned by sense.  Camp. 
It was a rod a little before, that after was called a serpent, and yet retained the name it had before: as Clandi ambulant, Caeci vident, etc.  Fulke. 
That is not denied, although by you it can not be proved: but here the place is plain. Chrysostom speaketh of the substance of the Sacrament, he delivered wine, and they received wine.  Campion. 
I have answered. Leave the rest to God, and their consciences which are the hearers.  Goad. 
I will continue to urge you further with the words of the Institution. Your answer can not be allowed for good, when you would shift off the plain words of our saviour Christ, calling it wine being the fruit of the vine, and would have this referred to the wine used in eating the Paschal, before the institution. You may not so leap back from the Institution to the Pascal, there was some distance of time between the Paschal and the Supper: so you can not refer this to the whole action.  Campion. 
You say well. The eating the pascal Lamb went before, and the Institution followed: and yet I say the words of Christ concerning the fruit of the vine, hath relation to the whole.  Goad. 
Consider the order of the words in the Evangelist: As they were eating the passover, jesus took bread, etc. And then after he had delivered the cup, and bade them all drink thereof, calling it his blood, then followeth, I say unto you, I will not drink hereafter of this fruit of the vine. etc. But I will make my argument from the Institution, thus.  
The Apostles did eat the substance of bread and wine after 
2. Argument.  consecration, as you term it:  
Therefore there remaineth the substance of bread and wine after consecration.  Campion. 
I deny your Antecedent.  Goad. 
That which our Saviour Christ gave, the Apostles did eat:  
But he gave bread and wine:  
Ergo they did eat bread and wine.  Camp. 
I deny your minor. He did not give bread and wine.  Goad. 
The same which Christ took into his hands, he also delivered:  
But he took bread and wine:  
Ergo he delivered bread and wine.  Camp. 
I answer out of Ambrose. Before consecration it was bread, and so he took bread, but after the words of consecration, he saith it is no bread.  Fulke. 
You falsify Ambrose, and would abuse the auditory, for he doth not say it is no bread.  Camp. 
He saith there is a change. I may you let me make one argument out of Ambrose, and answer me if you can.  Goad. 
Well, make your argument, you shallbe answered.  Campion. 
Let me borrow the book. Now hear Ambrose words lib. de Sacramentis. 4. cap. 4. Tu forte dicis panis est usitatus. Sed panis iste panis est ante verba Sacramentorum: ubi accesserit consecratio, de pane fit caro Christi. Vides ergo quàm operatorius sit sermo Christi: jussit & facta sunt. Si ergo tanta vis est in sermone Domini, ut inciperent esse quae non erant, quanto magis operatorius est, ut sint quae erant, & in aliud commutentur. Peradventure thou sayest that it is common bread. But this bread before the sacramental words is bread: but after consecration, of bread is made the flesh of Christ. Thou seest then of what efficacy the word of Christ is, he commanded and the creatures were made. If then there is so great force in the word of the Lord, that the things that were not, begun to be: how much more is it able to work, that the things which were, should have still their being, and be changed into other things.  Goad. 
I know the place, and thus I answer. First ye have not any word in Ambrose to exclude the substance of bread. We acknowledge a change with Ambrose, not of one substance into an other, as you would have to be, but touching the use whereto the sacrament serveth, namely that which was common bread before, ordained to a common use to feed the body, is now converted and consecrated to an holy and spiritual use, to nourish the soul, by feeding upon Christ by true and lively faith.  Campion. 
But Ambrose words are plain, that which before was bread, after consecration ex pane fit caro Christi, of bread is made the flesh of Christ.  Goad. 
Ambrose words in deed are plain in the same chapter, whereby he doth expound his meaning, the change to be as I have said touching the use, and not the substance. Dicis communem panem, etc. By these words it appeareth, that Ambrose purpose was to confute their opinion, who thought over basely of the Sacrament, making no difference between it & common bread. Thou sayest it is common bread, but thou art deceived, it is consecrated and changed to an holy and heavenly use, and is become sacramentally the flesh of Christ.  Campion. 
It is called bread, but it is not bread, for ex pane fit caro Christi. And even as he made heaven and earth by his word, so by his word the bread is made his flesh.  Goad. 
We deny not that it is Christ's flesh, as himself sayeth of the bread, This is my body: but it is to be understood as a sacramental speech, when the name of the thing is given to the sign, as after shallbe showed out of Augustine.  Camp. 
The words are forcible, of bread is made flesh, & Sermo Christi est operatorius, The word of Christ is of power & efficacy.  Goad. 
That is, of common bread is now made Christ's body, appointed to be a sacrament of his body. And although this be a wonderful change by the force of Christ's word and Institution, that common bread should be changed to a spiritual use, yet Ambrose doth not say that the substance of bread is changed, but rather the contrary, that the substance doth still remain, as appeareth by divers examples of miracles he allegeth in the same chapter, and also by his words, Vt sint quae erant, & in aliud commutentur, That they should remain and be as they were, & also be changed touching the use. Now you have urged what you can out of Ambrose, I will return again to follow mine argument drawn from the words of the Institution, as they are explained by S. Paul. 1. Cor. 10. 16. Panis quem frangimus, etc. The bread which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of Christ? Whereby appeareth, that after sanctification remaineth bread: for he saith, the bread which we break, and breaking followeth after blessing or sanctifying. It can not be understood the body of Christ, for that can not be broken. So by this place, after consecration remaineth bread still.  Campion. 
It retaineth still the name of bread in divers respects: first, because it was bread before, and secondly because it hath the show of bread: as Moses' rod being turned into a serpent, keepeth still the name it had before.  Goad. 
You are now wandering into discourses, I will not follow you. The Apostles plain words taketh away your answer. It followeth in the text, We are all partakers of the same bread, he saith not the same that was bread before: and it is consecrate before it cometh to participation. And the same Apostle in the next chapter, oftentimes repeateth and calleth it bread, when it cometh to be received after sanctification.  Campion. 
I have given you two causes, why it is so called: I will add the third, because of the analogy between the bread and that which feedeth our souls. Make a Syllogism.  Goad. 
I urge the words of the Apostle, there needeth no Syllogism: answer plainly and directly.  Campion. 
I have given three causes, why it is called bread.  Goad. 
Your causes can not stand. For touching your comparison of the rod turned into a serpent, there appeared a sensible change as is usual in miracles, but here is no such thing in the sacrament, and therefore the comparison holdeth not. And for the analogy, it maketh directly against you. For even as the bread received feedeth the body, so ●…eth Christ the soul. But if when it cometh to be received into the body, there be no bread in deed as you say, then where is your analogy:  Campion. 
It sufficeth that it was bread before, and so appeareth the analogy by the feeding of our souls.  Goad. 
What doth the bread feed our souls:  Camp. 
Yea, Christ that is the bread of life, feedeth our souls. Make a Syllogism, and then we shall see whether your argument hath any face or force.  Goad. 
We are come to the words and authority of the Scripture. If the words of Christ's Institution, and all these manifest places of the Apostle be of no force, than I confess mine argument to be nothing. I leave you to judgement.  Fulke. 
Your answer is taken away by the word breaking. The bread which we break, etc. The body of Christ is not broken, but the bread, and not that which appeareth to be bread.  Campion. 
The bread is broken by quality, and not by substance. Can substance be broken:  Bulk. 
Bread is broken:  
And bread is substance:  
Therefore substance is broken.  
When sticks are broken, shall we say that the subance of them is not broken, but the accidents: this is foolish Sophistry. But I 
3. Argument.  will reason thus with you. There is something in the Sacrament material, which goeth the way of all meats:  
Ergo there is bread and wine.  Campion. 
Whatsoever becometh of all those qualities, the colour, the taste, the quantity, etc. it happeneth to them as to accidents: for it is certain there remaineth neither bread nor wine.  Fulke. 
The taste goeth not that way, nor in deed any of the accidents unaltered: but hear 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, juxta id quod habet materiale in ventrem abit, & in secessum eijcitur. Caeterum juxta precationem quae illi accessit, pro portione fidei fit utilis, efficiens ut perspicax fiat animus, spectans ad id quod utile 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 quantity is avoided, and other accidents.  Fulke. 
It is monstrous that you speak. Origen sayeth the material part of the Sacrament, and the matter of bread. I will read his words in English. If whatsoever entereth into the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draft, even that meat also which is sanctified by the word of God, and by prayer, according to that which it hath material goeth into the belly, and is cast forth into the draft. But according to the prayer which is added unto it, after the portion of faith, it is made profitable, causing that the mind may be made clear of sight, looking to that which is profitable. Neither is it the matter of bread, but the word spoken over it, which profiteth him that eateth it not unworthily. And these things are spoken of the typical and symbolical body.  Campion. 
I have answered. The accidents go, the quantity, quality, and such like.  Fulke. 
The place is plain. Origen acknowledgeth a material part of the Sacrament, which is substance. In what predicament is Materia?  Campion. 
In none. Materia taken indefinitely, is in no predicament, for it is in all predicaments. The matter of substance is in substance, of quantity in quantity. etc.  Fulke. 
Well, than the matter of substance is substance. The matter of bread is the matter of substance: therefore the matter of bread is substance. Then it is substance and not accidents, which is avoided by Origens' judgement.  Campion. 
He saith not, the matter of bread is avoided.  Fulke. 
He sayeth that meat which is sanctified, according to that which it hath material, is avoided:  
Meat is that which feedeth, accidents feed not:  
Therefore accidents are not called meat.  Campion. 
Accidents do feed, and that I will stand to prove.  Fulke. 
Philosophy, Physieke, and Divinity are much beholding to you. It was never heard of before, that bare accidents without substance could feed or nourish.  Campion. 
He meaneth the matter of the sacrament, and not the material substance of bread which is avoided. The sacrament consisteth of the sign, and the thing signified. The sign is the outward shape, whiteness, quantity, etc. this is the material part of the Sacrament, which is avoided.  Fulke. 
There is no one of these accidents, shape, quantity, colour, taste, that are avoided, because they are altered in the stomach, before they come to the place of avoidance. Again, i●… is a shameful absurdity, to say that the accidents are the meat which is sanctified by the word and prayer.  Campion. 
I answer, Id quod habet materiale, is the matter of the Sacrament, not of the bread.  Fulke. 
This place is too plain against you: every one may see your answer how vain it is.  Goad. 
That which overthroweth both the nature and use of 
4. Argum,  a Sacrament, is not to be admitted:  
But transubstantiation doth overthrow doth the nature and use of a Sacrament:  
Ergo it is not to be admitted, and consequently untrue that you affirm, the bread and wine to be transubstantiate. etc.  Campion. 
I deny your minor, it doth overthrow neither the nature, nor the use of a Sacrament.  Goad. 
I must prove both the members severally, because you deny both: and first, that it taketh away the nature of a Sacrament. A Sacrament consisteth of two things, the matter, and the form: the visible sign, and the invisible grace: the one earthly, and the other heavenly, as Iraeneus saith: the element, and the word according to Augustine, Accedat verbum ad elementum, & fit Sacramentum. Let the word come unto the element, and so it is made a Sacrament. This being so, then thus I reason.  
Whatsoever taketh away the element, overthroweth the Sacrament: for the word must come unto the element, as Augustine faith, the element must not departed away:  
But transubstantiation taketh away the element:  
Ergo Transubstantiation overthroweth the nature of the sacrament.  Campion. 
I deny your minor, it doth not take away the element.  Goad. 
It taketh away the material part, the substance of bread and wine:  
Ergo it taketh away the element.  Campion. 
I say it taketh away neither the heavenly nor the earthly part.  Goad. 
You answer not directly to mine argument. But I will prove that it taketh away the earthly part.  
It taketh away the substance of bread:  
Ergo the earthly part.  Campion. 
I deny your argument. For there remaineth res terrestris, an earthly thing, though the substance be changed.  Goad. 
What is that earthly thing; if there remain no substance? Every Sacrament must consist of the element and the word: the element is the earthly creature or substance.  Camp. 
The element doth not note a substance, there remaineth an earthly creature, the whiteness of the bread.  Goad. 
What, can the whiteness remain without substance or subject: The Sacrament must consist of the substance of Christ's body, and the substance of bread and wine.  Campion. 
Resterrestris, the earthly thing remaineth, but not the substance: we are come to a nice point.  Goad. 
So it seemeth. I will here leave the first part I had to prove, and now will come to the second, touching the use of the sacrament: which I will also prove to be destroyed by your transubstantiation. You spoke before of the analogy in the Sacrament, there must be a similitude and proportion between the sign and the thing signified. As in Baptism, the element of water washing the body, and the holy Ghost through the blood of Christ washing and sanctifying the soul. So in the other Sacrament, as the substance of bread received, nourisheth the body: so Christ received by faith, nourisheth the soul. Even as Augustine very well noteth this analogy, in his 23. Epistle, in these words. Si Sacramenta quandam similitudinem earum rerum quarum sunt Sacramenta non haberent, omnino Sacramenta non essent, etc. Hac autem similitudine plerunque ipsarum etiam rerum nomina recipiunt. Sicut ergo secundum quendam modum, Sacramentum corporis Christi Corpus Christi est, Sacramentum sanguinis Christi Sanguis Christi est: ita sacramentum fidei, fides est. If sacraments had not a certain resemblance of those things whereof they are sacraments, they should not at all be sacraments, and by reason of this resemblance, for the most part they take the names of the things themselves. Therefore as the sacrament of the body of Christ, after a certain manner, is the body of Christ, the sacrament of the blood of Christ, is the blood of Christ: so the sacrament of faith, is called faith.  
Now this similitude or proportion by you, is clean taken away, while ye take away the substance of bread that should nourish the body, and so consequently ye take away the nature of a Sacrament by Saint Augustine's reason.  Campion. 
The similitude is not taken away, though there remain no substance of bread and wine, for there remaineth accidents which do nourish. Do not qualities feed? bread may feed by accidents in all the qualities of bread.  Goad. 
This is strange. I might tell you that this is against Philosophy, that accidents without substance should feed: but we are in divinity. The very true and principal use of this sacrament, is to confirm our faith, that as surely as the bread and wine feedeth our bodies, even as certainly the body and blood of Christ received by faith, feedeth and nourisheth our souls.  
Now by your taking away the substance of bread, we are brought into doubt of the nourishment of our bodies by the outward element, and so consequently of the feeding of our souls by Christ the heavenly bread: and so ye destroy the analogy & chief use of this sacrament.  Camp. 
When God doth work a miracle, it is no marvel though there follow wonderful sequels. I say, that colour may remain without substance, and accidents may feed and nourish. I will defend it in the University: I would I might have liberty to defend it.  Goad. 
What, will you defend that accidents without substance may nourish? that is too absurd.  Camp. 
No absurdity at all. If it please God to take away the substance of water, and leave the quality of madefaction, what hurt were it, might it not be sufficient? And if you will needs urge the analogy of feeding by the substance, it is sufficient that there was also the substance of bread before consecration, wherein may stand the analogy.  Goad. 
Let me make it plain unto this auditory, how manifestly you take away the comfortable use and analogy in this facrament. When I come to receive, by this means I ought to strengthen my faith, that even as I know most assuredly, that the substance of bread and wine serveth to nourish, and doth feed my body: even so jesus Christ being received by faith, doth also nourish my soul unto eternal life. This is a most comfortable analogy or similitude in this sacrament. But if I should believe that the substance of bread and wine is clean gone, and though before consecration the substance remained, yet before I can receive the sacrament, the substance is taken away, and there remain nothing but accidents: how can I be assured that my body is nourished by the outward elements, and so in like manner my soul by feeding on Christ? Thus by your doctrine of Transubstantiation, you overthrow both the nature and use of the sacrament, & would spoil us of the comfort and strengthening of our faith, which we should have by this notable comparison: the ground whereof resteth upon the certainty of nourishing our bodies with the substance of the elements.  Camp. 
Nay, now ye preach: I thought ye had come to dispute. Make a Syllogism.  Goad. 
I open this more plainly for the edifying of the hearers, that they may the better see the fruit and comfort of your doctrine of transubstantiation.  Campion. 
I would I might appose: the ancient fathers are all on my side.  Fulke. 
Not any one of them, ye abuse the auditory: if you can bring any thing, do it by writing, & I will answer you by writing.  Camp. 
Mine answer and assertion is, that we are fed by accidents without substance, by that which is left, the quantity and quality.  Goad. 
Can you show any ground or word for this?  Campion. 
This is word enough for me, Hoc est conpusmeun, This is my body.  Goad. 
Those words do nothing prove your assertion, as hath been showed.  Campion. 
I would I might be suffered to show my cards, as you have done yours.  Goad. 
Whatsoever you can show is well enough known, and hath been showed by others of your side, and is sufficiently answered.  Fulke. 
I reason thus. That which Christ gave at his supper 
Argument 5.  was bread:  
Ergo there remaineth bread in the sacrament.  Campion. 
I deny that it was bread in substance that he gave, but only in show.  Fulke. 
It was pieces of bread that he gave:  
Ergo it was bread.  Campion. 
He gave not substantial pieces.  Fulke. 
I never heard of accidental pieces. But Cyrillus saith, speaking of that sacrament, Dedit eis fragmentapanis, In joh. cap. 4. He gave them pieces of bread:  
But bread is substance:  
Therefore he gave them pieces of substance, or substantial pieces.  Camp. 
It is all one, to give pieces, and to give bread:  
The whole is not bread:  
Ergo the pieces were not bread. It was consecrated bread.  Fulke. 
How answer you to Cyrillus, that said, he gave them pieces of bread?  Campion. 
Every piece of bread is called bread: he speaketh after the common manner, because it was bread by appellation.  Fulke. 
What gave he? or whereof were those pieces but of bread?  Camp. 
He gave pieces of bread in appellation. The Doctors acknowledge it to be no bread.  Fulke. 
That is utterly false. The Doctors always called it bread, and pieces of bread: and no Doctor within 600. years after Christ said, that the accidents of bread and wine only did remain, and not the substance.  Camp. 
I have answered, and given three reasons before, why they called it so.  Fulke. 
You have answered nothing: but you teach the Doctors to speak. Name one Doctor for five or six hundred years after Christ, which saith that there remaineth no substance of bread in the sacrament, or so speaketh as you would expound them.  Camp. 
The Doctors say, that after consecration the bread is made the body of Christ.  Fulke. 
I believe and confess as much.  Camp. 
Then you must believe that the substance of bread is turned into the body of Christ.  Fulke. 
It followeth not.  Campion. 
Master Doctor, if you fear not your cause, for charity answer me. I challenge you, that you can not answer the Doctors.  Fulke. 
It is not in me to give you leave to oppose. I come hither by commandment to oppose you: otherwise as I told you the last day, you are not the man whom I would take for my adversary.  Campion. 
I speak to you to be a mean for me. I compare the cause with you, and not my person with you.  Fulke. 
I have answered else where, whatsoever could be opposed by your betters, Heskins and Saunders: and nevertheless, if you can bring any thing that they have omitted, put it in writing, and I will answer you, as I have often said: therefore I will go forward. As Cyrillus calleth the sacraments pieces of bread: so Belasius calleth it a portion of the holy body, as it is in the decrees cited by Gratian. Comperimus autem, etc. We have found out of a certainty, that certain men after they have received a portion of the holy body, do abstain from the cup of the holy blood, etc.  Camp. 
Now we shall have an other disputation, whether the cup be necessary for lay men.  Fulke. 
Though the communion under both kinds, be proved unvincibly by that testimony, yet I bring it only to show that term (a portion of the holy body:) which proveth that there remaineth bread which is broken, for the very body of Christ is not broken.  Campion. 
He calleth it a portion by a popular speech: because the sign being divided, Christ's body is in every part of that bread, which is not bread in deed but in appearance only, and so seemeth to be divided into sundry parts.  Fulke. 
This answer of popular speech is with you Tanquam Delphicusg 〈◊〉, to avoid all authority that makes against you, be it never so plain: but in deed it is a figurative speech, not used of the people.  Camp. 
Is not a figurative▪ speech common and popu●…? They say we drink the 〈◊〉. Therefore mine answer is, it is a popular kind of speech, because when the sign is broken, the thing itself is said to be so.  Fulke. 
Do the people say, the lords body is broken, when they mean that the accidents only are broken? such kind of speaking and meaning, is far above the people's ●…itie.  Camp. 
The signs are broken, not the body of Christ itself.  Fulk. 
Again, in that counterfeit epistle ascribed to Clemē●…, which he should write unto S. james, exhorting him that he should keep the Pix diligently from mice dung & putrefaction, he calleth the sacrament which is reserved, Reliquias fragmentorum corporis Dominici, The relics of the fragments of our Lord's body, and pulvis dominici corporis, the dust or small crumbs of the lords body, and fragmenta Dominici corporis, & fragmenta dominicae portionis. The fragments of the Lords body, the fragments of the Lords portion. What are all these relics, fragments, dust or crumbs, but of bread?  Camp. 
All these remnants & breakings are in respect of the exterior form of bread, an unproper kind of speech.  Fulke. 
These speeches are unproper of that body of Christ, which can not be broken: but they are proper of the bread, of the which Cyrillus speaketh plainly.  Camp. 
Prove you that the substance of bread remaineth, and not the accidents only.  Fulk. 
I have proved that the bread remaineth which is broken: and bread is substance: therefore substance remaineth.  Campion. 
The sign is broken, but not the bread.  Fulke. 
You show your judgement. We must take all your answers: when the bread is broken, the signs are broken.  Cam. 
I could make as good sport about that incarnation of Christ.  Goad. 
It is no sporting matter: we are in earnest, and about weighty matters.  Fulk. 
These speeches may become a jesuite, but are not seemly for a Christian. This is like your juggling trick the other day, which ye said, belike Christ did play.  Goad. 
I will now come to examine the ground, whereupon ye would build your transubstantiation: and I reason thus.  
If the bread and wine be transubstantiate, than it is grounded 
6. Argument  upon some part of the Scripture:  
But it is grounded upon no part thereof:  
Ergo the bread and wine are not transubstantiat.  Camp. 
I deny your Minor, it is grounded upon some part.  Goad. 
If upon any, then upon the words of the institution, This is my body:  
But not upon those words:  
Ergo upon no part of Scripture.  Camp. 
I deny your Minor, It is groded manifestly upon those words of Christ.  Goad. 
If upon this place, then upon the true sense of the words:  
But not upon the true sense:  
Ergo not upon this place.  Camp. 
It is grounded both upon the words, & the true sense also.  Goad. 
If upon the true sense, them it is a plain & a proper speech:  
But it is not a proper speech:  
Ergo not upon the true sense.  Camp. 
It is a proper speech.  Goad. 
It is a figurative speech:  
Ergo not a proper.  Camp. 
So far forth as it is figurative, it is not proper. It may be figurative and proper both.  Goad. 
This is strange, but ye shall hear the judgement of the father's, that it is merely figurative. Augustine epist. 23. in the words before alleged, maketh it a metonymical speech, when by reason of the near similitude, the name of the thing itself is attributed to the sign: which he saith is usual in sacraments. So Circumcision is called the lords covenant. So the Paschal lamb is called the 
Gene. 17. Exod. 12.  passover. The same Augustine upon the 3. Psalm, Christi miranda patientia adhibuit judam ad conuivium, in quo corporis & sanguinis sui figuram discipulis tradidit. The great patience of Christ received judas unto his feast, wherein he gave a figure of his body and blood unto his disciples.  Camp. 
Wherefore bring ye this, it is from the matter in question: we spoke even now of proper speeches, this is not a proper argument to the matter.  Goad. 
I am come to this point orderly to prove the speech to be figurative, and not proper, and now ye see yourself brought in some straits, ye would draw me back again: but answer out place of Tertullian against Martion lib. 4. Which doth notably expound the words of the Institution, to be figuratively spoken.  Camp. 
We shall then go to the forenoon's question.  Goad. 
No, It serveth for the point we are now come unto, being very weighty to expound the words of the Institution, This is my body. Whereupon ye would build your transubstantiation. Belike you fear the place of Tertullian, & are loath to come to it.  Camp. 
I fear not, let us hear it: we lack a moderator.  Goad. 
I would we had one, we should then dispute more orderly. The words are: Christus acceptum panem, & distributum discipulis suis, corpus suunillud fecit, hoc est corpus meum dicendo, id est figura corporis mei, figura autem non fuisset, nisi veritatis esset corpus. The bread which Christ took & gave to his disciples, he made his body, saying, this is my body, that is, a figure of my body, but it could not have been a figure, unless Christ had a true body.  Camp. 
I answer your place of Tertullian, two ways. First, for the understanding of the people, and after, in respect of the learned. For the people thus. He had to do with the heretic Martion, who denied that Christ had a true body. Tertullian proveth that Christ had a true body, because he gave a true body to his disciples, saying, this is my body. The words that follow, Id est, figura corporis mei, are not Tertullians', but are added by the Heretic, who would have Christ to have had but a figure or show of a body, and not a true body: Tertullian saith to the heretic, Christ saith, this is my body, thou sayest a figure, admit it were a figure, yet it must be a figure of a true body.  Goad. 
You show yourself ignorant in this place of Tertull. which is a known & familiar place: the whole words are Tertullians', & nothing at all here, added by the heretic Martion: both the words & sense of Tertullian is plain, consider better of them.  Camp. 
Tertullian took upon him the person of the heretic, & maketh the objection, which he thought the heretic would object.  Goad. 
You are greatly deceived in this place of Tertullian, who reasoneth thus against Martion very substantially, to prove that Christ had a true, & not a fantastical body as Martion supposed. That must needs have a true body, whereof there is a figure:  
But Christ in the Institution of his supper, gave a figure of his body, when he said, This is my body, that is a figure of my body:  
Ergo Christ hath a true body. This is Tertullians' reason, as it appeareth in the next clause. Figura autem non esset, nisiver it at is esset corpus. But there could not be a figure of a body, except it had relation unto a true body. And in the next words following, yet more plainly, Caeterum vacuares, quod est phantasma, figuram capere non potest. But an empty or vain thing, such as is a phantasm; can not be capable of a figure. Take the booae and peruse this place, ye shall find it to be as I have opened the mind of Tertullian.  Campion. 
I know the place. I made one answer before in respect of the people, now mine other answer is for the learned: that Tertullian useth to allege many hard and obscure places, and figures out of the old testament, he must be read with judgement and great diligence, the words, Idest figura, are not in way of exposition, but of objection.  Goad. 
You show your skill in the fathers. This is not Tertullians' exposition only, but also Augustine's, upon the third Psalm before alleged, and Tom. 6. against Adamantus. Non dubitavit Dominus dicere hoc est corpus meum, quum signum daret corporis sui. The Lord doubted not to say, this is my body, when he gave a figure of his body.  Camp. 
Then belike ye would altogether exclude from the sacrament, Christ the substance, making him altogether absent, allowing only of a bare sign in the sacrament.  Goad. 
The words are Augustine's, that Christ gave a sign of his body. Howbeit, we exclude not the substance, which is Christ himself, who together with the sign is received by faith of the godly, and so we make not a bare sign, but we say he is not upon earth touching his body included in the sacrament.  Campion. 
It is well known to the learned, that the sign excludeth not the thing signified.  Goad. 
I grant: neither do I exclude the thing. It is a sacramental speech usual (as hath been said) in the Scriptures to give the name of the thing to the sign, for the similitude between both, and therefore must be sacramentally expounded, propter similitudinem signi, & rei signatae.  Campion. 
That maketh for me, that the sign hath the name of the thing.  Goad. 
Doth it make for you, that the sign is so termed Secundum quendam modum, after a certain manner, as Augustine saith before, and yet simply is not for The Sacrament is not the thing itself, but in a kind of speech sacramentally: as Circumcision is said to be the covenant, which was not the Covenant itself, but a sign thereof.  Campion. 
Make your argument.  Goad. 
Seeing ye will have me draw it into an argument, thus I reason.  
It is usual in the Sacraments, for the Scripture to speak figuratively, calling the sign by the name of the thing signified, as in Circumcision, Gen. 17. the Paschal Lamb, Exod. 12. and the rock in the wilderness. 1. Cor. 10:  
Therefore the like in this sacrament of the lords supper.  Campion. 
I deny your argument, they are not alike.  Goad. 
I prove it. The same reason of Augustine from the analogy 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 Christ's body, after a certain manner is said to be the body of Christ, etc. Also the very manner of speech in the other Sacraments is like, viz. of circumcision, This is my Covenant: of the Paschal, This is the passover: of the rock, The rock was Christ.  Camp. 
I say they are not like, for Christ was not naturally present in those sacraments of the old Testament, as he is in this Sacrament.  Goad. 
You bring an instance by Petitio principij, but I overthrow your particular instance by the general.  
The like usual speech is used in all Sacraments both of the old and new Testament:  
Ergo in this sacrament of the Supper.  Camp. 
The speech & sense is this in the sacrament, Hoc est corpus meum, This that I see is my body, as the quantity & colour.  Goad. 
You answer not mine argument. I have said enough for the true understanding of these words, it must have a sacramental sense. I leave it unto judgement.  Camp. 
I grant a sacramental sense, so far forth as goeth to colour. The fathers you allege, but those that I bring can not be answered.  Fulke. 
They have been, and may be, as time and occasion will serve: but now your lot is to answer. I will take away your common and only answer.  Campion. 
I have answered already.  Fulke. 
Your answer showeth, that you understand not the scope and purpose of Saint Augustine, which is to prove that this saying, Anima est sanguis, is such a kind of speech, as this of the sacrament, This is my body. For these are his words: Nam ex eo quod scriptum est, etc. For of that which is written, that the blood of a beast is the soul of it, beside that which I said before, that it pertaineth not unto me what becometh of the soul of a beast, I can also interpret this commandment to be made in a sign: for our Lord doubted not to say, This is my body, when he gave the sign of his body. Here you see, Augustine having disputation with the heretic Adimantus, which held that the blood of a beast was the soul thereof, affirmeth that the blood is but a sign of the soul, as the sacrament is a sign of the body of Christ: and yet is called the soul, as the other is called the body of Christ.  Campion. 
You are answered already.  Fulke. 
This is your common answer: You are answered already, and you have answered yourself, when you have none other shift. You understand never a place of the Doctors, that hath been yet alleged.  Campion. 
Twenty years ago I have read this book.  Fulke. 
I do not believe that ever you read it, you are so ignorant of the argument of it. But sure I am, that xx. years ago you had not read it. You would seem to be an older student in Divinity than you are, by a great deal.  M. Norton. 
Where were you Campion, twenty years ago? were you not a poor boy in the hospital:  Camp. 
I was two and twenty years old, and then I was Bachelor of Art.  Fulke. 
You might read that place noted out by some other, but the whole work of the author you read not.  Camp. 
I did not say that I had then read his whole work.  Fulke. 
It is not a dozen years ago, since I heard you at Garbrandes stall in Oxenford ask for Irenaeus Epistles, wherein you showed that you were but a young reader of the Doctors at that time.  Campion. 
Peradventure I might ask for Irenaeus works.  Fulke. 
Nay, you asked for Irenaeus Epistles, and namely, that to Victor.  Campion. 
Why might I not, having read in Eusebius of his Epistle to Victor, ask of the Stationer whether that Epistle were extant:  Fulke. 
I deny not but you might: but yet that argueth that you were but a young man in the Doctors, that knew not what works of Irenaeus were extant. But how answer you to Saint Augustine?  Campion. 
I answer, Saint Augustine saith, that Sanguis is a sign of the soul present, as the bread is a sign of the body of Christ being present.  Fulke. 
Saint Augustine saith, that the blood doth only signify the soul, and is not the substance of the soul: but you utterly destroy his argument, and so, help the heretic very well.  Camp. 
The heretic thought it was an absurdity, that Sanguis being eaten, anima is eaten. Augustine showeth, because Sanguis is a principal part of life, it is called the vital blood, etc. Like as this Sanguis is a token that Anima is near, so the sign of the bread is a token that Christ is near.  Fulke. 
You go quite from the matter. The question was not whether the blood be a sign of the soul, but whether it be the soul itself.  Campion. 
Let it be noted: why is blood called Anima, but because Anima is near it, & because it exerciseth his functions therein: So he gave bread, that was a sign of his body present. The question was never, whether the blood were the substance of the soul, but whether the blood being eaten, the soul were eaten? Therefore in that saying of Saint Augustine, Christ doubted not to say he gave his body, when he gave a sign of his body, there, sign is a token of his presence.  Fulke. 
That is a mere fallation: sign a token of presence, as blood a sign that anima is near: Augustine is clear, that the blood is not the soul, but a sign thereof: as that which Christ gave, was not his body, but a sign thereof. Or else the heretic had his purpose, in saying that eating of blood, is eating of souls.  Campion. 
I must not eat his blood.  Fulke. 
You have many words to no purpose in the world.  Campion. 
Why is a man's brain called his wit: It were reason that I also should have my course sometime to oppose, and you to answer: which if it fell so forth, I doubt not but I could urge you as well in these matters, as you do me, and drive you also to narrow shifts, in the defence, how Christ took flesh of the virgin Marie.  Fulke. 
To take upon me the person of an answerer, is not my choice and yours: as also the place of opponent, which I now sustain, was not sought for by me. And to grant that which you now require, resteth in the superior powers.  Camp. 
Well then, use the help of your friends to sue for obtaining of the same. For if you or the like were in Catholic cities, that I know, and did but once signify your desire in the like case, free disputation and conference would out of hand be procured. And I in my defence challenge you here, if you dare, to answer to such points as I shall object against you.  Fulke. 
I will make no suit for the matter, neither are you the man whom I would choose mine adversary, to match myself withal.  Camp. 
In deed, I think to obtain that suit, would not be for your advantage.  Fulke. 
Think of yourself as highly as you list, yet when you have reckoned all, your gain will be little or nothing. I will come to mine argument.  
The elements go not from their nature and substance:  
Ergo there is no transubstantiation.  
Campion. I deny your Antecedent.  Fulke. 
I prove it by authority of Theodoret Dialog. 2. Neque enim signa mysticapost sanctificationem recedunt à natura sua. Mavent enim in priori substantia, figura, & forma, & videri & tangi possunt sicut prius. For the mystical signs after sanctification do not go from their nature. For they remain in their former substance, shape, and form, they may both be seen and touched, as before.  Camp. 
I answer, he is so to be understood, as he may confound the heretic with whom he did dispute.  Fulke. 
Very well, and for that purpose he saith, the nature of the signs remaineth, to move that the nature of Christ's humanity remaineth after the assumption.  Campion. 
Nature is not taken for substance.  Fulke. 
Theodoret sayeth, they remain also in their former substance.  Campion. 
He speaketh popularly, he must not be taken so strictly. The word substance is often times taken for being, therefore it must not be here taken for a special substance, but genericè, for a general being.  Fulke. 
Then it would follow, that the proper substance of Christ's body remaineth not, but a general being thereof.  Camp. 
The heretic granted that Christ had a body, but he said it was a fantastical body, and not a true body.  Fulke. 
And your answer will help the heretic very well. As the signs remain not in their proper substance, but in a general being or accidents: so the humanity of Christ after it was assumpted by the Divinity, was absorbed of the same. But Theodoret against the Eutichean, by the similitude of the mystical signs remaining in their nature and substance after sanctification, proveth the verity of Christ's humanity after his incarnation.  Campion. 
You must not press the similitude so: substance is taken generally for being.  Fulke. 
You were best to say as Saunders doth, that substance is taken for the bulk of the bread, though there be no bread.  Campion. 
I say it is an unproper speech.  Fulke. 
If ever we must speak properly, we must do it when we dispute against heretics, as Theodoret did.  Camp. 
I have answered: by substance he meaneth a being, and such have accidents.  Fulke. 
That answer will not stand with Theoderets words. For Christ hath not now those accidents with the which he was incarnate, but the same substance. You shall hear the argument of Epanister the heretic. As the symbols of the body and blood of our Lord are one thing before invocation, and after invocation are changed and made other things: so the lords body after the assumption, is changed into the divine substance. But Theodoret telleth him, that he is taken with his own net. For the mystical signs depart not from their nature, but abide in their former substance, form and shape. Here you see he speaketh both of substance and accidents.  Campion. 
I grant, so far forth as it made against the heretic.  Fulke. 
But it maketh not against the heretic, unless transubstantiation be denied.  Campion. 
Yes, it maketh against the heretic, that the bread being turned into the very body of Christ, proveth that Christ had a true body.  Fulke. 
You do open violence to the place. His argument is not of the body of Christ, to prove his humanity: but by the remaining of the mystical signs in their former substance and accidents, to prove the perfit remaining of Christ's humanity after his incarnation.  Campion. 
Every argument used by the Fathers, must not be pressed farther than their purpose, which was to confound heretics.  Fulke. 
But herewithal is his mind expressed against the heresy of transubstantiation.  Camp. 
I grant it doth carry some suspicion against transubstantiation, but it doth not make against it.  Fulke. 
He could not more plainly have spoken against it, then to say, the nature and substance, form and shaperemayneth in the 
Absurd: Substance must be in a certain vacaunt or void emptiness, and yet forsooth in quantity and quality. 8. Argument.  bread and wine after sanctification.  Campion. 
He is to be understood, that the substance doth remain in vacuitate, sed tamen quantitate & qualitate. etc.  Fulke. 
Every man may see how silly shifts you be driven unto, and how far you rove from that ancient father's meaning. I will press you with another authority.  Goad. 
I will urge you with an other argument out of the same author, whereby his judgement shall appear in more places than one, that he is flat against transubstantiation: his words are these, dialog. 1. qui dicitur immutabilis. Volebat enim eos qui sunt divinorum mysteriorum participes, non attendere naturam eorum quae videntur, sed propter nominum permutationem, mutationem quae fit ex gratia, credere. Qui enim quod natura corpus est, triticum & panem appellavit, & vitem rursus seipsum nominavit, is symbola & signa quae videntur, appellatione corporis & sanguinis honoravit: non naturam quidem mutans, sed naturae gratiam adijciens. For he would have those which are partakers of the divine mysteries, not to regard the nature of those things that are seen, but for the change of the names, to believe that change which is made by grace. For he which called that which by nature is his body, corn & bread, and again called himself a vine, even he did honour the symbols & signs which are seen, with the name of his body and blood: not changing nature, but adding grace unto nature. Out of which words I reason thus.  
The symbols and signs remain in their own nature after they be consecrate:  
Ergo there is no transubstantiation.  Campion. 
In great and weighty matters they are forced to use these terms, he speaketh genericè generally, not strictly.  Goad. 
You answer nothing to the place: read the words, and consider them better. He speaketh plainly, and in special of the nature and substance of the sacrament still remaining.  Camp. 
I have answered before, that by nature he meaneth the exterior form, as accidents and quality.  Goad. 
By nature it is plain he meaneth the very substance: for he doth confound these two, as appeared in his other place before alleged. Non recedunt à natura sua, manent enim in priori substantia. They leave not their nature, for they abide in their former substance. When you find the word nature sometime in the fathers, that seemeth to make for your transubstantiation, than you triumph, than you urge the word that it must needs signify substance. Now when the same word is urged against you out of Theodoret, and the same Theodoret explaining also himself, that he meaneth the very substance of bread and wine, yet it must be nothing but quality and accidents.  Camp. 
When the coherence of the place yieldeth it, than we say it must signify the substance. It can not always he taken for the substance. For I pray you, is not heat the nature of the fire? yet it is not the substance of the fire.  Goad. 
Heat is a property of the fire. But what is this to the answering of Theodoret's place? where both the coherence and his own exposition, doth show it to be all one with the substance?  Campion. 
I have answered, the substantial part doth not remain.  Goad. 
Then I see we shall have none other answer to Theodoret. I will prove how you will answer justinus Martyr in his Apology.  Campion. 
These Doctors were great Philosophers, and therefore no marvel though sometime they speak as they were wont.  Goad. 
The substance of bread and wine remaineth.  
Ergo they are not changed.  Campion. 
It doth not remain.  Goad. 
That which nourisheth the body, remaineth:  
But the substance of bread and wine nourisheth the body:  
Ergo the substance of bread and wine remaineth.  Campion. 
This is answered already. When the substance is present, it nourisheth by the quality.  Goad. 
But the quality can by no means nourish without the substance.  Campion. 
The quality nourisheth alone, if it can be there without substance.  Goad. 
But it can not be there without a subject. Now consider the words of justinus in 2. apologia. Non enim ut communem panem aut communem potum haec accipimus, sed quemadmodum jesus Christus seruator noster per verbum Dei factus caro, & carnem & sanguinem nostrae salutis causa habuit: sic etiam cibum illum, postquam per precationem verbi illius fuerit benedictus, ex quo sanguis & caro nostra per mutationem nutriuntur, edocti sumus esse carnem & sanguinem illius. etc. For we do not receive these things as common bread & common drink, but as jesus Christ our saviour, being made flesh by the word of God, had both flesh & blood for our salvation: so also we are taught, that that meat after it is sanctified by prayer of the word, by which meat our flesh and blood is by change thereof nourished, is the flesh and blood of him.  Camp. 
The accidents alone wheresoever they be, they may nourish.  Goad. 
You speak against learning, reason & sense. Will you say, that accidents without substance, can nourish our blood and flesh?  Camp. 
That is, physica quadam ratione, naturally it can not be: but where there is a miracle supernatural, the miracle being granted, the other followeth.  Goad. 
But your imagined miracle is denied, and it hath been showed out of Augustine, that there is no wonder in the sacraments. This is an easy answer to all arguments, when ye have nothing else, then to say it is a miracle: and this is your common answer.  Camp. 
When the substance is present, the quality nourisheth. I would this question might be handled in the University.  Fulke. 
You would feign be removed, but it lieth not in us to remove you. Gelasius against Eutiches, writeth thus: Certe sacramenta quae sumimus corporis & sanguinis Christi, divina rès est propter 
Argument 9  quod, & per eadem, divina efficimur consortes naturae, & tamen esse non desinit substantia vel natura panis & vini. Et certè ●…ago & similitudo corporis & sanguinis Christi, in actione mysteriorum corporis Christi celebratur. etc. The sacraments of the body and blood of Christ which we receive, are a divine thing, and therefore by them we are made partakers of the divine nature, & yet the substance, or nature of the bread & wine ceaseth not to be. And surely a similitude or image of the body and blood of Christ is celebrated in the action of the mysteries. Therefore, it is showed unto us evidently enough, that we must judge the same thing even in our Lord Christ himself which we profess, celebrate and receive in that which is an image of him: that as by the working of the holy Ghost, these things pass into a divine substance, and yet abide still in the property of their own nature: even so the same principal mystery doth show that one Christ, whose efficiency and truth it doth truly represent unto us, abideth whole & true, those things of which he consists properly, still remaining. What say you to this plain testimony of Gelasius, who saith, the substance of the bread and wine remaineth.  Campion. 
Make your argument.  Fulke. 
I have made it already.  
The suhstance of the bread and wine remaineth:  
Ergo there is no transubstantiation.  Campion. 
I deny your Antecedent.  Fulke. 
The words of Gelasius proveth it.  
The substance of bread and wine departeth not:  
Ergo it remaineth.  Camp. 
Gelasius and Theodoret have one answer: in the mysteries, which are the body of Christ, there remaineth that which appeareth bread and wine.  Fulke. 
Gelasius sayeth, the substance of bread and wine remaineth, and not the appearance only: and so saith Theodoret.  Campion. 
I told you they mean to prove that there is not a third thing, as a fantastical body, but one Christ, God and man.  Fulke. 
This is nothing to the purpose. The substance of the bread and wine ceaseth not to be in the sacrament: for your credit sake, answer to the authority. Gelasius was a Pope, he could not err.  Camp. 
The substance of the bread and wine remaineth, that is, the being.  Fulke. 
Even now, you denied my Antecedent, and now you grant it: you go backward and forward. In deed you know not what to say.  Camp. 
His answer is, substance is taken for being.  Fulke. 
What being, a general being:  Camp. 
Such a being, as is in all the predicaments.  Fulke. 
Ergo the sacrament is a transcendent.  Camp. 
I deny the argument.  Fulke. 
The bread and wine are the sacrament:  
Bread and wine are transcendentes:  
Ergo the sacrament is a transcendent.  Camp. 
The being of them both after consecration, is a transcendent: the bread is a sacrament, as it is a sign.  Fulke. 
Take the sacrament for a sign, and then you will say, it is a transcendent, which is in all predicaments. I pray you what remaineth:  Campion. 
Aliquid, the signs of bread and wine.  Fulke. 
Hoc aliquid nihil est. There remaineth the substance of bread and wine, saith Gelasius, that is to say, the accidents, as you expound him. By like reason you may expound him by white, to mean black, by hot, cold: you might as well say, when he speaketh of God, he meaneth the devil, by such monstrous interpretations, all heresies may be defended.  Camp. 
Your arguments carry a show, because you reason physically: but we must not be led by senses in these mysteries.  Fulke. 
I reason truly: and truth is able to stand with all true sciences against all gainsayers.  Goad. 
There remaineth the substance of one of the elements: 
10. Argument.   
Ergo there remaineth the substance of both.  Camp. 
There remaineth substance in neither.  Goad. 
The substance of the wine remaineth:  
Ergo of the one.  Camp. 
Wine doth not remain substantially.  Goad. 
Cyprian epist. 3. ad Caecilium. Dico vobis non bib am amodo ex ista creatura vitis, usque in diem illum quo vobiscum bibam nowm vinum in regno patris mei. Qua in part invenimus calicem mixtum fuisse quem Dominus obtulit, & vinum fuisse quod sanguinem suum dixit. I say unto you, I will not drink hereafter of this creature of the vine, until the day that I shall drink it new with you in the kingdom of my father. In which part, we find the cup which the Lord offered, to be mixed, and that it was wine which he called his blood. By these words it appeareth that wine remaineth. He saith, we find that it was wine, etc.  Campion. 
His intent is to prove that Christ did consecrate in wine, and so must we do: he doth not call it wine after consecration.  Goad. 
I prove that his meaning is after consecration, as Christ himself doth call it, whose words he doth recite.  
He saith, it was wine which he offered, and called his blood:  
But he did not offer and call it his blood till after consecration:  
Therefore it was wine after consecration.  Campion. 
That is, he took wine to make it his blood, and when he took it, it was wine: he saith not, that when Christ did offer it, it was wine.  Goad. 
He saith that it was wine, which he called his blood, & he did not call it his blood before consecration. I leave the place to the judgement of the learned. I will farther confirm this out of Irenaeus. There remaineth an earthly substance after consecration:  
Ergo there is not transubstantiation.  Camp. 
There doth not remain any substance.  Goad. 
Hear his words, Iren. adver. heresies lib. 4. cap. 34. I am non communis panis est, sed Eucharistia ex duaebus rebus constans, terrena & coelesti. Caeleste hoc quidnam est? Dominus jesus. Terrestre autem quid? panis qui ex terra est, quique corpora nostra pascit quemadmodum reliqui panes. Now it is not common bread, but the eucharist consisting of two things, one earthly, and the other heavenly. This heavenly what is it? the Lord jesus. And what is the earthly? bread which is of the earth, and which doth feed our body as other bread doth.  Camp. 
He saith the sacrament consisteth of two things. There be nine predicaments beside that of substance, and this word Res, or thing, may be in them all, and they may be all said to be earthly things.  Goad. 
You can not so shift of Irenaeus plain words. I will prove that Res, in this place, must needs signify a substance.  
Sacraments consist of two substances, the one earthly, and the other heavenly:  
Therefore, it must needs be understood of substance.  Campion. 
I deny that they consist of two substances: they consist of two things.  Goad. 
You will grant that Christ the invisible grace, is one substance: and so that part of the sacrament which is heavenly, is a substance. The earthly part, namely the elements of bread and wine, remain also in their proper substance: for as Irenaeus saith, the bread is of the earth, and doth nourish our bodies, as other bread doth.  Campion. 
It is enough to consist of two things: of Christ, and the grace of Christ. An evil man may receive Christ, but not the grace of Christ.  Goad. 
Do you make the two things to be Christ and his grace: them one of these two must be earthly, according to Irenaeus. And it hath been confuted before, that the wiched can not eat Christ: for whosoever is partaker of Christ, must also be partaker of his spirit and grace.  Campion. 
I say that the wicked may receive Christ, yet t●… their condemnation, when they receive that part of the sacranient which Irenaeus calleth the thing earthly, being not the substance, but the accidents.  Goad. 
The wicked receive the sacrament, the thing earthly, to their condemnation: but Christ they receive not. I have before proved that by the earthly thing must needs be understood the substance: but ye are much beholding to accidents and miracle, they have helped you well to day, when ye had nothing else to answer.  Fulke. 
Irenaeus calleth the sacrament a sacrifire. I think you like the phrase in regard of yourmasse, but he faith, it was such a sacrifice as doth not sanctify the offerer. lib. 4. cap. 34.  
Therefore it was bread and wine.  Camp. 
You say that it is a sacrifice, so it is in deed: but he meaneth by the offerer, Christ which doth sanctify, not man.  Fulke. 
He meaneth clean contrary, you shall hear him speak: he meaneth man.  Campion. 
Man is also the offerer, after a sore.  Fulke. 
You hurt yourself, because you will not hear the place, but take upon you to answer you know not to what. His words are (speaking of the sacrament) Igitur sacrificia non sanctificant hominem, non enim indiget sacrificio Deus: sed conscientia eius qui offert sanctificat sacrificium pura existens, & praestat acceptare Deum quasi ab amico. Therefore the sacrifices do not sanctify the man, for God needeth no sacrifice: but the conscience of him that offereth being pure, sanctifieth the sacrifice, & causeth God to accept it as of a friend. Hereof I infer:  
That which the conscience of man must sacrifice, is bread & wine:  
Therefore the sacrifice is bread and wine.  Campion. 
He meaneth, except the conscience of the offerer be pure, it sanctifieth not the man.  Fulke. 
Not only that, but he saith the pure conscience doth sanctify the sacrifice.  
But no man's conscience doth sanctify the body of Christ:  
Therefore the sacrifice of bread and wine, are not the body of Christ.  Camp. 
The pure conscience maketh it an holy sacrifice to him that offereth, but otherwise it is holy of itself.  Fulke. 
Irenaeus affirmeth that the sacrifice hath no sanctification, but of the pure conscience of the offerer.  Campion. 
If that be wanting, it signifieth not the man that is holy.  Fulke. 
But if his conscience be never so pure, it sanctifieth not the body of Christ:  
Therefore there is no way for you to escape.  Goad. 
If there be transubstantiation, than Christ is really present in his true body: 
12. Argument.   
But Christ is not really present in his true body:  
Ergo there is not transubstantiation.  Camp. 
Christ is really present in his true body.  Goad. 
He is not present in his sensible body:  
Therefore not in his true body.  Campion. 
I deny your argument.  Goad. 
It is the argument of our Saviour Christ, who neither deceiveth, nor can be deceived, Luk. 24. 39 See my hands and my feet that it is I, handle me, and see. etc. Here Christ proveth his true body to be present by the senses of seeing and handling, as reasoning thus:  
You see and feel my body:  
Therefore I am present in my true body.  
And it is not a spirit as you fear, as if he could not have been seen and handled, than not to be believed to be his true body.  Camp. 
The argument of Christ is good. The body that might be felt, must needs be a true body. The body of Christ is always sensible, but he doth when it pleaseth him, withdraw this property.  Goad. 
Then by our Saviour Christ's reason, we may doubt of the truth of his body.  Camp. 
It is said of Christ, that he vanished out of their sight, yet his body was visible. And can not Christ be present now without our seeing him?  Goad. 
He was taken out of their sight, and then how could they see him? but you say his body is present with us. Will you challenge more unto you then Christ himself doth? It pleased Christ to be judged by our senses, touching the presence of his body, our senses do see, feel, smell and taste nothing but bread.  Campion. 
Christ's pleasure is ●…nough: 〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉 ●…e him rise out of his sepulchre  Goad. 
It pleased the Lord to hold their eyes, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 astonished for fear: so when he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, it is true that we can not use this sense.  Campion. 
Then his body may be 〈◊〉 to ●…s if he will, & yet he in himself is always sensible: so the cause of not seeing him, is in him, and not in mine eye.  Goad. 
Yea, if our eyes were holden that we could not see: but it is manifest that the Apostles knew nothing of this doctrine of real presence in the sacrament before Christ's resurrection. For if they had been taught before in the 〈◊〉, that Christ was present in the sacrament in his natural body, and yet they saw and handled nothing else but bread, this argument now after his resurrection drawn from their senses, had been of small force.  Campion. 
Ye have heard mine answer, though now it pleased him to show himself palpable, yet there may be impediment in him, and also in us, why this is not always so. Here was no miracle when Christ did thus show himself, but Christ willbe present in the sacrament miraculously.  Goad. 
Let us end with prayer. We yield thee humbly thanks most gracious God and merciful father, that it hath pleased thee to call us to the knowledge and profession of thine everlasting truth revealed in thine holy word: and although it be the lot & condition of the same truth, always to have adversaries and gainsayers, that set themselves against the clear light of thy word: yet we beseech thee so to establish and confirm our faith in the known truth, that we be never offended by reason of errors and heretics, knowing that as there hath been always amongst thy people, so there willbe still false prophets, which privily shall bring in damnable heresies: yea there must be heresies in the 
2. Pet. 2.  Church, that they which are approved, may be known. But rather O Lord, by this means stir us up the more to study and 
1. Cor. 11.  meditate in thy law. And specially vouchsafe to work in our hearts a greater measure of zeal and love towards thy truth, seeing that of thy just judgement thou usest to send strong delusions, that they should believe lies, which would not receive the love of thy truth. And amongst the multitude of those that wander 
2. Thes. 2.  in blindness and error, we beseech thee in thy good t●…e, so many of them as pertain unto thy kingdom, of thy mercy to convert, and the rest that are obstinate against thy truth and glory, of thy just judgement to co●…de: and finally to break the might of Satan by the power of our Lord jesus Christ, to whom with thee and the holy spirit, be all glory now and ever.  
Amen.  
William Fulke. Roger Goad.   

A remembrance of the conference had in the Tower of London, betwixt M. D. Walker, and M. William Charke opponents, & Edmund Campion jesuite respondent, the 27. of September, 1581. as followeth.  
1. Whether the Scriptures contain sufficient doctrine 
The questiō●….  for our salvation. 2. Whether faith only justifieth.  
MAster Charke began the action with this godly prayer, but Campion refusing to pray with them, becrossed himself on the forehead, breasts, and other parts, after his superstitious manner.  
Our help is in the name of the Lord, who hath made heaven and earth. O eternal God and most merciful father, we thy servants do humbly acknowledge, that we are by nature miserable sinners, full of darkness and error, without thee neither meet to receive the love, nor able to yield the obedience of thy truth. Therefore we beseech thee in jesus Christ, to throw all our sins into the bottom of the sea, & to chase away all our darkness with the brightness of thy wisdom, that we may grow up in the knowledge, in the love, and in the obedience of thy most holy will. And because we are here assembled to maintain thy truth against the error and superstition of Antichrist, vouchsafe, O Lord our God, to be present in this action by thy holy spirit, and so sanctify our hearts and govern our tongues, that our corrupt affections being suppressed, all things may be done in a godly zeal for thy truth, and nothing against it. Moreover, for those that are come to hear, grant that as many as love thy Gospel, may be more and more confirmed in the knowledge thereof, by that which shallbe faithfully delivered out of thy holy word: such as be otherwise minded, we pray thee that they may yield either to the manifest truth, if they appertain to thy holy election: or being none of thine, that they may appear guilty and convicted of a lying spirit, such as is gone out into the world to deceive those that will not receive the love of thy truth, but delight in darkness. These things, O Lord, and whatsoever thou knowest to be good for us, we ask in the name of jesus Christ, and by that form of prayer, which he hath taught us. Our father etc.  After the prayer was ended, M. D. Walker entered with this preface. Walker. 
Gentlemen, ye shall understand that we be sent hither by authority, to talk & confer with one called Campion, an English man borne, and brought up in this realm in schools & places where good learning hath been taught, so that he might have been a good instrument in this common wealth and God's Church: but contrary to his bringing up, his friends expectation, & hope that this Church might have conceived of him, like an unnatural man to his country, degenerated from an English man, an Apostata in religion, a fugitive from this realm, unloyal to his Prince, hath not only fled to the man of Rome, an adversary to Christ and his doctrine: but hath gotten a courage from that Romaniste with certain other his sectaries, to come into this realm again, to undermine the Gospel of Christ, to seduce God's people, and withdraw her majesties lawful subjects to disobedience and sedition, and hath been (disguised in Ruffians apparel) in divers places of this realm, to plant secretly that blasphemous Mass and other Popery, whereunto it appeareth he hath alured many unstable fools: and in Yorkshire where his Sectaries & disciples are apprehended & justly imprisoned, now they rage (as I hear say) and curse him that ever he came there. So ye see what manner of man we are to talk withal. What good we shall do with him, the Lord doth know, other manner of men than we are, and of another calling, were more meet to talk with him than we: notwithstanding we will do our best that we can, God give it good effect. As for you, Campion, I hear say, that you use to scoff and jest at such as come to confer with you: we come not for that purpose, it is not our profession, yet I give you warning, Si quam maledicendo coeperis voluptatem, eam malè audiendo 
A proverbial speech signifying thus much: If you take any pleasure in speaking evil, you shall lose it in hearing evil.  amittes.  
Now to the question, which is, that the scriptures contain all things sufficient to salvation, against the assertion of your book: For you say that the Lutherans have cut off many books from the body of the new Testament, and so divided them from the Canonical scripture, which is not true.  Camp. 
Yes that they have, and therein they have done evil.  Walker. 
Here Master Walker read the words out of Campions challenge.  Campion. 
Luther hath cut off the Epistle of james, the second epistle of john, Jude, and the second of Peter. Luther hath found fault with these, and improved them in his prefaces upon those Epistles.  Walker. 
Luther hath not doubted of them himself, but showed that others have doubted of them.  Campion. 
It is one thing to doubt, an other thing to cut off. Bring me the books, and I will show that he hath cut them off.  Walker. 
That can not be showed, if the books were here: For the Doctors do not agree, concerning these books that are of the Canon. Some recite more, & some recite less, as Origen, Jerome, and others, and yet it were hard to say, that they cut off any of the Canonical books. They do, as Luther may, show what books were doubted of in their time, and yet no whit prejudice the books of the Canonical Scripture.  Campion. 
Well, I say whatsoever they might do then, yet now seeing the Church hath otherwise determined, it is blasphemy for any to doubt of them. The Lutherans do doubt of them: bring me the books, and I will show where Luther doubteth, and therefore blasphemeth, because the Church hath taken away the doubt, videlicet the third Council of Carthage, and that of Laodicea.  Walker. 
I do not profess myself a Lutheran, but a Christian. But if old fathers and old Councils have not received these books for Canonical and books to ground our faith upon, than can not new men, nor the Tridentine Council (being full of errors) make them Canonical. August de doct. Christ. lib. 2. ca 8. leaveth out Baruch, & the two last books of Esdras. Hieronymus praes. in li. Reg. Hunc prologum galeatum principium vocat. He saith, Igitur Sapientia quae vulgo Salomonis inscribitur, & jesu filii Syrach liber, & judith, & Tobias, & pastor, non sunt in Canone. Macchabaeorun primum librum Hebraicum reperi, secundus Graecus est, quod ex ipsa phrafi probari potest. Eusebius also ecclesi. hist. lib. 6. cap. 18. fol. 368. & sequentibus, omittit tertium & quartum Esdrae, Tobiae, judith, Baruch, Sapientia, Ecclesiastici, Machabaeorum libros. Paulo post: De eo (inquit) qui est apud Hebraeos nonnulli dubitaverunt. etc. Sed ego dico sicut mihi à maioribus traditum est, quia manifestissimè Pauli est. Ibi de secunda Petri Epistola à nonnullis dubitatur. De duabus ultimis johannis Epistolis apud quosdam dubia sententia. He omitteth in the forenamed place the third & fourth book of Esdras, the books of Toby, judith, Baruch, of Wisdom, of Ecclesiasticus, & of the Macchabees. A little after: Concerning that (saith he) which is written to the hebrews, many have doubted: but I say as hath been delivered unto me from mine Elders, because it appeareth most manifestly to be of Paul's. There also, concerning the second Epistle of Peter, he saith, that it was doubted of many: and so with some were the two last Epistles of john. The same Eusebius lib. 4. cap. 26. loquens de Melitone Episcopo Sardensis Ecclesiae, qui recitans volumina veteris Testamenti, omittit Esdras, Tobi, Hester, judith, Baruch, Sapientiae, sirach, Macchabaeorum. etc. Speaking of Melito the Bishop of the Church of Sardis, who reckoning up the volumes of the old Testament, he omitteth Esdras, Toby, Hester, judith, Baruch, Wisdom, sirach, the books of the Macchabees, etc. And the Laodicean Council omitteth Luke's Gospel & the Apocalyps. You see therefore that these old fathers have left these books out of the Canon, and yet were they neither called heretics, nor blasphemers.  Campion. 
It is not lawful to cut off the books of the old Testament from the Canon: which not only, as I have said, Luther hath done, but also Caluine. The one hath rejected those books I have named, and the other rejecteth the books of Toby, Ecclesiasticus, the book of Wisdom, the books of Maccabees, Baruch, and the like, which are de syncero Canone.  Walker. 
What is this to that I have said: I have showed that the old Doctors have refused them for Canonical, and therefore so many may we refuse: and they themselves will de no further admitted than they agree with the Canonical Scriptures: and these books which you name, have always been esteemed Apocrypha. Augustine contra Maximinum Arrianorum Episcopum lib. 2. Cap. 14. Nec ego Nicenum, nec tudebes Ariminense tanquam praeiudicaturus proferre Concilium: nec ego huius authoritate, nec tuistius debueris: Scripturarum authoritatibus non quorumcumque proprijs, sed utrisque communibus testibus, res cum re, causa cum causa, ratio cum ratione concertet etc. August. against Maximinus the Bishop of the Arrians. Neither oughtest thou to bring the Council of Arimine, nor I the Nicene, as it were to prejudice the truth: neither should I be holden with the authority of this, nor thou of that: but let it be tried by the authority of the Scriptures, not the proper witnesses of any, but common to both, let matter with matter, cause with cause, and reason with reason try it, etc. And Jerome writing to Laeta de institutione filiae, fol. 58. willeth, not to read some without doubting, and other some warily: but he saith, Caveat omnia Apocrypha, Let her beware of all the Apocrypha, (which he nameth in Prologo Galeato.) Et si quando ea non ad dogmatum veritatem, sed ad signorum reverentiam legere volverit, sciat non eorum esse quorum titulis praenotantur, multaquè ijs admixta vitiosa, & grandis esse prudentiae aurum in luto quaerere. And if at any time she will read them, not for the truth of opinions, but for the reverence of signs, let her know that they are not theirs whose titles they bear, but that many vicious things are mixed, with them, and that it is a point of great wisdom to seek out gold in dirt. Lo, here you see that he bids her to beware in the reading of them.  Camp. 
The Scripture is principally to be admitted: but I would we might have an argument.  Walker. 
Then thus I reason.  
That which he biddeth to beware of, is not to be holden authentical: 
1. Argument,   
But he biddeth to beware of the Apocrypha:  
Ergo the Apocrypha is not to be holden authentical.  Camp. 
Apocrypha are taken two ways. First, for those books which are doubted of: and then, for such books that are not allowed. Such were the prophecy of Enoch, jacobs' testament and such like, which he calleth Somniolenta deliramenta, vitiosa, etc. of those Jerome speaketh in this place, and not of those others. For what point is there in Ecclesiasticus, the book of Wisdom, that is to be found fault with that is vitiosum, & not good?  Walker. 
They are called Apocrypha, that are not in the Canon received and allowed to have proceeded undoubtedly from the holy Ghost: these Apocrypha are forbidden to be read. And Jerome in praefat. in lib. Reg. saith, Hic prologus scripturarum etc. Si quid extra hos est, inter Apocrypha est ponendum etc. They are not in the Canon: therefore Apocrypha are only to be read.  Camp. 
Would Jerome forbid the gentlewoman to read Ecclesiasticus, where there are given so many moral precepts? Non sunt in Canone Hebraeorum, said in Canone Christianorum. They are not in the Canon of the Hebrews, but they are in the Canon of the Christians.  Walker. 
They may be read for moral Lessons, but not for matters of religion, which must be proved by Canonical scripture. What say you to the second book of Macchabees? Think you that to be holden for Canonical scripture?  Camp. 
I think so: What should let?  Walker. 
What say you to that sentence 2. Macch. 12. thrust into the text, Salubris est oratio pro defunctis, and to that which followeth, Et si quidem bene, & ut historiae competit, hoc est ut ipse velim, sin autem minus dign, concedendum est mihi. And if I have done well, and as is meet for a story, this also myself did wish, etc.  Camp. 
It is marvel that you should say that it is thrust in.  Walker. 
It is noted so by other, and the duty of an historiographer is to report things done truly and plainly, without arguing like a Logician: but he sayeth, Ergo salubris est oratio pro defunctis, Therefore prayer for the dead is healthful, which appeareth first to have been set in the margin. But how avoid you the last? Can such ask of pardon be of the holy Ghost? wherein hath he failed? or of whom shall he be pardoned?  Camp. 
The interpreter asketh pardon of his speech for his style, and not for the doctrine. The holy Ghost asketh no more pardon, than Paul did when he said, Rudis sum sermone, I am rude in speech, when he spoke in a base and low style.  Charke. 
Campion, howsoever you labour to avoid the direct course of disputation, and have obtained some change of the question, I must call you home by and by. Notwithstanding, I mind a while to follow this your course, and to find you out in your own trace: where I marvel how you dare thus speak in this assembly. For what a blot is it to the holy Ghost, to affirm he should ask pardon: and to the Apostle Saint Paul, to say his style to the Corinthians is a base and low style: But to use no further preface, I will thus prove that the 2. book of the Macchabees was not indicted by the holy Ghost.  
Whatsoever needeth pardon either for matter or manner, was 
1. Argum.  not indicted by the holy Ghost:  
But the story of the 2. book of Macchabees needeth pardon, either for matter or manner:  
Therefore it was not indicted by the holy Ghost.  Camp. 
This man would be angry with me, if he knew why.  Charke. 
If I would, know I not why to be angry with you, a notable and vowed enemy of the truth of God, and a seditious man against the state? But I come not to deal with your person, but against your errors: Answer the argument.  Camp. 
I say the writer of the Macchabees asketh pardon of his speech, neither doth Paul blot the holy Ghost when he said that he was rudis sermone, that he spoke not so eloquently, nor so finely, as sometimes he might.  Charke. 
You answer not directly: and beside, you affirm an error. For S. Paul craveth no pardon for his style, but setteth his plainness against the set and curious speech of the false Apostles, who did come in gay appearance and show of words, as if they had had all the power of truth that might be: and yet in this plain style, the Apostle was of all others most mighty & most eloquent. As for the 2. book of Macchabees, which you make Canonical scripture, here I will make this challenge (if you dare answer it) to prove many lies in it through 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and that therefore 
Ignorance of the story.  it was written by a profane spirit for the matter. But to come to the Syllogism, and to disprove your distinction, I reason thus.  
The writers of holy Scriptures ask not any pardon at all, either for the matter or for the manner:  
Therefore they ask no pardon for their style.  Camp. 
I deny your Antecedent: Paul sayeth, Rudis sum sermone.  Charke. 
If Saint Paul saith Rudis sum sermone, doth he (I pray you) in those words crave pardon for his style? how hang your words together? I will prove my Antecedent by the place of Peter. 
〈◊〉. Pet. 1. 21.   
None that have written, as they were directed by the spirit of God, crave pardon either for matter or for manner:  
But all the holy men of God that wrote the Scriptures, have written as they were directed by the spirit of God:  
Therefore none of the holy men of God, that have written the scriptures, crave pardon either for matter or manner.  Camp. 
This acknowledging of the weakness of his style, is in the Apostle an humility coming from the holy Ghost.  Charke. 
You answer not to the Argument: therefore to avoid the cavil, consider the Syllogism again in this sort.  
Whatsoever is the word of God, is full, sound, and perfect, it doth neither ask, nor need pardon in any respect:  
But the second book of Marchabees, doth both need & ask pardon in some respect:  
Therefore it is not the word of God.  Norton. 
If you will stay a while and speak leisurely, you shall have the Argument written: and while it is writing, if you 
Here was a common good liking of this way.  will have any thing added or changed, it shall be done. It will be more profitable for the hearers, and greater ease for yourselves.  Camp. 
With a good will. I answer: In itself and for itself it neither needeth nor asketh pardon, but for circumstance. In respect of dainty ears, it may ask pardon.  Charke. 
Why Campion, shall the holy Ghost beg pardon in respect of dainty ears?  Camp. 
Sir, Put this in also, that I say it was in respect of the style, for the form and the manner of it.  Norton. 
Well I have put it in so.  Charke. 
Let him put in all his shifts & helps, clogging his 
Campion did often add & alter his answers, while they were in writing.  answers as much as he will, we will cast the clogs upon his own heels: and thus I reason against all your cavils. Whatsoever is in the word of God is all of the holy Ghost, both for matter, for style, and for circumstance, and the holy Ghost asketh no pardon for any of these: Therefore the 2. book of the Maccabees ask pardon is not of the holy Ghost, nor canonical scripture.  
Here Campion ●…eeing hasty before master Norton had written it through out, master Norton willed him to stay a little. 
Before he desired it, & now being straightened he disliketh it and counteth it loss of time.  Campion replied, that it was loss of time. To which Master Norton answered again, that it was a gaining of the time. He desired that the word all might be inferred in the Antecedent.  Charke. 
I said, all.  Norton. 
So it is, and rightly set down.  Camp. 
Then I answer thus. This circumstance, of ask pardon, is of the holy Ghost: for it is a speech of humility, proceeding from the holy Ghost, as is Saint Paul's speech, Rudis sum sermone, I am rude in speech: Et non in persuasibilibus verbis humanae sapientiae. Not in the persuasive words of man's wisdom.  Charke. 
Rudis sum sermone cometh oft and rudely in: and yet the alleging of it hath been disproved long ago. Nevertheless seeing it pleaseth you so well, it shallbe a weapon of your own giving, to use against yourself. For the Apostle, of purpose avoiding the wisdom of man's eloquence, doth justify that which his adversaries called rudeness of speech, as lawful and good. Neither doth he (as you imagine) confess any want, or crave pardon. Therefore your example is false, deceitful, and unlearned. It is a trim thing for you to abuse the multitude under opinion of great learning, and to match those that are no scriptures with scriptures, sometime affirming one thing, and another time another: sometime that the Apostles speech is rude and the style base, and needeth pardon in respect of dainty ears: and now last that it needeth no pardon, but is done for humility: whereas the holy Ghost never asketh pardon of man for any thing he doth: for that were to bring God under man, and make the spirit of God subject to the allowance or disallowance of sinful flesh.  Camp. 
I answer, that neither this of the Macchabees, nor Paul's speech hath need of pardon in itself.  Charke. 
It is too too much & absurd to accuse the holy ghost of waste and needle's speech. For if there needed no pardon, it was not according to the holy Ghost to crave it.  Camp. 
I have said, neither this nor the Apostles speech needed any pardon in itself, and yet it was not waste and needless, because it proceeded of humility.  Charke. 
Will you charge the holy ghost with dissimulation? speaketh he one thing, and meaneth another?  Camp. 
I say it was not waste, because it proceeded of humility, to crave pardon.  Charke. 
Well, I prove my assertion against this your imagined humility of the holy Ghost to sinful flesh.  
Whatsoever is without cause is waste and needless:  
But yourself confess it to be without cause for the holy ghost to crave pardon:  
Therefore by your own confession it is waste and needless.  Camp. 
I deny the Minor. For there is cause: For in truth the style is simple.  Charke. 
How often have you granted the Minor, saying, he 
The adversary against himself, and yet turned from all his shifts.  needed not to ask pardon? & now (as forgetting yourself) you say there is cause of ask pardon: For (say you) in truth the style is simple. Your speeches are contradictory. Set it down that the adversary is not at one with himself. Besides, he was driven before to grant the style is not base or simple.  Camp. 
I have set down no contrariety, but in respect.  Char. 
In respect, is a simple shift. Are not these contradictory propositions? He needeth not pardon, but asketh it in humility: and He needeth pardon, for in truth the style is simple.  Camp. 
I pray you read the place of the Maccabees.  Charke. 
Thus you retire: and ask moreover that which needeth not. For the place is well known, and was read before. But 
In English. If so be I have done well, & as agreeth with a story, this I do desire: if not so worthily, it must be pardoned in me.  I will read it again. Et si quidem bene, & ut historiae competit, hoc & ipse velim: si autem minus dignè, concedendum est mihi. This I would have all the company mark and understand, whom you labour with indirect speeches to abuse & draw from the truth, that whether the author of this book excuse himself & crave pardon in these words for his style, or for his story, neither can be of the holy ghost: because (as hath been proved at large) the holy ghost faileth nothing at all in any point of speech, of matter, or of circumstance. Thus your distinctions and cause fall together.  Camp. 
I have answered you in what respect he craveth pardon, and if that cannot satisfy you, leave it to God and this company to judge of.  Charke. 
Sure your satisfaction is very weak: far from satisfying God that hateth such fond distinctions to darken his word, or those of the company that seek to be edified. But you give me new occasion to prosecute this matter. What think you therefore of the story of judith, touching the dressing and decking of 
judith 10. 3. 4. judith 10. vers. 12, 13. & 11. 19 and 12. 14. jud. 9 vers. 10.  herself with apparel and ornaments fittest to deceive Holofernes eyes? and what say you to her lies and prayer that he might be taken with the snare of his eyes looking upon her? the speeches untrue, and the action unchaste in outward appearance, were they (think you) of the holy Ghost?  Camp. 
I marvel not that you so speak of me, when you so speak of a blessed woman, to bring so holy an action into doubt. Surely you greatly offend me in so doing.  Charke. 
I speak of the words and story as it is plainly written, she prayeth, saying, Capiatur laqueo oculorum suorum in me, & 
Let him be taken with the snare of his eyes set on me: and smite him with the lips of my love. Turn my speech into fraud.  Percuties eum ex labijs charitatis meae. And again, Verte sermonem meum in fraudem. Do you think this speech proceeded of the holy Ghost? Nay rather (howsoever it displease you to hear of the matter) it proceeded from a profane spirit, as I have said, to charge the holy ghost with fraud, & to pray for such an effect, that Holofernes might be taken with her love, & snared with her kisses.  Camp. 
There be no such words in the book.  Charke. 
Here you are manifestly overtaken: for they are word for word in the 9 Chapter: and after your translations, the vulgar and Vatablus.  Camp. 
Is that to be esteemed fraud, which the holy Ghost 
By Campion●… doctrine, no practice is unlawful, so it be for the delivery of their Church.  deviseth? Is it fraud to deceive the devil? blame you her, who did that she did to a good end, and for the delivery of the Church?  Char. 
What dealing is this? Even now he denied the words: now finding them strong against his cause, he would avoid them with a distinction of good intents, to justify bad parts, Thus you Papists hold against the word of God, that we may do evil that good may come of it. No Campion, God's spirit is always like 
Rom. 3. 8.  itself: It is not agreeing with the majesty of the spirit of God, for any woman to pray that a stranger should be taken with the snare of his eyes looking upon her: or that she may deceive by lies. This story therefore & this practice proceeded not from the holy ghost.  Camp. 
It is a shame for you to bring that example. She desireth God, that it will please him to turn the wickedness of Holofernes to the delivery of his people. She prayeth not (as you say) that he should sin.  Charke. 
She doth pray for it in plain words, and set out herself in sumptuous apparel and ornaments to that purpose. It is a shame for you Campion to maintain any such absurdity, and again to deny and misconstrue the manifest words of that you would have Canonical scripture. We stand before the face of God for the maintenance of his truth, and give such honour thereunto, that we acknowledge with our hearts, & confess with our mouths, that it is perfect, full, and sufficient, and that there is no profanation in it: but you would have that to be matched with holy scripture, which is far unworthy that honour. What say you to the argument & the place? Let him be taken with the snare of his eyes in me, & turn my speech into deceit or fraud. This is a prayer for success in a matter of sin, most unseemly for the holy ghost.  Camp. 
I receive this book, first because the Nicene council hath allowed it: then I say further, that this was her meaning, that whereas God had given Holofernes over to fleshly lust, that he might be taken with the love of his eyes towards her, to be besotted with her, that she might the better perform her determinate purpose: she prayeth that God will turn his sin to the delivery of his distressed people. And what doth she commit worthy of blame in this?  Charke. 
This is not only worthy of blame, but also to be condemned as sinful, and savouring of a profane spirit, that she 
Moreover judith doth praise that act which the holy ghost doth flatly condemn vide jud. 9 2. & gen. 49. 5. etc. job. 13. 7.  prayeth God to bless her lies and falsehood, her temptations and allurements to lust. For the Lord hath appointed good ways for good purposes, and for the performance of that his work he needed not her deceit. For (as job saith) God needeth not any man's lie, or any man's fraud. Which is also true of the fraud and dangerous allurements mentioned in that chapter.  Camp. 
What Chapter, what Chapter? 
Camp. knoweth not his own translation.   Charke. 
The ninth Chapter. Read and acknowledge the words you have denied. Here Campion read in his own book, saying he perceived we builded upon our own t●…slation.  Camp. 
Well, this is mine answer. It was not truly and formally fraud, but materially in the formal act fraud: as for example, when the people of the jews were commanded to steal from the Egyptians, it was in the act theft, but not formally theft. So Abrahanis intent to kill his child, was to do murder in the act, but formally it was no murder.  Charke. 
You would now in stead of a short and schoolelike answer draw me to a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, from the place in hand to the examination of new matters. Therefore to take you where you will needs be, I say the Hebrew word hath not that signification that it should import theft, but a spoil, which was just and commanded of God, as after a victory, or for a reward of their labours & service in Egypt: therefore no theft. But this fraud is another thing. So the first example is unlike & proveth nothing, no more do the rest. For Abraham's act was no murder, nor intent of murder, but a dutiful obedience and service to God who had expressly commanded it. Lastly, you can not think that the Magistrate in taking the life of a transgressor, or taking away the head of a traitor, is a murderer. No, this duty of justice is laid upon him by his office from God, and can not but ignorantly be called murder. And such was the warrant for Abraham in his office.  Camp. 
I mean killing, as it respecteth the taking away of life and no otherwise.  Charke. 
How do you confound the special with the general? All murder is the taking away of life, but all taking away of life is not murder. To kill and to take away life from the wicked by the sword of justice is just, and in no respect to carry the name of murder, which is evermore evil.  Walker. 
Concilium Laodicenum, The Council of Laodicea hath left out Toby, judith, the book of Wisdom, Ecclus, Baruch, Maccabees, Esra the third and fourth, and in the new Testament Luke & the Apocalyps, these are the words: Quae autem oporteat legi & in authoritatem recipi haec sunt, Genesis, Exodus, etc. But those which ought to be read & received for authentical are these, Genesis, Exodus, etc. Where the forenamed books are omitted.  Camp. 
The Laodicene Council, was particular and not general. And again, it reckoneth up those books that were undoubted, and not doubted of in that part of the world. But what maketh this to prove that they were doubted of, of that Catholic Church? They were doubted of in that Church, or in that part of the Church, Ergo they were doubted of, of the whole Church. How holdeth this? Therefore it is plain that these books were not doubted of in that whole Church. For the same Nicene Council accepteth Judith, as Jerome testifieth in the preface to Judith. Further, because the Church of Rome approveth them, it followeth not that we should doubt of them.  Walker. 
Then you confess, that the Council set not down all that we should receive. And where you make the Council particular, it was provincial: and further, was confirmed by the sixth general Council holden at Trullo, Constantine being precedent, as Bartholomaeus Caranza writeth fol. 71. and therefore we may with them leave out of the Canon, Toby, Judith, the book of Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Maccabees, etc. which your Council of Trent thrust in as authentical. But to leave that, it is plain, that Cyprian upon the Creed omitteth all that Apocrypha, having rehearsed those which be Canonical, he saith: Haec sunt quae patres intra Canonem concluserunt, ex quibus fidei nostrae assertiones constare volverunt. Sciendum tamen est, quod & alii libri sunt, qui non Canonici sed Ecclesiastici a maioribus appellati sunt, ut est Sapientia Salomonis, Ecclesiasticus libellus, Tobiae & judith, & Machabaeorum libri, quae omnia in ecclesijs legi volverunt, non tamen proferri ad authoritatem ex ijs fidei confirmandam. These are those things which the fathers shut within the Canon, by which they would have the assertions of our faith to stand. Notwithstanding we must know that there are other books also, which of our Elders were called Ecclesiast. and not Canonical, as salomon's book of Wisd. Ecclus. the books of Tobias, Judith, & the Macca. all which they would have read in the Church, and yet not brought forth, to confirm the authority of faith out of them.  Camp. 
He is called commonly Author expositionis in Symbolum, and therefore doubtful whether it were Cyprian or no: but admit it were, I answer to these and all such like places, that when particular Fathers, & particular Councils do reckon up such & such books, & omit others that either were received there or in other places sithence, they reckon up such as were then come to their knowledge, and such as were approved in that part of the world, where they then lived. But it followeth not, they reckoned no more, Ergo there were no more. They doubted, therefore we must acknowledge no more. For the Church hath since put them out of doubt.  Walker. 
You answer not, but trifle: For those are not only omitted and left unreckoned, but they are set down for Apocrypha or Ecclesiastici, & so certainly named, and not Canonical.  Camp. 
Some might be set down then as doubtful, that now are out of doubt, because they are received.  Charke. 
Hitherto you have gone from the matter: wherein I have been willing to follow you a little, to clear the point that then was in hand when I began with you. Now let us come to the questions agreed of between us.  Camp. 
Nay let us first speak of the authority of the Scripture, than (if you will) of the sufficiency.  Charke. 
Of the authority we have spoken already, and it is not within our question, which is only of sufficiency.  Camp. 
I defer to the scriptures all authority, and all sufficiency: therefore you have nothing against me.  Charke. 
Yes, I have this against you, that you do not think the scriptures only and alone sufficient to all doctrine of faith and manners. For whatsoever you say, we know you hold and teach the contrary: namely that all things are not set down and written in the word. This other day you were still calling for Syllogisms, and when you had received a blow, and stood astonished under it, yet you cried out, a Syllogism, a Syllogism, to make men believe that you were not touched. Now you shall have Syllogisms: answer to them directly and shortly. Thus I prove the sufficiency of the scripture without traditions.  
What the Apostles taught viva voce, by lively voice, that also 
Arg. prim. proving that the scriptures contain sufficient doctrine to salvation.  they wrote:  
But they taught viva voce, whatsoever is necessary to salvation:  
Therefore they wrote also▪ whatsoever is necessary to salvation.  Camp. 
Nego argumentum, I deny the Argument.  Charke. 
It is a Syllogism, you would have denied my Mayor, I think.  Camp. 
Prove your Mayor then.  Charke. 
What care they had over the Churches present, the same care they had over the Churches to come afterward:  
But their care over the Churches present, was to open to them all the counsel of God:  
Therefore they left the like provision in writing to all posterity, that they might be instructed in all the counsel of God.  Camp. 
I answer to the Mayor. They had the same care, but in such sort as it was expedient. It was not expedient that they should write all and every syllable that they spoke: and yet notwithstanding they disclosed all the counsel of God, either in special or general words written.  Charke. 
Very well, than we are come to the issue of the matter, and you grant the question, that all doctrine both concerning faith and manners, is either in special or general words contained in the Scripture.  Camp. 
I agree. But hear mine answer out of S. Augustine against Crestonius. Where it can not be advouched in scripture by special words that the baptism of heretics is good, yet it is delivered in the scripture by general words, forasmuch as the scripture doth command us to obey the Church which hath allowed this baptism being conferred in forma Ecclesiae. So the 
In the form or manner of the Church.  doctrines not particularly discoursed in scriptures are yet contained in these words, Obey your prelate's. The Church is the pillar and supporter of truth. And if he hear not the Church, let him be to thee an Ethnic and Publican.  Charke. 
You say particular matters are contained in those general words, Obey your Prelates. Do you mean that we must obey them in causes not contained in the word? Then you may bind us to what you list, and disallow what ye please. Therefore, sir, that I may seek your corners and find you out, what mean you by this when you say that General commandements allow particular traditions?  Camp. 
I named not traditions.  Charke. 
But it is the effect and scope of your speech for obedience to your Church Prelates, in matters not expressed in the Scriptures.  Camp. 
I say there be points wherein we accord with you, as the baptism of heretics, the baptism of infants, the holy ghost proceeding from the father and the son, that baptism is a Sacrament and Preaching is none, being both commanded at one time, that the Eucharist is a Sacrament and washing of feet none, being commanded at one time: and such like. etc.  Charke. 
To say that the proceeding of the holy ghost from the father and the son is not expressed in the scripture, is a blasphemous speech.  Camp. 
Show me any sentence expressing it in the scripture.  Charke. 
It sufficeth to show it inferred in the scripture by good proofs of consequence & implication. But what say you to traditions, decrees and such like, which the Church of Rome maintaineth as the very word itself? Let us speak of them being now in question, and not break out into new matters not in controversy.  Camp. 
I will not go from my question.  Charke. 
You shall come to it, if you take upon you the defence of your traditions, which I disprove in this manner.  
If the Apostles left nothing unwritten that is necessary to salvation, 
Arg. 2.  the scriptures are sufficient:  
But the Apostles have left nothing unwritten necessary to salvation:  
Therefore the scriptures are sufficient.  Camp. 
I grant it as before, referring it to that Church, & supposing always a true Church. I pray you of what Church are you?  Charke. 
We talk of the true Church, and therefore this question is needles. Are we to obey any thing contrary to the word of God? You can imagine nothing left to the Church, that is not manifestly contained in the scripture.  Camp. 
Call you manifestly particularly:  Charke. 
To what purpose is that question: I must bring you to a Syllogism, lest you avoid disputation by digressing into other matter.  
If any thing be left obscure or not fully handled by the Apostles, it was either because the Apostles could not, or because they would not write manifestly and fully:  
But it is a blasphemy to say they could not, and it is false to say they would not:  
Therefore they have written all, manifestly and fully.  
Here Campion repeated the Argument, and then said thus:  Camp. 
I answer to the word manifestly: either in general or particular terms manifest, and this the Apostles both could and would. For this is manifest enough, Believe the Church: but it is not particular.  Charke. 
While we dispute of the manifest and full contents of the scripture, leave to chop in the needles term Particular: manifest generals include particulars. And where, I pray you, are we commanded to believe the Church in matters not contained in the written word? By this uncertain rule you may warrant all former traditions, and bring in any new absurdities.  Camp. 
That is not the question.  Charke. 
But it is a necessary note for the confutation of your answers and doctrine of unwritten verities. Therefore I thus prove against you.  
To leave a door open to any changeable or doubtful traditions, is not to teach things manifest enough in the scriptures:  
But to send us to your Church prelate's in matters not expressed in the written word, is to leave a door open to changeable and doubtful traditions:  
Therefore to send us to your Church prelate's in matters not expressed in the written word, is not to teach things manifest enough in the scriptures.  Camp. 
To leave a door to traditions, which the holy ghost may deliver to the true Church, is both manifest and seen: as the baptism of Infants, the holy ghost proceeding from father and son, and such other things mentioned, which are delivered by tradition. Prove these directly by the scripture.  Charke. 
Which proposition in the Syllogism do you deny?  Camp. 
Prove the baptism of children and the proceeding of the holy Ghost, not to be traditions.  Charke. 
I marvel you thus avoid the Syllogism, and what you mean to match doctrines contained in the word of God with unwritten and uncertain traditions of men. It is plain, that the baptism of children is proved by the analogy of Circumcision 
Rom. 4. 11. Colos. 2. 11, 12. Gen. 17. 12.  with baptism, children being circumcised the eight day. Also by that the Sacraments of the old Testament, are the same 
1. Cor. 10. 1.  with the Sacraments of the new. The proceeding of the holy ghost is evidently proved by this that our Saviour promiseth to 
Luke 22. 49. joh. 15. 26.  send the holy Ghost.  Camp. 
Prove the proceeding of the holy ghost Ex part filii: That is on the sons part: For that is the point.  Charke. 
It is proved by my former words, and where Christ breathed upon his disciples and said, Receive the holy ghost. 
john 2. 22.   Camp. 
Well, leave that & talk of baptism, which this company understandeth better. Suppose that I am an Anabaptiste: And the Anabaptist denieth this argument, because children should 
Campion was readier to move 2 new matters, then to answer one argument.  not be baptised till the eight day, and the scripture willeth them to be baptized that believe: so that first they must have Faith, or else they may not be baptised.  Charke. 
I reply to you, that Infidels, of age to understand and believe, must believe before they be baptized and admitted to the Church: but the children of believers being the seed of the faithful, they may receive the seal of the covenant of God made to the Fathers and to their seed, according to that of the Apostle, If the first fruits be holy, the lump also: If the root be holy, 
Rom. 11. 6.  the branches also are holy. But to the question. Notwithstanding the scriptures be the only rule & trial of all questions in religion, and do fully prove the matter in hand: yet (because you will not be contented without them) answer a place or two out of the Doctors. Eusebius lib. 3. cap 35. of his ecclesiastical story writeth, that Ignatius being carried prisoner to Rome, did exhort the Churches to cleave unseparably to the tradition (that is, to the delivered doctrine of the Apostles) which for safety it was necessary to put down in writing, that we might not departed from it. Which excludeth the general bringing in of unwritten verities under the colour of that text, Obey your prelate's.  Camp. 
Read the place.  Charke. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. In English thus: He exhorted the Churches to cleave unseparably to the traditition of the Apostles, which he supposed and testified now for safety's sake necessarily to have been set down even in writing.  Camp. 
What word do you infer? Tradition I grant is not always taken for unwritten verity. This place maketh for those traditions which were not then written. Ignatius was S. john's scholar, and he was Oculatus testis, An eye witness of things that were not then written, but went from hand to hand, and therefore he thought it necessary to leave in writing such truth as he had heard and was not written before. For the Gospels were not then written, & Ignatius wrote no Gospel, and the text noteth that the things whereof he spoke, were such as himself wrote.  Charke. 
You mistake the meaning of the place. For Ignatius spoke not of your doubtful and multiplied traditions, but of the certain Tradition, that is, of the delivered and written doctrine of the Apostles, to the which we must cleave 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, so steadfastly that no force, no art may cut us off, or withdraw us from it: no not an Angel from heaven, much less any mortal man, howsoever magnified with the high titles of Popedom, or Prelacy, or Apostolical authority.  Walker. 
You have granted that all things are written in the word, and that such traditions as can not manifestly be gathered out of the Canonical Scriptures, are not to be received. Thereupon I reason thus.  
The same that the Apostles wrote, the same they delivered in tradition:  
But they have written and delivered the same things that they read in the Canonical scripture:  
Ergo their writings and traditions be all one and the same.  Camp. 
The same, that is to say, nothing contrary.  Walker. 
The same and no other is needful to salvation. Hear the Apostles words. 1. Cor. 4. Hac de causamisi vobis Timotheum, qui est filius meus dilectus, & fidelis in domino, qui vobis in memoriam reducet vias meas quae sunt in Christo, quemadmodum in omni ecclesia doceo. Who is my beloved son and faithful in the Lord, who will put you in mind of my ways which are in the Lord, even as I teach every where in every Church. That he wrote and taught in one Church, he wrote and taught in another, and therefore 2. Cor. 1. he saith, Nam gloriatio nostra est testimonium conscientiae nostrae, etc. Non enim alia scribimus vobis, quam qu●… legitis & agnoscitis. For this is our glory, even the testimony of our conscience, etc. For we writ no other things unto you, than which you read and know in deed. Again. 2. Cor. 2. Quales sumus sermone per epistolas cum absumus, tales sumus & cum adsumus, facto. The same that we are in speech by our Epistles, when we are absent, such we are also when we are present.  Camp. 
The same, no contrariety. For there were afterwards many scriptures that were not then written. Now therefore could they teach all things? This Epistle was not then written, and divers others. The meaning is, they taught one Faith, one Christ, one doctrine: but he speaketh not of the Scriptures.  Walker. 
He taught the same things that Moses and the Prophets taught. Quales sumus sermone per Epistolas, tales & facto.  Camp. 
I grant the same testimonies out of Moses and the Prophets: and Paul was as stout in speaking as in doing. But what proveth this against me? For he said more than he wrote.  Walker. 
He said no more than is written in the Scripture.  Camp. 
It is true that the Apostles proved all that they preached out of the scriptures, out of the Law and the Prophets, and thereby justified their preaching: and yet that part of the new 
If the Apostles proved all by Scripture (as Campion granteth) why should not all others do the like?  Testament which was afterwards written, was not superfluous: therefore sufficiency employeth not that it must be expressed, but that it may be gathered.  Walker. 
You are one absent, and another present. You would bring in Idolatry under the name of your traditions: but I show you, that whatsoever we are to receive, it must be in the scripture.  Camp. 
These are but words, they need no answer.  Walker. 
Well, I will urge you with matter out of Ambrose, 1. Cor. 4. Super verba, regnetis ut & nos vobiscum regnemus: Quicquid ab Apostolis traditum non est, sceleribus plenum est. Whatsoever is not taught and delivered by the Apostles, is full of wickedness.  Camp. 
He disputes against false Apostles, and by way of comparison he severeth the traditions of Catholics, from those of Heretics: and this he doth to show the difference of traditions, and not to condemn traditions.  Walker. 
It is an universal proposition, that all traditions that came not from the Apostles are full of wickedness: but those which they wrote came not from them. Ambrose also lib. 3. de virginibus: Nos nova omnia quae Christus non docuit, iure damnamus, quia sidelibus via Christus est. Si igitur Christus non docuit quod docomus, etiam nos id detestabile iudicamus. We do justly condemn all new things which Christ hath not taught, because Christ is the way unto the faithful. If therefore Christ hath not taught that which we teach, we also do judge that to be most detestable.  Campion. 
This is against false prophets, whereof there were many that then went abroad from place to place, teaching many things under the names of the Apostles that were none of theirs.  Walker. 
Very well. So there are things taught by you under their names which are none of theirs: wherefore we may conclude you to be in the number of false prophets. Christ saith, john 15. Omnia quae audivi à patre meo, nota feci vobis. I have showed all things to you which I have heard of my father. He showed all things necessary to salvation: and therefore this is the conclusion. john. 20. Haec scripta sunt ut vitam habeatis: ideo vita consistit in ijs quae scripta sunt. These things are written that ye might have life: therefore life consisteth in those things which are written. Tertullian de praescriptionibus Haereticorum: Apostolos enim domini habemus authores, qui nec ipsi quicquam ex suo arbitrio quod inducerent eligerunt, sed acceptam à Christo disciplinam fideliter nationibus assignaverunt. Itaque etiamsi Angelus de coelis aliter evangelizaret etc. We have the Apostles for our authors, who neither themselves chose any thing that they brought in of their own brain, but they faithfully assigned that discipline which they had received from Christ to the nations. Therefore, albeit an Angel should preach otherwise from heaven. etc.  Campion. 
Christ did teach all, and therefore the Apostles writ all that Christ taught? Nego argumentum. I deny the argument.  Walker. 
Why, Haec scripta sunt ut vitam habeamus: These things are written that we may have life: what need we more?  Campion. 
Enough is written, but in such sort as was said before, either in general words or special: either discoursed, or touched.  Walker. 
Although as the Evangelist saith. john 21. Multa alia fecit jesus in conspectu discipulorum suorum, quae non sunt scripta in hoc libro. jesus did many other things in the sight of his disciples which are not written in this book: as true it is, he wrought many miracles before his death, to declare himself to be the son of God, and after his resurrection to declare that he had a true body, which both did suffer, and was raised up again. And Luke Act. 1. saith, Scripsi tibi Theophile de omnibus quae Christus tum fecit tum docuit. I have written unto thee o Theophilus concerning all things which Christ both hath done & hath taught. He saith, De omnibus, non singulis. For then if every particular word and act of Christ had been written, the world could not have received the volumes of books that should have been written, john 2. 5, 9 But these things are written. john. 20. 9 that ye might believe, and in believing have eternal life. Wherefore, Scrutamini scripturas, quia in ijs, non alibi vita quaerenda. john. 5. Search the scriptures, because in them is life, and not else where to be sought.  Charke. 
This you have been enforced to grant, that all things necessary to salvation, are contained manifestly in the Scriptures.  Campion. 
I grant it with my distinction: they are either manifestly written, or contained under that general commandment, Obey your prelate's.  Charke. 
To prove, that whatsoever you teach, aught to be in the written word of GOD, I have a plain place out of Tertullian against Hermogenes, which also maketh strongly against you. His words are these. Scriptum esse doceat Hermogenis officina: si non est scriptum, timeat vae illud adijcientibus aut detrahentibus destinatum. Let Hermogenes school show that it is written: if it be not written, let him fear that curse appointed for them, which add or take from the scriptures.  Campion. 
Where, say you, is this place of Tertullian?  Charke. 
In his book adversus Hermogenem.  Camp. 
Aduersus Hermogenem? I think ye are deceived: there is no such book in Tertullian.  Charke. 
I do not only think, but know of a certainty that you are deceived, and will show you the book.  Camp. 
Note this objection. This is mine answer to it. Hermogenes the Heretic did allege a bastard tradition, and Tertullian doth call him to prove his opinion by true scriptures. For Tertullians' argument is not to say, It is not written, Therefore it is not true: but to call him to prove the Scripture true, which he alleged for him.  Charke. 
And note this answer. He that even now knew no such book, taketh presently upon him to discourse of the argument thereof. What great boldness is this? From what present revelation doth it come? Beside your boldness, your error is great, in affirming that Hermogenes brought a bastard tradition: For there is no such thing, as may appear to any man that for trial hereof will read the book. Hermogenes is confuted for saying as an Aristotelian Philosopher, the God made all things of materia prima. Again, of your answer I conclude, that of necessity the proof of every particular tradition must be by a true scripture. And it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a general position: Tertullian would have Hermogenes prove all that he held by scripture.  Camp. 
I say it is not to show a bastard writing for his tradition, but that which is true scripture.  Charke. 
And that is all I ask: for what do I seek more, but to prove that every tradition must be proved by true Scripture? when therefore you jesuits bring in unwritten traditions concerning your Candles, your unholy grains, your Agnus this and such beggarly stuff wherewith you abuse and pester the world, Tertullian saith, you bring a Vae upon yourselves, except you can prove the use of them by Scriptures.  Camp. 
Why, I say it must needs be proved there, or else it is not to be received.  Charke. 
Remember what you grant: I ask no more. To leave Tertullian with you, to advise better of: I allege also a place of basil out of his treatises called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, capite 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. This place doth clearly establish the sufficiency of scripture, and banisheth all unwritten and self will worshippings. Consider the place, for it is worthy of consideration, as making against you in this question: and charging you with pride and apostasy, for bringing in things not written.  Camp. 
Well, let these your speeches pass: Read the place. S. basil is not against us.  Charke. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. etc. It is a manifest Apostasy or falling away from the faith, and a fault of high pride, either to disallow any thing written in the Scriptures, or to bring in any thing not written: seeing the Lord hath said, My sheep hear my voice: with other arguments to that purpose.  Camp. 
I will not trouble the auditory with this place. For basil declareth that in some things we must be referred to tradition, he speaketh only for the alleging of false scriptures, and hath nothing against me.  Charke. 
Then nothing can make against error, if this make not against you. But you abuse the auditory, and know not the drift of basil in this place, and that I will make evident to all the company. Take the book and read it if you can, the place is easy Greek, and the sentence but short.  Camp. 
I had rather read it in Latin then in Greek: I understand the Latin better. I marvel you are so much in your Greek.  Charke. 
If I should not have brought it in Greek but in Latin, than you would have taken exception against the interpreter. I bring not the interpreter, but basil himself in the tongue wherein he wrote. Here Campion being long in turning the Latin book, could not find the treatise, but desired Master Charke to find it, who answered, I have it ready in basil himself. If you flee to the interpreter, turn your own book.  Camp. 
I have answered you. Saint basil's meaning is, as it was then, a common doctrine: that it is a great fault to disallow true scriptures, or to bring in false scriptures: and to father a false writing upon the Apostles.  Charke. 
I protest, that having perused the circumstances of the place, I find no such general or particular drift of the father, as you misreport: but a plain doctrine and sundry arguments to prove it, that nothing is to be received or brought into the Church, that is not written.  Camp. 
Your protestation is no argument. I am acquainted with this dealing since the other day. But the scope of Saint basil is as I have said.  Charke. 
My true protestation doth overway your misconstruing, as well of basil now, as of Tertullian before, and therein I refer myself to the examination of both places. If you will or can read but twenty lines further, your own eyes shall see and give sentence against yourself.  Camp. 
I have given you the sense of the Doctors words, and need not read the place.  Charke. 
Read first, and then answer. What Author, or what place can make against you, if you will of yourself frame an interpretation after your own purpose, without reading the words, or making conscience what construction you give?  Campion. 
Saint basil in other places is of a contrary judgement: and I am sure he is not contrary to himself. The Apostles had faith before they wrote, and therefore it must needs be the scope.  Charke. 
What kind of answer is this? Speak to the purpose, or confess your insufficiency. basil's own words in this place do evidently prove that he is against you: answer them, or acknowledge yourself not able to satisfy the Doctor.  Campion. 
Was all written when the Apostles first taught?  Charke. 
Is this any answer to basil? Propound no new questions, but answer the former place so full against you.  Camp. 
You see mine answer.  Charke. 
I see and all men may see your untruth to shift off the matter. basil's words are too strong against you. To your new question, I answer, that since the word of God was first written, that which hath been written, contained sufficient matter to salvation.  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 Prophets and Apostles served to a clearer manifestation of Christ, of whom Moses had written before, but added nothing to the substance. 
john. 5. 46.    

In the after noon.  
The Question Whether faith only justifieth.  M. Charkes prayer. 
OUr help is in the name of the Lord, etc. Almighty God & merciful Father, we acknowledge against ourselves, that we were conceived and borne in sin and corruption, that we remain unprofitable to any thing that is good, and most prone and ready to that which is evil in thy fight. Ignorance doth possess our minds, and dullness ruleth in our understanding, so that of ourselves we can not see into thy glorious and excellent truth: and in ourselves we find no health, nor hope of health. Therefore, according to thy rich mercy, O Lord, take away our sins, and heal all our diseases, through the righteousness of jesus Christ our only salvation. Open our eyes we beseech thee, that we may at this time behold, and so frame our hearts, that we may gladly embrace thy most holy truth as thou hast left it unto us, by thy holy servants, the Prophets and Apostles. Grant this knowledge and love of the truth, with daily increase, not only to us, O Lord, who through thy grace already make profession thereof, but also unto all those that yet set themselves against the same: that they acknowledging the truth of thy word, may cleave to it, forsaking all superstitious vanities, and seeing the all sufficient righteousness & sacrifice of thy only son, may lay hold of it, denying themselves, & renouncing their own merits & falsely named righteousness. Grant us these things, O heavenly Father, for thine only sons sake jesus Christ our alone saviour & redeemer, in whose name we ask the, praying as he hath taught us: Our Father, etc.  Walker. 
We have in the forenoon entreated of the Canonical scriptures and of their sufficiency. Now we have to entreat of faith: God grant us grace that we may see the truth, and having faith may rest in it to our endless comfort. Let us before we enter into the matter, declare somewhat concerning the state of the question. We hold therefore that we are justified by faith only, and that freely, no other works concurring for that purpose. And yet we set not down a bare and naked faith, as our adversaries charge us. For we confess that faith, hope, and charity are coupled and linked together, and that love is the greatest. But we affirm, that faith only is that instrument whereby we lay hold upon the love of God, which is the only foundation of our salvation. By that title therefore we exclude all men's works and virtues as meritorious, and only look to the merits of Christ.  Camp. 
I will declare to you my meaning also. We are agreed that God doth justify, and for Christ's sake only, through his grace, and through his mercy alone, through his Sacraments and through baptism. Thus far we agree: but herein we disagree. For we say, that when God doth justify, he doth give us of his grace three distinct gifts, faith, hope, and charity, and these are as three causes of justification, and charity a principal cause, which frameth the first act in us. We say therefore, that as grace is put in us in justification, so also our righteousness is enlarged through good works, and is inherent in us. Therefore it is not true that God doth justify by faith only.  Charke. 
Campion you are not to use your old sleight in running from the matter, and loading one thing upon an other. The question is, whether we be justified by faith only: that is now that which is in question, & to be decided: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and you are not to change the state of the question.  Walker. 
Well, let your declaration stand for defence, although we agree not. For there are sundry causes of justification, final, and middle. But faith is the first thing in us that receiveth justification, and yet it is not of us.  Camp. 
I grant that there are more causes than one.  Walker. 
Well, though I be an old man, and have been long from the university, I mean yet to examine you in the grounds of these things, and to go with you from point to point, and so we shall find out our disagreement best. I pray you what is the Etymon of faith?  Camp. 
It is called faith, Quia fit quod dictum est, Because it is performed that is spoken, as I take it.  Walker. 
That is true, Dicitur a fiendo, quia Dominus fidelis est, Because the Lord is faithful, standing to his word and keeping his promise with us. But in us, faith is a certainty or sure persuasion, and therefore it is called by the Apostle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or elenchus, foundation or argument. It is therefore the ground, and before all other things that come after it, as the foundation is before the building.  Camp. 
I grant it: But what infer you hereof?  Walker. 
This I infer. Faith is the ground and before all things that come after it: Ergo it is before hope and charity.  Camp. 
In nature it is before them, but it doth not justify before they do come.  Walker. 
Prius and posterius, First and last, be taken divers ways. It is not before Tempore, but Dignitate & ordine: Not in time, but in dignity and order.  Camp. 
That is contrary to S. Paul: For he saith, Charitas est maior, Love is greater.  Walker. 
You must understand what Paul meaneth thereby. It is Maior duplici respectu. It is greater in a double respect. In respect of God, and in respect of men, and so extendeth further.  Camp. 
Very well: I like your causes well, but it is simply greater and more excellent.  Walker. 
Let me proceed then. It is greater in that it is more necessary to the life of man, and also in diuturnity, because it never dieth, nor hath any end.  Camp. 
I grant you all this. But what are those to the matter of justification? But let me add a third also, that it is dig●…ior, because faith and all good works are nothing without love. But let us hear your argument.  Walker. 
The ground is before that which is grounded upon it, and in all good order we use to set the most worthy first: Thus therefore I reason.  
Faith is the foundation: ergo before the other.  Camp. 
If you mean in dignity, it is not true. It is before in order, but not in dignity. For the root is not more worthy than the tree, though it be afore it.  Walker. 
Paul saith Fundati & radicati in fide, speaking of the assurance they had in their salvation. And it was necessary they should be thus grounded and rooted in the faith, before they could bring forth the fruits of faith. The fruits were good works, which were not the cause of their justification, but the effects of men, engrafted in Christ & justified already: this root was before the fruit.  Camp. 
I grant as before: In order but not in worthiness. For the fruit is more worthy than the root.  Walker. 
Omnis causa efficiens est dignior effectu. Every efficient cause is more worthy than the effect.  Camp. 
I deny that faith is the efficient cause of good works. It is a cause antecedent, but not efficient. But we are agreed upon this. Let us go to another argument.  Walk. 
Very well, it is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a sure argument of things that are not seen: a thing undoubted.  Camp. 
Where is the place? It is called the foundation of everlasting life, and an argument of things not seen, because I know it is by no other argument but by faith. But what infer you?  Walker. 
You shall hear anon. What is Subiectum fidei, the subject of faith: and what is Obiectum fidei, the object of faith? In quo versatu●… fides & circa quod: In what and about what is faith occupied?  Camp. 
Subiectum fidei, The subject of faith, is man: to whom God hath given the gift of faith, and thereupon man is denominate faithful.  Walker. 
Doth man consist of one part or more?  Camp. 
Man doth consist of body and soul.  Walker. 
Whether do I receive faith into my body or soul chief?  Camp. 
Faith is received into the soul by the instrument of the body.  Walker. 
What part of the soul is it received by? For the soul hath divers potentias, faculties. receive we it per memoriam, voluntatem, or intellectum: by the memory, will, or understanding?  Campion. 
I answer, the soul doth receive it per intellectum, by understanding illumined by faith, because that part was properly corrupted by error.  Walker. 
Why then, Intellectus humanus is subiectum fidei, in quo versatur, and so intellectu nos cognoscimus deum, Man's understanding is the subject in which faith is, and so, by the understanding we know God.  Camp. 
Intellectu illuminati per fidem cognoscimus. I grant we know God, our understanding being illumined by faith.  Walker. 
And what now is obiectum fidei, The object of faith?  Camp. 
Obiectum fidei, is truth inspired from God.  Walker. 
Whether it be inspired or no, Truth is Obiectum still. Aeterna veritas est deus, ergo Deus est obiectum fidei, promissio evangelii. God's word and his truth is the object of faith, and so saith Thomas of Aquine one of your own doctors.  Camp. 
It is no object to me, till I look to it. God as he is to be known, is the object of faith, and as he is to be loved, of charity.  Walker. 
It is true: but God is incomprehensible, and we know so far of him as he hath revealed of himself, as in creating to be Almighty, in governing to be wise, in preserving to be true, and helping to be good, and in his promises to be sure and true: and so much he hath revealed of himself. And this to apprehend, is sufficient to salvation.  Camp. 
To apprehend these things effectually, so that we also obey his commandments, and not only to grant them to be true, but also to apply these things to ourselves through the passion of Christ, this is salvation and sufficient.  Walker. 
Hact enus convenit. Hitherto we agree. But Paul Rom. 4. writeth: Non haesitans fide, & nititur promissione. Not doubting in faith, and leaning upon the promise. So that there were two things: the promise, which must be believed that it is true, and the power of God, that he is able to perform.  Camp. 
Concedo, I grant it. And that made the faith of Abraham to be fruitful and meritorious.  Walker. 
What, meritorious: But that is Perergon. I will come nearer to the matter. You will grant likewise, that hope hath suum subiectum, & obiectum, her subject, and object.  Camp. 
Yea that I will, & that it is in the same soul of man, but more properly in voluntate & affectu, then in Intellectu, in the will and affection, then in the understanding.  Walker. 
That is very true. Now tell me what is Obiectum spei, The object of hope.  Camp. 
The good of the life to come.  Walker. 
But what was the object especially of Abraham's hope:  Camp. 
The same that is common to all other men, but seorsum: the coming of Christ the Messiah, promised to him and his seed after him.  Walker. 
What commodity is promised to us in Christ:  Campion. 
Salvation, which is to have eternal life with Christ.  Walker. 
This promise being believed and known by faith, is looked for by hope, & every Christian man hath a great desire to this salvation promised. Either he hath or should have, as Saint Paul, Cupio dissolui & esse cum Christo, I desire to be loosed and to be with Christ.  Camp. 
When God hath enlightened his heart by charity, than he hath that desire steadfast.  Walker. 
Well then I will leave the object of hope and come to the subject of charity: What is the subject of charity:  Camp. 
The affection of man.  Walker. 
What is the object:  Camp. 
It is God as he is beloved, quatenus appetitur propter se.  Walker. 
Very good: than you see the foundation and causes with the whole order of our justification: what need all the world have any more, but first to believe these things, next to look for that which we hope for, thirdly to love him who hath made us this promise, and hath given us these great benefits. Now see whether we are justified by faith alone, or faith, hope, and charity. But I leave the persecuting of this to Master Charke.  Camp. 
I grant that this is the order of our justification, wherein these do jointly con●…re and work together.  Charke. 
You may not avoid the point and issue of the question, as you did in the forenoon, which is, that Faith only justifieth. It is a chief question, and you can not carry the matter so uprightly betwixt the old popery and the new, but we shall easily find you out: you say faith only doth not justify, but with faith, hope and charity also are requisite, as causes and merits of our justification, This is your cunning and new Popery to mention only hope and charity: yet under these words you carry the old Popery, which addeth popish shrift, penance, pilgrimages and other satisfactions: all which you would match with the death of Christ, if you might recover your kingdom. But I have to prove against you, that Faith only doth justify, without these merits and works which you add, as though the righteousness of Christ were not enough.  Camp. 
I deny it: for you have it not in all the word of God, that faith only doth justify.  Charke. 
Surely if you acknowledge any doctrine to be true in all the Scripture, this of justification by faith only, will be proved most trus: if any plain, this will appear most plain. And thus I prove it.  
Every doctrine, the substance and sense whereof is contained 
〈◊〉. Argum.  in Scriptures, is true:  
But the substance and sense of this doctrine, Faith only doth justify, is contained in Scriptures:  
Therefore this doctrine Faith only doth justify, is true.  Camp. 
I answer that this proposition Faith only doth justify is not to be found in all the word of God: and therefore I deny the Minor.  Charke. 
I have affirmed in my Minor that the substance and sense of this proposition Faith only doth justify, is contained in the Scriptures. For proof hereof I have in the word of God eleven places all negative, excluding works in the matter of our salvation. Namely Rom. chap. 9 verse 11. where the Apostle saith, Not of works. Again chap. 11. ver. 6. Not of works. Also Galat. 2. ver. 16. Not of works. Moreover Rom. 4. 6. Without works. Chap. 3. ver. 21. Without the Law. And so in the rest.  Camp. 
Let me answer them.  
Here the rest of the places were demanded by them that wrote, and by others.  Charke. 
Turn further to these places. Rom. Chap. 3. verse 20. chap. 4. verse 13. Eph. 2. ver. 8. and verse 9 2. Tim. 1. 9 Tit. 3. 5. beside some other.  Camp. 
I do but request that I may answer them severally, for not one of them proveth your assertion.  Charke. 
If you answer any of them, I will subscribe to your doctrine in this point. Tush Camp. you may not think to face out the matter with these bare words: Dare you say our justification is partly of works, when the holy Ghost saith so often plainly and exclusively, Not of works: Without works: Not of the law, but without the law: Herein I challenge you that make challenge against the truth, & will prove that this weighty and great cause which may worthily be called the soul of the Church, is directly and plainly set down in all these places. Deny it if you can.  Camp. 
Bring one of the eleven places.  Charke. 
What say you to the Apostles conclusion Rom. 3. verse 20: Therefore by the deeds of the law, no flesh shall be justified.  Camp. 
Will you give me leave to answer, and to speak somewhat generally to this:  Charke. 
You have a particular place, make a particular answer, plainly and to the issue: rove not in general discourses, that come not near the mark.  Camp. 
The meaning of Saint Paul in such places, is to exclude the jews Ceremonies. For the jews assevering the observation of the law, the keeping of their sacrifices and ceremonies, as Circumcision, etc. to be necessary to salvation: S. Paul informeth the Gentiles that these things were not so necessary, but faith was sufficient. This he urgeth throughout the Scripture: 
By Campions own answer the Apostle speaketh of faith only. Here again it appeareth by his answer that the Apostle teacheth faith only.  So that faith is urged, but not faith only. Again, by faith is meant all Christianity and the whole religion of Christians, which is sufficient, without any parcel of the jews religion. This is one general consideration, why Paul so often urgeth faith, throughout the Epistle to the Romans, and else where. Another general consideration is, for that the wise men of the Gentiles did allege their moralities as a cause of their election, which Paul in the same Epistle stood specially upon, and meant to confute, as is afore said.  Charke. 
Whether of these two interpretations you will allow, it followeth by your own exposition, that the Apostle concluding for faith against works, concludeth that it is Faith only that justifieth: shutting out all such works as are opposed unto it. Now whereas you say that the works opposite to faith, are only either the moral works of the Gentiles, or the Ceremonial of the jews: I will easily overthrow the distinction.  Camp. 
Overthrow it then.  Charke. 
First, there was never any such error maintained in the Church, that the moral works of the Gentiles should justify: therefore Paul never laboured so much and so often to confute that error which did not trouble the Church. As for the Ceremonial works, the Apostles writing to the Ephesians, not justified with the observation of jewish ceremonies, had no cause to bar ceremonial works from justification. Therefore he teacheth that all the works of the faithful, even of Abraham, are excluded from being causes of justification, and not Ceremonies only, or the moralities of heathen men, as you imagine against the Apostles argument, and scope in those places.  Camp. 
The general scope of Saint Paul, is to exclude all works both of jews and Gentiles in that Epistle: but in the way of discourse I deny not, but incidently an other answer is to be given.  Charke. 
This last part of your speech is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: the first doth grant all that I desire. 
Nothing to the matter.   Camp. 
He excludeth the precedent works of Abraham.  Charke. 
The end why works are secluded from justification doth prove for me: for the Apostle in that place showeth the final counsel & purpose of the Lord, to be far otherwise than you suppose. And to remember my promise of Syllogism, I will prove it by the very form of the Apostles words.  
The end and the means differ not:  
The end of our justification was to exclude all works precedent or consequent from being causes of justification:  
Therefore the means also must exclude even all works precedent and consequent, going before or coming after.  Camp. 
The end was not to exclude all works consequent.  Charke. 
Whatsoever it was wherein Abraham might glory, that was excluded from justification:  
But in works consequent or following he might glory:  
Therefore they also and all other works whatsoever, first and last, are secluded and can be no cause or piece of cause, in our justification.  Camp. 
The example of Abraham proveth that Abraham was just before the covenant of Circumcision, and so, before the law of Moses was given: and therefore he inferreth that the jews must not glory of justification through their law and by the ceremonies thereof, seeing their father Abraham was just before circumcision, and therefore circumcision not necessary to justification. But though works void of Christ are nothing, yet thorough grace they serve to justification.  Charke. 
Is this your way to answer Syllogisms, to tell a tale of your own, and expaunde new matter, leaving the question? Answer shortly.  
Abraham hath nothing left to glory in:  
Therefore all works whatsoever are excluded: and so, faith only justifieth.  Camp. 
That is another place.  Charke. 
Answer it then, be it another, or the same.  Camp. 
The Apostle meaneth to show that Abraham was justified by works done in grace, and not by works without expectation of Christ, or void of Christ.  Charke. 
An open contradiction to the holy Ghost: note it. The Apostle (faith Master Campion) proveth that Abraham was justified by works. I reply against you with a double argument. First, Abraham had all his works of Christ, for he 
1  was faithful: therefore the works excluded, are works wrought in grace. Secondly, he speaketh not of him as of an infidel, but as 
2  being the father of believers: Therefore the Apostle excludeth not works without expectation of Christ as you speak. Answer it, Campion.  Camp. 
I answer, that no works of Abraham are excluded.  Charke. 
And I have proved that all are excluded: and you can neither answer the syllogism, nor satisfy the place of Saint Paul. The text and argument is clear.  
If Abraham were justified by any works, he had wherein to glory:  
But he could not glory in any thing, (for that were absurd by the Apostles reason:)  
Therefore there were no works of merit or justification in him.  Camp. 
This is the Apostles reason, All the good works of Abraham were founded in Christ, and by these good works he was justified: therefore he was justified by Christ. For if he had been justified by other works excluding Christ, he might have gloried, and not been justified by Christ.  Charke. 
I can go no further in this argument. For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is against you, that is, the plain text and argument. Also I advow 
The very word.  it and make all this company witnesses, that you have uttered in these straits, plain contradictory propositions. The Apostle proveth that Abraham was justified by works, he leaveth nothing for Abraham to glory in: but you leave wherein he may both glory, and justify himself. You have also said the precedent works of Abraham were excluded, and (which is the contrary) that no works of Abraham were excluded. These things are very bad, which I the rather repeat, to lay open your contradictions for some that I think are present, and look for no such weakness in their Champion.  Camp. 
What need you avow? I avow the contrary. And I say, that Abraham was justified by good works in Christ.  Charke. 
There is no such word in Paul, but the contrary very often. Therefore your affirmative is contrary to the holy Ghosts often repeated negative, Not of works, Without works.  Camp. 
I say you must repent before you die, or else you shall find what it is to charge me with that which is not true. A particular example must have a particular answer. His works be not to his glory, because his works were founded in Christ, therefore Christ must be all to his glory. Ahraham was already just and in the favour of God before these things were said, and so being just, he was made more just: and so first just, and afterward justified, and was not justified by works that went before his justification, but being already just was made more just by works. And this was one of his good works, Credidit deo, he believed in God: and to say the Creed is a meritorious work: and the work of faith is a work.  Charke. 
These discourses you might well have spared, and framed a short answer to my argument: For yet you answer not the Apostles negative, which overthroweth both your affirmative & your distinction contradictory to the Apostles words. For, to be justified without works, as the Apostle saith, and to be justified by works, as you say, are contradictory: if your words be true, the Apostles are false. But seeing I can have nothing for answer but indirect speeches, or words full of contradiction: I will give place a while.  Walker. 
We that be the children of Abraham, and Christians, are justified by the same faith that Abraham was justified:  
But Abraham was justified by faith only, and by nothing else:  
Therefore we are justified by faith, and by nothing else: that is, by faith only.  Camp. 
I answer to the Mayor: As Abraham being a just man, was made more just by a living faith: so the children of Abraham being already justified, eucrease their righteousness by a living faith.  Walker. 
Do you think that we are borne of our parents, as the sons of Abraham, or as the sons of Adam? Are we justified by the fame means that Abraham was, or no?  Camp. 
Yea, by the same means.  Walker. 
But Abraham was justified by faith only: therefore we.  Camp. 
I deny the Antecedent.  Walker. 
Paul saith, Sed robustus factus est fide, etc. Rom. 4. Imputatum est illi ad justitiam. And whether did faith give credit to the promise of God, whose proper and only office it is?  Campion. 
To give credit to the promise is the proper office of faith: but to give credit to the office of God effectually, is the office both of faith and charity.  Walker. 
In the office of giving credit, you add that which is not in the text.  Camp. 
It must needs be understood, because the Apostle speaketh of Abraham already justified, which had not been possible, if he had not had faith and charity.  Walker. 
What made him give glory to God? Robustus factus fide, dedit gloriam deo. Being made strong in faith, he gave glory to God.  Camp. 
The good work gave glory to God: For it was a good work in Abraham.  Charke. 
I will use another Argument.  
Whosoever is justified, is justified according to the tenor either of the first or of the second covenant (for there are but two 
3. Argum. Exformula.  covenants:)  
But no man is justified according to the tenor of the first covenant, which is by the works of the law:  
Therefore by the forine or tenor of the second, which is by Faith only.  Camp. 
I grant all in this sense: By Faith only, not as Faith is distinct from charity, but as faith is distinct from the old law: so that the word only doth exclude all things impertinent to faith, and include all things inherent to faith.  Charke. 
Words. I will prove them to be but words, following my argument. The charter or stipulation of the first covenant is, Do this and thou shalt live: of the second, The righteous man shall live by Faith. Therefore this form of 
Gal. 3. 11. & 12  speech in the Covenant, excludeth your implication and all joining of works with faith.  Camp. 
I answer, that the Formula of the second covenant, is Christ.  Charke. 
You understand not then what Formula is.  Camp. 
Teach me then.  Charke. 
I will teach you. Christ, I grant, is the cause and author of the covenant of salvation: but the form or tenor of a covenant are concepta & stata verba, the set and standing words, whereby the condition and issue of the covenant is expressed. For example, of the first covenant published in Sinai, this is the form: Hoc fac & vives, Do this and thou shalt live: of the second out of Zion, this: justus ex fide vivet, The just shall live by faith: which is in effect, Believe this and thou shalt live.  Camp. 
The second covenant is all the religion of Christ, which includeth faith, hope, and charity. For otherwise the Eucharist were excluded. He meaneth therefore by faith all obedience.  Charke. 
This is expressly against the Apostles doctrine and argument, Galat. 3. vers. 11, 12. who there proveth, that faith and works are opposite causes of salvation.  Camp. 
The second covenant is, that we shall be saved by doing those things that Christ commanded: and the first covenant was by doing all that Moses commanded. And this is the very interpretation and meaning of the Apostle. The righteous shall live by faith, that is, by faith of Christ.  Charke. 
A false position. I pray you, is obedience the faith of Christ: Is it faith to fulful that which Christ commandeth, or not rather to believe that he hath promised and performed?  Camp. 
Yea, that it is.  Charke. 
How can that be, seeing the Apostle Gal. 3. vers. 12. doth not only set down the two covenants in Sinai and Zion, with their several form of words, but addeth plainly, The law is not of faith, and maketh works and faith opposite causes of 
Gal. 3. 12.  justification: teaching that he that is justified by Christ is not justified by works: and he that is justified by works looseth the benefit of Christ. Your words therefore must have a third covenant, that the righteous man liveth partly by faith, and partly by works, or else they cannot stand.  Camp. 
I answer to this, The law is not of faith: that is, the law as it is a naked commandment is a burden, and so it is not of faith, that is, it doth not give the justice which we have by faith of Christ.  Charke. 
You have given a false and gross interpretation: and thus I prove it. If your distinction be good, then there is either a third covenant, or the covenant of the law is mixed with the covenant of the Gospel: But no man will say that there is a third covenant, and the Apostle proveth that in the work of our justification the covenant of the law doth no way participate with the covenant of faith: therefore your distinction saying, as it is a burden, is not good, and your interpretation absurd and false.  Camp. 
I answer to the Minor, that the law is considered two manner of ways. The covenant of the law, as it is of the law, is no way mixed with the covenant of the Gospel: but as it is the covenant of the law eternal, of the law moral, of the law of nature, it is mixed with the new testament, & Christ hath renewed it in the law of charity. Moses gave it one way: and Christ another. Moses the law maker: and Christ the law giver. Praeceptum nowm do vobis, ut diligatis invicem. I give you a new commandment, that ye love one another.  Charke. 
What absurd speeches are these, to make a substantial distinction of the law in regard of the minister, or of the time: The moral law and commandment of God is evermore the same in substance.  Camp. 
I understand not what you mean. I say it is mixed: but as it is mixed, it is not called Moses law, but the law of Christ, who gave it more perfectly. etc.  Charke. 
Again, I say this is absurd: for the law of God was always the law of God: and therefore the same, and exacteth the same obedience: which because no man can perform, no man can live thereby.  Camp. 
You are still gathering absurdities.  Charke. 
I must gather them where you scatter them. For what material difference can there be made of one and the same thing. The second covenant offereth life, only by faith in Christ: the former only by works: and these cannot be confounded, as you confound and huddle them together. Thus your answers are from the arguments.  Camp. 
My answers are to the purpose. What is it that you would have more of me:  Charke. 
Is your answer to the purpose, that mixeth & confoundeth the two covenants, which are so opposite by the Apostles place alleged, that he which cleaveth to the one, can receive nothing by the other: For the covenant of the law can bear no transgression: and to justify us, the covenant of faith needeth no satisfaction or works on our part, Christ having most fully wrought and satisfied for us. Therefore, it is the pride of man to think, and the error of man to teach, that the righteousness of Christ is not sufficient without addition of our righteousness.  Camp. 
Well, show me but that negative sola, only, in all the Scriptures.  Charke. 
This is a new matter: I would have the old first satisfied.  Camp. 
Show it me: can you not show it:  Charke. 
Seeing you would shift off the former argument by craving a new: I am contented to prove that exclusive term, which you call negative.  
Whatsoever excludeth all other causes in justification, that remaineth 
Argument 4.  a sole cause:  
Faith excludeth all other causes in justification:  
Faith therefore remaineth a sole and only cause.  Camp. 
Prove your Minor.  Charke. 
The absolute negatives so often repeated in the Scripture, Not of works: Without works: Not of the law: Without the law: do plainly exclude all other causes.  Camp. 
Will you by this argument exclude all causes besides faith: Then with good works you will also exclude the mercy of God. What is your meaning:  Charke. 
What a vanity is there in this question: understand you not that I speak only of causes in us, excluding no former causes, as the eternal decree and love of God, the obedience and righteousness of Christ:  Camp. 
Prove that Sola fides, only faith is in the scripture.  Charke. 
I have proved it: and why do you not answer the argument:  Camp. 
What argument would ye have me answer:  Charke. 
The last. All other causes in us are excluded by the word of God, where it is said so often, Not of works: Not of the law: therefore sola fides, faith only remaineth, by many testimonies of the Scriptures.  Campion. 
This fides is Christian obedience, and hath good works.  Charke. 
I grant as the good tree hath good fruit necessarily, so faith hath good works: but these good works, though they be not separated from faith, are yet separated from being any cause of justification with faith. As light, though it be not separated from fire: yet it is separated from the force of burning: for the heat burneth, and not the light of fire.  Campion. 
But where prove you that sola, only, is in the Scripture:  Charke. 
My argument hath fully and plainly proved it: you neither will nor can answer it. Therefore to prove it again, because the text Deut. 6. hath the negative, Thou shalt serve no strange gods: Christ Mat. 4. addeth the word ONLY, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him ONLY shalt thou serve. So we by the same warrant and word, do in this question of justification take these words, Not by works, Not by the law, to import as much as faith only: for all works whatsoever, being excluded by these negative speeches, faith alone remaineth.  Camp. 
Why, doth he say, Thou shalt worship by faith only:  Char. 
I had hedged you in before, that you should not leap over to run at large in your buy questions. I said Christ Mat. 4. thus alleged against the tempter, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. This negative ONLY is not in Moses, yet added by Christ for interpretations sake, to expound words importing it, as I have said before: & so do we in the matter of justification, finding all righteousness by works or by the law so oftentimes excluded, do conclude thereupon, that faith only doth justify.  Camp. 
The word adorabis doth of necessity infer so much, and therefore Christ doth well to expound it by only. But the word justify doth not necessarily infer the excluding of works. And therefore you do not well to infer, Faith only justifieth.  Charke. 
What: do you not blush to bring this strange & false distinction against a clear truth of God: Or will you overthrow a main pillar of Popery for avoiding the force of one poor argument: Doth the word adorabis exclude all other creatures, and necessarily enforce that God alone must be worshipped: Then Campion condemneth all images, all adoration of the crucifix, all invocation & worshipping of saints. For to adore or to worship (saith he) importeth that adoration & worship is due to God only: & so he 
Canisius in Ca●…ech. Payu. Andr. lib. 9 Orthodox. Expl.  excludeth all creatures from worship, even the crucifix that they say must have the adoration done to it, which is due to Christ himself.  Camp. 
What needeth all this: it followeth not which you say. There is much difference between to adore & to reverence or serve. For latria or to adore is due to God only, and  to serve, is that which I may yield to any Saint, or creature.  Charke. 
Yes, the speech needeth, and the argument followeth. For your verbal distinction of Greek words to deceive English people, is unlearned and impious, to say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is for God only, (which yet, as I said, you allow to the bare image of Christ) and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for Images. Can all know and keep a just weight and measure in their devotions, giving no more but just 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to saints? To be short, the error and unlearnedness of your distinction appeareth, that not understanding the use and proper signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, you have allowed it to be given to Images, being a word that noteth as base and as slavish bondage as any word in the Greek tongue: so by your distinction the worshippers of the Church must be as bondmen to their Images. Thus you see only is gathered fitly of the negative, and that your distinction is both false, and also against your own doctrine of Image worship.  Campion. 
I say it is gathered from both, and the negative not sufficient alone, but because of the matter speaking of God.  Charke. 
Why then I perceive you will borrow of me for a need. Before you said Adorabis included only, now you come to me and say it is gathered also of the negative. This is all I can desire.  Camp. 
faith only as it is a good work, joined with hope and charity, doth justify.  Charke. 
I would not have you to abuse the company, in granting faith only, and yet you will expound it, Faith not alone. It is a strange only, that is not alone. Furthermore, Faith as it is a good work, doth not justify, being always imperfect, but as it apprehendeth the righteousness of Christ which is perfect, That is, as it is a piece of obedience to the promise of God, it doth not justify, but as it apprehendeth the precious promises.  Campion. 
You are still charging me with abusing the company: but if you will give me leave, I will declare how faith is a work. There is an habit, which is called Fides, and the act of this habit within a man is credere, to believe, an act interior proceeding from this habit. An act exterior proceeding from this habit, is to profess this faith consonant to the Apostle, With the heart I believe, and with the mouth I confess. Now, I say, to believe is first a good work, and to profess this faith, is also a good work. As to give an alms, to fast, to do penance, etc. and this faith Abraham had. And your saying is contrary to Saint james. Abraham pater noster nonne ex operibus justificatus est, offerens filium suum Deo? Abraham our father, was he not justified by works, offering up his son?  Charke. 
My saying is not contrary to Saint james: but your objection is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, far from the question in hand. We dispute what be the causes of salvation, and you run out to the notes and effects of him that is justified.  Campion. 
Let me oppose. Is it not reason that I should oppose?  Charke. 
Yes, when you are thereto appointed, and you shall find enough to answer you. Yet because you have so often challenged us to answer you an argument, though I come not with any commission to suffer you to prove your erroneous doctrine: I will notwithstanding, suffer you to oppose and make an argument in this matter. First giving the company to understand, that you would deceive them with an opinion that our advantage is great in replying: but it is not so. If your cause were good and your skill great, you might make it harder to reply, then to answer. For the answerer may with a word deny the proposition, and so, soon take from the replier all his weapons. But make your argument.  
Here Campion paused long before he could frame his argument. Whereupon Master Charke said: a Syllogism, Campion, a Syllogism. Yet staying longer, Master Charke said, We shall have it anon.  Camp. 
He that was justified for believing, was justified by a good work:  
But Abraham was justified by believing:  
Ergo Abraham was justified by a good work. The Mayor is out of Saint james, Chapter 3. Suppleta est Scriptura, dicens, etc.  Charke. 
Prove your Mayor in the sense we dispute of, and I will answer you to two other Syllogisms.  Camp. 
It is easily proved.  Charke. 
How can you prove it out of Saint james, that faith is a good work? When Saint james sayeth, Abraham was justified by good works, his meaning is, that Abraham is declared and known to be just according to that phrase, Wisdom is justified of her children. Again, all the people and 
Matth. 11. 19 Luke. 7. 29.  Publicans justified God.  Campion. 
I will none of your interpretations: the question is clear with me.  Charke. 
I would fain have of your answers, so they were to the purpose of the argument.  Campion. 
Proceed, and prove somewhat for your cause.  Charke. 
I have proved more than you can answer. And because you generally slander us, that our doctrine concerning this, and other principal points of religion, is against the Doctors: (although the Scriptures be large, full and sufficient enough, and are the only touchstone for the trial of sound and true doctrine,) yet I will not stick a little to follow you in this.  
Cyprian, basil, Ambrose, Theodoret, Jerome, Gennadius, 
Arg. 4.  all these Greek and Latin Fathers, do flatly and fully teach that we are saved by faith only.  Campion. 
Bring me one of them, and I will answer you.  Charke. 
There is a notable place out of basil 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, where, of purpose disputing of humility, among other notes he showeth that we must attribute all to the grace and righteousness of God, who alone is our glory, our wisdom, and our justification. Thereupon falling into this question, he sayeth, a man must acknowledge himself void of true righteousness, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. That is, a man must know, that he is justified by only faith in Christ. I English it to your hand, because you deal not with the Greek.  Campion. 
I acknowledge your places: and yet your doctrine is utterly new. For the Fathers when they urge that doctrine, they did it in respect they had to deal with jews and Infidels and Pagans. And further, by faith they meant Christian religion, excluding Paganism, and not excluding charity and good works.  Charke. 
Our doctrine new, and yet the ancient Doctors teach it: I ask with what conscience or judgement you can say it. Did the Apostle writing to the Romans, to the Galathians, to the Ephesians, Churches so effectually called and reclaimed from Gentilism, that he termeth them Saints and brethren, and affirmeth that they are no more darkness, but light in the Lord: Did the Apostle (I say) writing to them, deal as against jews and Pagans? I marvel you blush not at so fowl a shift and so palpable an error. But will you not vouchsafe the Doctors an answer? shall they be sent away before they have received their answer?  Camp. 
They wrote upon occasion against an heretic, having affiance in works.  Charke. 
Be it so: then they writ aswell against Papists, having affiance in works.  Camp. 
They had affiance in works done without Christ, and are therefore reproved by the Fathers.  Charke. 
This is only said, to shake them all off with one false distinction. Again, it was a strange occasion (you speak of) that made the Fathers writ an untruth. But rather you are strange to expound them directly against their words, saying, Faith only doth justify. I could here help you with a better answer, which the better learned on your side use to this objection.  Camp. 
It was the heresy, that most troubled Christians in the Primitive Church.  Charke. 
This is a new question, and in doubt. But how will you ever be able to prove that the Apostle disputing for justification by faith against justification by works, excludeth only Paganism: Answer this.  Camp. 
I have answered.  Charke. 
In deed you have still somewhat to say, but not to answer that point of the argument which most woundeth your cause. Therefore a Syllogism against your shift. 
Arg. 5.   
The Apostle excludeth the moral Law from justifying:  
Therefore your distinction is waste.  Camp. 
But he excludeth not charity and good works.  Charke. 
What a But is that? Is there any charity, or be there any good works not contained under the moral and eternal Law of God? If the deeds of the moral Law be shut out from the causes of our justification by S. Paul, what door can you open to let them in again?  Camp. 
I say, charity and good works are not excluded.  Charke. 
And I say this is still to beg the question, and not to answer the Argument. So your doctrine is sufficiently overthrown.  Walker. 
Besides a great sort of places that master Charke hath brought, Sadolet one of your own, hath a plain place in Epist. ad Rom. Abraham attulit tantum fidem, non sua opera. And again, Quantum quisque affert de sua justitia, tantum defert de divina beneficentia. etc.  Camp. 
It is but lost time that you you allege Sadolet. He was but a man of late years, whose credit is not to be set against the determination of the whole Church: beside, his meaning was, that man should not trust in his own works.  Walker. 
You will allow no man, neither those that are against you, nor with you. But if he had dealt as sound in other things as in this, he had been to be strived withal. He showeth by an apt similitude, that if a man take a Pot having some troubled water in it, and goeth to the clear water to fill it, the troubled foul water in the pot doth not become clear, but rather troubleth and defileth the water which was clear: Even so, the more we bring of our own, the less we attribute to God, and the less we receive from God. We must bring nothing of our own to God. It is troubled water when we mingle our works and righteousness with Gods.  Camp. 
Let the similitude be rehearsed. It is an apt similitude. He that cometh to be justified by Christ must not bring troubled water, but clear: that is, those good works that he did before, and those prayers that he made before, his moral deeds, his alms, his fasting, etc. For all the moral works that are done before, they are troubled water: but those we do afterwards, they are made clear in the Passion of Christ, although they be not in all respects perfect.  Charke. 
I will so prove that good works have no place in justification, that you shall not be able to answer: and because the Doctors can have no answer, I will return to Scripture.  
Sanctification and justification are two sundry things:  
Therefore good works, the fruits of sanctification, have no place in justification.  Camp. 
Make your Syllogism.  Charke. 
Whatsoever is an effect of sanctification that followeth, is not a cause of justification that went before:  
But charity and other good works are effects of sanctification which followeth:  
Therefore they be no causes of justification which goeth before. Answer if you can.  Camp. 
I deny that they are only of sanctification: they are of both.  Charke. 
They be disparata, handled by the Apostle as divers things: also the one, some degrees before the other. Therefore you do evil to confound priora & posteriora, the effects of the latter, with the causes of the former.  Camp. 
Is this the argument that can not be answered? I say whosoever is justified, is also sanctified: and so, good works proceed from both.  Charke. 
Let all men mark the absurdity of this speech. If good works proceed from sanctification, and sanctification from justification, how can good works go before them both as a cause, seeing they come after both as an effect: Thus you are entoyled.  
Here was an open misliking of the answers, and some speech of making an end. Then M. Charke said, I would feign use one argument more, to turn Campion out of all his shifts, and to let the company understand his weakness, and especially the weakness of his cause.  Campion. 
Let us hear what argument this is, whereof you make such brags.  Charke. 
The authority and truth of scriptures for my cause maketh me so confident. Therefore mark the argument well.  
We are justified by Imputation only: 
Arg. 6.   
Therefore by faith only.  Camp. 
Nego Maiorem. I deny your Mayor.  Charke. 
I prove the Mayor, if you so call it.  
Christ died only by Imputation:  
Therefore we live only by Imputation, and are consequently justified by faith only.  Camp. 
I deny the argument.  Charke. 
I prove it by Analogy.  
Christ died only through the imputation of our sin:  
Therefore if we live, we live only by the imputation of his righteousness.  
And therefore to say that we live by any imputation of our own good works, is as much as to say, that Christ died by imputation of some of his own sin. For this analogy and proportion betwixt the causes of Christ's death, and the causes of our life, doth necessarily hold, and must diligently be observed.  Camp. 
I answer to your similitude.  Charke. 
If it be a similitude, it is by good analogy and demonstration of truth out of the scripture. It is you that abuse the hearers with similitudes that are not similia: my argument is demonstrative.  Camp. 
I answer then to your analogy. So far as the scripture doth intend, it holdeth: like as Christ did bear our sins, so we have in us the justice of Christ. The righteousness that we have, is given us by Christ. Christ had our sins by imputation only, because he was not capable of sins inherent. But we are capable of justice inherent, which Christ doth give us, and therefore in us we have the justice of Christ, both by imputation, and also inherent, given by him. And therefore it is called the justice, Non qua ipse justus est, sed qua nos justos fecit, Not whereby he is just, but whereby he hath made us just.  Walker. 
sins inherent in us, and righteousness inherent in Christ:  Camp. 
Nay, I say righteousness inherent in us given by Christ.  Charke. 
Campion ye answer not the argument, but in place of answering you lay down new positions. Your inherent righteousness is not granted you: if it were, yet it followeth not that it should be a fellow cause in our justification with Christ's righteousness.  Camp. 
I say we have inherent righteousness, and Christ had not inherent sin.  Charke. 
What answer is this to my argument? If we had it, yet it followeth no more that it should justify us, than the inherent spark and light of nature which is left, should make us able of ourselves clearly to behold the hidden mystery of the grace and mercy of God, revealed only by faith in the Gospel.  Camp. 
Will you not admit an answer?  Charke. 
You are graveled. It is no answer to bring a new and false position, & that not applied to the argument. But I will not let you rest in this starting hole, you shall have Syllogisms.  
Our sins alone were of full sufficient force by imputation to condemn Christ unto death:  
Therefore his righteousness alone is of full and sufficient force by imputation to justify us unto life. Again, and shortly.  
In Christ there was no inherent sin to be any cause of his condemning:  
Therefore in us is no inherent righteousness to be any cause of our justifying.  Camp. 
I dispute not how he might have justified, but by what means he doth justify us.  Charke. 
This is plainly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to say the least. Answer the 
To trifle and shift by childish words.  reasons. Do my arguments prove how he was able, or rather prove they not most manifestly how he hath justified us? But as the Scribes & Pharisees supposed some inherent sin in Christ, so you their successors, suppose some inherent righteousness in us: and we shall as truly live by this, as he justly died for that.  Campion. 
I deny the argument, because his will is otherwise.  Charke. 
Here again is a new proposition brought in place of an answer. But I have proved that GOD hath done it: and therein revealed his will which is most holy and most perfect in all proportion of justice.  Camp. 
I deny it. For we have inherent righteousness.  Charke. 
I would you would so answer as men might see with what judgement ye use so many denials. But I will follow my argument, and prove there is no inherent righteousness in us, whereby we are more or less justified.  
If we have any inherent righteousness as a fellow or helping cause of our justification, than the righteousness of Christ is not alone without us, so full and absolute to our salvation, as were our fins to cause his condemnation:  
But Christ's righteousness alone without our inherent righteousness, 
In fact and deed.  is de facto, as full and perfect every way:  
Therefore we are aswell de facto, justified only by the imputation of his righteousness, as he was condemned only for the imputation of our sin.  Camp. 
I deny the Minor.  Charke. 
You deny it manifestly against the doctrine of the Apostle. Rom. 5. teaching that there was more force in the righteousness of Christ to salvation, than was in our sin to condemnation. Whereupon you are turned out of your shifts, and must confess that as Christ was condemned only for the imputation of our sin, without any inherent sin of his own: so are we justified only by the imputation of his righteousness, without any inherent righteousness of ours. Which who so denieth, he shallbe found to match man's supposed righteousness, with the righteousness of God: and to exalt flesh and blood against the almighty.  
Here Master Lieutenant signified the time was passed.    

Let us conclude with prayer.  
Almighty GOD and most merciful Father, we give thee humble and hearty thanks in the name of jesus Christ, for all thy goodness, especially, for the alone and all sufficient sacrifice of jesus Christ, beseeching thee, that renouncing all opinion of any righteousness of our own, we may by faith lay hold of his righteousness to our everlasting salvation. Also we thank thee for the inestimable treasure and armour of thy holy word, whereby thou makest thy children rich in all spiritual and heavenly wisdom, enabling them, even the weakest of them, to triumph against proud and bold ignorance, against the deceitful and lying spirits gone out into the world in these last times, to deceive those that receive not the knowledge and love of thy truth. Moreover, good Lord, as it hath pleased thee to vouchsafe some blessing upon our labours this day, for which we likewise give thee thanks: so we beseech thee yet further to bless them, that the truth may be more and more precious to thy children, and that they which are yet without, may either acknowledge the power and light of thy Gospel, if they belong to thee: or being none of thine, may stand convicted in their own conscience, as children of darkness, and have their mouths stopped, which they so open against the light and truth of thy most holy word. Grant us these things, O Lord, and whatsoever else may serve to thy glory and our salvation, through jesus Christ our only Lord and Saviour.  
Amen.  
Io. Walker. W. Charke.   

Imprinted at London by Christopher Barker, Printer to the Queen's most excellent Majesty.  
Anno 1583.