not different of him selfe and abiding in a particular man he shall alwayes acknowledge the Scripture that comes of him and which beares his markes And touching the second demaund we say also that the same spirite being in a third man shal acknowledge that aswell the woorde as the Reuelation are of him by the reasons alledged that is that Gods spirite in diuers persones is alwayes equal and like to himselfe Obiection This dothe not satisfie the firste Question proponed which conteined a demaunde how any man can iudge in him selfe that he hath the holy spirit to discerne and iudge a boke to be of the holy Scripture and an other not to be but Apocryphall and lastly how he can make demonstration to an other that he is possessed with this inspiration of God. Aunswere The spirite of God is called a seale in the Scripture for that the firste effecte he bringes forthe in the heart of him to whom he is communicated is to assure him of his presence And to assure a second of the Reuelation which we haue receiued of Gods spirite it is also easie for that the spirite of God which openeth the mouth of one to speake openeth also the eares of an other to heare his woorde the heart to beléeue him and himselfe to persuade it so that betwéene the maister and disciple the Doctor and the hearer being bothe furnished and lightened by Gods spirite there is also a mutuall concorde to knowe one an other Obiection Suche a certaintie is a great incertaintie neither is there any of what secte so euer he be who doth not assure him selfe to haue the holy spirite and truthe of his side which is a fond presumption howe may a man distinguishe a presumption from a true inspiration Aunswere S. Iohn Chrysostome saith that in vaine doth a man vaūte himselfe to haue the spirite withoute the woorde which is a meane to represse sectes and heresies and to iudge all matters that the heretikes and others would propounde vnder the authoritie and title of Gods spirite For as by this spirite we knowe the true sense of the woord euen so do we discerne mutually by the woord who they be that haue the spirite of God and who not Obiection This is no Aunswere to the Demaunde for there is no Question to examine the doctrine by the woord but to know that it be the woorde of God by whiche we wil examine the doctrine and approue it and how a man shall iudge assuredly that he hath a Reuelation of the Lord and that it be Gods woorde Aunsvvere If he be one of the faithfull he may iudge by Gods spirite that is in him as in him that telles it him And if he be of the vnfaithfull it is as impossible that he iudge as a blinde man to discerne coloures laid afore him bicause as S Paule saith it is by the spirite of God by whom we knowe and iudge the things that are of God. Obiection This Aunswere is yet insufficient to the Question produced wherof let the iudgement rest among the hearers and Readers But now wée put foorth an other demaund whether wee are certaine by Gods woorde that the Lord assistes his Churche and will assiste it vntill the consummation of the worlde And whether there be not more assurance to staie vpon the consentes and iudgement of the Church touching the determination of the Canonical Bookes of the holy Scripture and the distinction of the same from the Apocryphall than to rest vpon singular iudgement esteeming it to be an inwarde inspiration of the whiche there can be no proofe made but only by opinion that wee haue the holy sprite Aunswere The Doctors confuse the opinions of the fantastical sort with the testimonies and Reuelations of the Holy Sprite notwithstanding there is asmuch distinction betwene them two as from heauen to earth And touching the consente of the Churche supposed to procéede of the Sprite of God it is infallible and of no lesse certaintie than the particulare Reuelations of Esay and other Prophetes And because both the one and the other procéede of one Authour whiche is the Sprite of Truth the certeintie of the Reuelations of Gods Sprite made to al the Church in generall to euery particular member of the same conteine one self poyse weight Obiection The Ministers cannot conceale from the Catholikes or others but that they are fantastike as making no proofe of the Reuelation of the Holy Sprite made to them no more than other sectes doo And touching that pointe supposed that it proceedes of Gods sprit they seeme to dout of the assistance of the Holy sprite in Gods Church which as S Paule saith Est columna firmamentum Veritatis Wherein is to be wel considered that they hold them more certaine of the assistaunce of the Lorde in particulare than in the vniuersall Church by which the conclusion may folowe that aswel the particular faithful can neuer straie as also that he is a piller of truth no lesse than the vniuersal Churche besides in laying the particular Reuelations in equal ballaunce weight with the iudgement of the Church they doo openly impugne their confession of faith in the fourth Article wher it is thus written Wée know these Bookes to be Canonical a most certaine rule of our faith not so much by the common accord consent of the Church as the testimonies and inward persuasion of the holy sprite who makes vs discerne them from the other ecclesiastical Bookes By the said Article it is seene howe muche they doo attribute to them selues more than to the whole vniuersal Church which Article they doo now resist giuing asmuch to the one as to the other yea in the confession of faithe lastly printed the saide Article was taken awaye as appeareth by that whiche this daye Spyna hathe broughte hither printed at Geneua 1564. by whiche may be séene that they retracte them selues as confessing that it behooues more te staie vpon the common consents of the church than vpon particulare the same being reasonable séeing the holy sprite is promised to the vniuersal Churche and not to euery particulars man. Aunswere If the Ministers may be thoughte fantasticke notwithstanding they haue Gods woorde with better proofe the Doctors maie be holden such in matters which they mainteine and defende both without against Gods woorde touching the seconde pointe reprouing the Ministers that they dout of the assistaunce of the sprite of God to the Church your aunswere is that the dout is not there but to know which is the true Church For the third point where the Doctors allege that it maie be inferred that particular menne cannot erre the consequence is nothing woorthe bicause the Sprite of God maye sommetime departe from menne in whiche case they maye faile and erre as Dauid confesseth did happen to him To the fourthe pointe the Ministers aunswere that they impugne not in any sorte the Article alleaged of their confession bicause the Aunswere
Neuers made request that after their Obiections and Aunsweres they would procéede to Resolution on both sides touching the conference the day before According to which motion the Doctors say that to iudge of a Booke whether it be written of the holy scripture or not and likewise to discerne a Canonicall Booke from an Apocriphal or Ecclesiastical we must not rest vpon a priuate or particulare inspiration because a singulare persone can not haue any ordinarie certaintie that it is a true Reuelation of the holy spirite but stay vpon the common consent and accorde of the vniuersal churche And also that God notwithstanding he might haue reuealed to euery one the true knowledge necessary to saluation yet he hathe ordained a certaine meane to attaine to faithe which is a truthe reuealed meaning by the hearing of Gods woord preached by lawfull ministers sent by the pastors of the true churche as appeareth by the â—exte of S. Paule to the Romaines .10 and Ephes 4. So that if they meane to haue faithe and inwarde Reuelation of the knowledge of saluation come by the hearing of Gods woorde lawfully preached by the ministers of the same according to the ordinarie meane of assurance that we haue the inwarde Reuelation it must necessarily be assured that the woorde by which faithe is gotten hath bene preached by the lawfull ministers of the true church so by consequence be assured of the church afore the inward Reuelation obseruing the meane which Iesus Christe folowed They say further that the true and certaine marke of a true inwarde Reuelation is when it is referred to the common consente of the church And that of the contrary euery preteÌ„ded inward inspiration particulare or priuate is a false persuasion if it differ from the common accorde of the churche for Gods spirite is not particulare but common They say also that to take a false Doctrine we must examine it to know whether it be priuate or common like as our Lord in S. Iohn 8. hathe giuen a true marke saying Qui de se loquitur mendatium loquitur he that saith any thing of himselfe and his proper inspiration is a lier In like sorte it is written in Ezechiel Sonne of man Prophecie against the Prophetes of Israel which Prophecie say to suche as Prophecie in their heart heare the woorde of the Lorde So saithe the Lord cursse be vpon the false Prophets who follow their spirite and haue seene nothing And a little after they sée vaine things and a Diuination ful of dreames saying the Lord saythe and the Lord sent them not and yet they haue giuen assuraunce to confirme the woorde of their Prophesie which false Prophets said they had 〈◊〉 inwarde Reuelation and the woorde of God. They woulde also that it be well wayed and considered that the stay of religion grounded and assured vppon an inwarde inspiration is the foundation of many sectes of our time as Anabaptistes and Swinfeldiens who lay their Doctrines vpon priuate â—â—â—elations alleaging proper places to serue them as a grounde of their Doctrine which the ministers inferred yesterday as Ieremie in the .3 Chap. Ioel. 2. and S. Paule 1. Cor. 2. The which being considered by Brentius and Bucer they haue confessed that by the only tradition of the church we were ascertained of the Bookes of the holy scripture according to the Doctrine of the auncientes as S. Ierome who confesseth to haue receiued by tradition of the churche and by the same to haue knowne that there be foure gospels Origen also saithe asmuch who reciting the Canonical Bookes of the newe Testament saith I haue learned by tradition that there be foure gospels neither is there fouÌ„d any auncient catholike that hath stayed his faith to discerne and iudge of Bookes vpon his only priuate and particulare inspiration And S. August lib. confess ca. 25 â—seth these woordes Veritas tua Domine non mea nec illius aut illius sed omnium nostrum quos ad communionem aduocas terribiliter admouensne priuatam veritatem habeamus ne priuemur ca. And touching the Bookes of the olde Testament whiche the Ministers will not receiue as Canonical by the iudgement of their inwarde Reuelation the Doctors auouche that before S. Augustines time or at the least in his time in the vniuersall churche all the Bookes contained in the holy Bible without distinction were holden and receiued as Canonicall according to the testimonie of the Councel of Carthage where S Augustine was present and also the Councell Laodicene the Doctors also saie that if by inwarde inspiration we must iudge of Bookes the Fathers that assisted those Councels had it or at leaste might persuade them selues to haue it with more assurance than many others But where the Ministers saie that by theire inwarde Reuelation they iudge that they are not Canonicall 〈◊〉 Doctors referre to iudgemente who oughte soonest to bâ—â—â—â—eued either the inspiration of the Auncientes receiued by the Churche by so many hundred yeres vntil this time or the priuate and particulare inspiration of the newe Ministers They saie further that they offer to proue that the Aunciente Fathers euen suche as wâ—â—e neare the Apostles time as Irenaeus S. Cyprian Origen S. Ierome S. Augustine and others vse testimonies of Bookes reiected by the Ministers euen in the proofe of the Doctrine against Heretikes yea S. Augustine him selfe in the seconde Booke of Christian Doctrine Chap. 2. puttes all those Bookes amongeste the Canonicalles as also Damascene in the fourthe Booke De Orthodoxa Fide Chap. 18. So that to knowe if a man haue the spirite of God to discerne and iudge of the Bookes of the Scripture it behooues to reste vpon the common consente and accorde of the Churche as being the ordinarie meane of God lefte for that effecte experience also whiche maie be made is a sufficiente Argumente to conuince that the Faithfull by the inwarde inspiration cannot discerne the Canonicall Bookes from the pretended Apocryphall which mighte be easily verefied if there were here at this presente euen somme of the Religion pretended reformed to whom not hauing bene as yet instructed in the diuision of Bookes if those Bookes were presented whiche the Ministers holde for Apocryphal they would not distinguish them in any sort from the other Bookes of the holy Bible And vpon all they conclude that if a man haue Goddes sprite c. vt supra Aunswere Touching the firste Article the Ministers were neuer of opinion as appeares in their former aunsweres that their Religion was grounded vppon theire particulare Reuelations but vpon the woorde of God according as it is sette foorthe in the Writinges of the Prophetes and Apostles the truthe of whiche they saide was moste principally assured by the testimonie and Reuelation of the holy Sprite They saie also that Faithe is not the Truthe in proper speache but the persuasion of the Truthe whiche is taughte vs in the Scripture Like as also this Faithe is not of our owne getting but a pure
rather discerned by the woorde then by the consente of many it resembles nothing the purpose of the Doctors For the question is howe a man may iudge a Booke to containe Goddes woorde and not to iudge the Doctrine by the woorde already receiued to which the Doctoures desire and the Ministers make request that directly to the pointe they mighte dresse their Aunsweres Touching where they saide of the consent of many the Doctoures phrase was not so but spake of the consent of the Churche which is as infallible as Gods woorde for as it is certaine that the holy Spirite is author of the woorde so is it no lesse sure that he is the soule of the Churche by whose guide shee can neuer erre according to the witnesse of S. Paule who calles it Columnam firmamentum veritatis they will not enter into this Question whether the multitude of the Churche may erre or not and yet it can not be founde since the Churche was planted after the deathe of Christe that shée hathe béene in lesse number than the sectes of Heretikes neither dothe it serue to this purpose that hathe bene alleaged of Constance and of the time of the old Testament for there is greate difference betweene the Sinagoge of the Iewes and the Churche which as it is a congregation of all nations beleeuing in Iesus Christe so it can not but stande and consiste in moste great multitude for otherwayes the promises made to the Churche of the Gentiles shoulde be vaine For it is saide to Abraham that his seede we must not meane of the fleshe should be multiplied as the Starres of heauen or sande of the Sea. To the Article that beginnes touching the Prophets c. the Doctoures say and confesse that there is great difference betwéene fantasticall imaginations and Reuelation of the holy Spirite But the Ministers Aunswere not howe they woulde proue their particulare persuasions to be rather Reuelations then vaine and fonde imaginations of Prophets whereof Ezechiel speakes which notwithstanding they called inspirations as also what they saide and preached they called it the woorde of God. To the Article which beginnes touching Anabaptistes c the Doctoures Aunswer that to one ende the Ministers and Anabaptistes produce selfe places whereof mention is made as the better to assure their Doctrine to be of God bicause they haue a particulare Reuelation as God hathe promised them by his Prophetes For which selfe cause the Ministers haue broughte in the saide Testimonies of scripture to proue that euery Faithfull man may iudge by his particulare inspiration if a Booke containe the woorde of God with Distinction of the Canonicall from the Apocriphall and so discerne the true Doctrine from the false which is the very grounde of the Anabaptistes and other Heretikes To the Article beginning touching that which is produced of Brentius c the Doctors alleage that the ministers haue not vnderstande their intent For they bring not in the saying of Brentius and Bucer otherwayes than in a speache and meaning that they know the Canonicall Bookes of the holy scripture by the tradition of the Churche and not by particulare inspiration as the Ministers doe Touching the Article folowing the Doctoures say that certaine times there were that some men doubted of certaine Bookes of Scripture as the Apocalips and Canonicall Epistles of S. Iohn with others Albeit which time and of common consent the Churche led and guided by the holy Ghoste hathe receiued indifferently for Canonicall all the Bookes that be in the Bible which consent continued by so many hundred yeares had more authoritie than the saying of one or two who notwithstanding spake not but of their owne time Besides there is no comparison at all betwéene the saying of one or two particulare men and the determinations of Councels and consent of the Church as is saide it will be founde also that S. Ierome hathe approued those Bookes as Canonicall as appeareth in the Prologue he made of the Booke of the Machabees where he saithe As for the Hebrues they are not Canonicall but sunt canonicae Historiae Ecclesia or suche like woordes Touching the Councell of Laodicen they take it as it is albeit it may be they are deceiued naming one Councel for an other And for the Article beginning touching the experience c albeit it be a Question de facto yet it can not be but of special value which if it be founde as the Doctoures haue propouned whereof they doubt not the grounde of their particulare Reuelation is pluckt downe and confounded Touching the conclusion of the Ministers the Doctoures declare that many times they haue cōplained that matters were incidented laying themselues vpon the iudgement of euery one that their last Resolution was drawne in one direct line handling one selfe matter withoute varying in which notwithstanding if there had bene found any matter of difficultie and that the ministers had desired to proceede to the conference of the principal points they could easily haue cleared the said difficultie the Doctors wold haue enlarged further matter of these Articles sauing that to enforce and hasten the businesse for the whiche they are called they forbeare to multiplie speache Where the Ministers alleage that they receiue the xxiiij Bookes of the Olde Testamente with al those of the New the Doctors saie that is smal respecte of matter For al the conference whiche hitherunto they haue made as by what Rules a man might discerne one Booke from an other with iudgemente whether they were of Scripture or not was to bring them to this point that they receiued them by the tradition of the Churche who as shée is the iudge of the number of Bookes And that by the same meane when was question of the vnderstanding of Goddes woorde yea in the collation of the places of the same Scripture the Ministers Doctors might haue such reuerence to the vniuersal church that shée mighte be accessed on bothe partes as iudge of the vnderstanding of Scripture whiche they woulde acknowledge to haue receiued of her and whereof shée is infallible more certaine iudge than either the one or other Al which notwithstanding the Doctors offer to the Ministers not to inferre for that time other Bookes than such as they receiue for Canonical only when they shal fall into difficultie of the interpretation of any text or the conference of many the doctors accompte it more reasonable to haue recourse to the vniuersal Churche and Auncient Fathers than to their proper iudgements or fansies of the Ministers Aunsvvere For conclusion the Ministers consente to the offer of the Doctors to decide the pointes and Articles of their confession by the Bookes Canonical agreed vpon betwéene them as the xxiiij Bookes of the Hebrewes and all those of the Newe Testamente protesting notwithstanding that in the last writing proponed by the Doctors there be many things whiche they approue not in any sorte and whiche they hope to reuerse by Confutation
ReuelatioÌ„s of the holy spirite which are most certaine and of no lesse assurance And so lastly touching our Answeres to be out of the first matter or spéeche If they be so so also are the Demaundes Obiection The Conclusion is whether euery one ought to be beléeued saying he hath a particulare Reuelation of the holy spirite without Declaration otherwayes that there be holy Scriptures and that there is difference betwéene the same Let euery one be iudge whether the Demaundes and Aunsweres be pertinent to this difficultie or not like as also whether the one importe more credite and beléefe than the other as the one béeing a newe Doctrine shewes not any proofe more than the other of their particular inspiration Aunswere In our former Answers we haue declared howe the Reuelations supposed by particulare persons ought to be examined by suche meanes as they may be discerned whether they be of Gods spirite or not Héere Doctor Vigor intercepted his further spéeche saying that in the discourse aforesaide he vnderstoode muche matter in the mynisters Aunswers to be against the woorde of God as where it is sayde that first the Sonne must be honored afore the father which Spyna mainteined to be vndoutedly true alleaging that proposition to haue his ground and authoritie on the holy scriptures as in the gospel and first Catholike of S Iohn Whervnto Vigor Replies that in the saide places is not founde this woorde firste albeit in respecte not to incident the matters alleaged in the beginning of the conference he wil forbeare for the present to enter into Confutation reseruing that charge til the ende of al the conference Aunswere Spyna requires Doctor Vigor to coate the places of scripture which he pretendes to be contrary to the contentes of his Aunswere And to iustifie his opinion to glorifie first the Sonne afore the Father according to the testimonie of the textes afore noted he preferres this reason grounded and drawne out of the Scriptures we can not knowe the Father onlesse we haue knowne the Sonne we can not glorifie the Father onlesse we haue knowne him by which the consequence foloweth that the knowledge and glorie of the Sonne is a degree to come to the knowledge and glorie of the Father which being referred by Vigor to be more amplie debated in the conclusion of the whole conference Spina was also content Obiection Vigor Obiectes without entring further into this disputation that by the selfe same reason inferred by Spina it foloweth that we must honoure the Father afore the Sonne for by the Father we come to the knowledge of the Sonne as appeareth by the woordes of our Lord to S. Peter Caro sanguis noÌ„ reuelauit tibi sed pater meê° qui in coelis est The same aduouching manifestly that the heauenly Father reuealed to S Peter that our Lord was the Sonne of the liuing God Whereupon Vigor argues in this sorte whether the reason of Spina be vaileable by the Father we knowe the Sonne therefore muste we firste honoure the Father afore the Sonne Aunsvvere To followe the order of the knowledge which we oughte to haue of Iesus Christe and his Father propouned to vs in S Iohn we must begin by the Sonne and from the Sonne to the Father For S. Philip desiring him once to shew to him and his companions his Father He answered Philip who hath seene me hath also séene my Father the same teaching that the meane to come to the knowledge of the Father is a former knoweledge of the Sonne which may be also approued by the Authorities of other places where Iesus Christe saithe that none knoweth the Father but the Sonne and he to whome the Sonne wil reueale him And to aunsweare the Authoritie of S Mathewe alledged by Vigor Spina saithe that the place by him produced contained no mention of the knowledge of the Father nor the meane to come thereunto but only of the Reuelation which was made by the grace of God and his holy spirite to S. Peter and his other companions to know Iesus Christ and in him his Father Whereupon Vigor calles vppon the iudgemente of the Auditorie whether this be an Answere to his Obiection reseruing notwithstanding till an other conference to handle this pointe more largely if he wil mainteine it as not now to incident that which hath bene proponed whereunto Spina consentes Vigor addes further vpon an Answere made by Spina where he vsed a difference betweene the Reuelation certaine by the Lorde to a particulare man and the holy Scripture in which Aunswere he seemes to put a maruell the rather for that there is no Faithe giuen to holye Scripture but only that the Lorde is the Author thereof who can not lie euen so if a particular man be assured that a Reuelation is made to him by the Lord or that a persone be assured of the Reuelation made to an other be bound asmuch to giue faith to the Reuelation as to the scripture the which matter also he will not as he may amplie handle and deduce but falles eftsoones vpon the first Question which as yet hathe not bene resolued to the which he prayes Spina to aduaunce and prepare himselfe Aunswere The cause of Vigors maruell touching the Reuelation of the Lorde and the woorde to be thinges differing produced in one of Spinas Answeres moues in that he conceiues not the sense and meaning of the spéeche For Spina wil not put a difference touching the certaintie betweene the true Reuelations of the Lorde and the woorde whiche proceeding from him is no lesse true than the Reuelation and the Reuelation of Reciprocal Faithe with the woorde and yet it followes not for all that that the woorde and Reuelations of Goddes spirite by whiche we may be ledde to the vnderstanding of the woorde be not things differente and that the one goeth not afore the other And touching Vigors request to prepare to the pointe he Aunswereth that he can not frame or draw his Answers from other grounde than the Demaundes that are made him To this Vigor Replied that touching the sense he layeth him selfe vpon the contentes of Spinas Aunswere And where he saithe that the woorde goeth afore the Reuelation that deserues not to set a difference vppon the question propouned And touching the matter of the pointe Vigor Demaundes if a persone may be assured that he hath the Reuelation of the Lord or that a Booke be a Booke of holy scripture and when he may iudge assuredly of his inwarde inspiration And lastly how he may assertaine any of this inspiration which he hath of the Lord. Aunswere The first Article of the last demaunde is not a thing impertinent to distinguishe the scripture from the interpretation of the same seeing they are matters diuers and sundry giftes of the lord And to answer that part of the demaund how a particulare man hauing in his heart the Reuelation and inwarde witnesse of Gods spirite may knowe that it is Canonical the spirite of God is
gifte of God. They saie further that the lawfull Ministers oughte to he sente not of Pastors pretended and whiche haue nothing of Pastors but the Title and name onely but of God as appeares in Ieremie where this marke is sette foorthe to knowe and marke a false Pastor when he insinuates him selfe or is sente of other than of God. Touching the Article folowing they saie that the true marke by which we maie iudge certainely of a Reuelation is rather the woorde of God than the consente of many bicause it happeneth many times that the multitude in the Churche declining from the woorde doothe wholy swarne and goe astraie as in the time of Micheas Iesus Christe and since in the time of Constance the Emperour Touching those Prophetes who folow and are ledde by their sprite as they that leauing Goddes woorde reste vpon the commaundementes and traditions of men or the vanity of their braine it is not to be douted that suche are not false Prophetes and to be eschewed and reiected onely wée muste vse greate difference betwene the Reuelations and testimonies of Goddes sprite and the vaine imaginations of the minde of men To that the Doctors alleaged that Heretikes as Anabaptistes and others serue theire turne to confirme theire errors with those places of scripture whiche the Ministers haue produced they denie not but it maie be so for that the Scripture being common maye be alleaged of euery one Neither oughte wée to staie vppon that whiche is produced but to weighe and examine howe and to what ende and pourpose it is alleaged by whiche will appeare the difference that is betwene the Ministers and heretikes Touching that whiche was inferred of Brentius and Bucers opinion that by the onely tradition of the Churche the Canonical Bookes maye be discerned from the Apocryphal the Doctoures séeme to miâ—â—erue their purpose with that seing they mainteine that all the Bookes of the Bible are Canonical and yet by their reporte of Brentius and Bucer it appeares that both the one and the other according to the Tradition as they saie do put a distinction calling the one Canonical and the other Apocryphall To the Article folowing wherein the Doctors alleage certaine places of the auncients to take away the difference betwéene the Canonical and Apocriphal Bokes the Ministers answere that as they haue alleaged certaine to proue it so also they are able to produce of the same for the disproofe as S. Ierome in his Prologue named Chaleatus and in an other which beginnes prater Ambrosiuâ— to whome writing the summe of euery Booke of the Bible he makes no mention but of those which the ministers call Canonicall They are able also to alledge two or three Cataloges recited in Eusebius who receiue not for Canonical Bookes but suche as the ministers them selues approue The Councell of Laodicen alleaged by the Doctors speakes for the ministers as not comprehending that wherof there is question and touching experience they Aunswere that it is a question de facto as being better to be alleaged againste the Doctors than the ministers Lastly to the ende no more time be spente in so often repetition of one selfe thing and that we prepare to conferre the pointes of the Confession which the Doctors wil debate the ministers declare that the .xxiiij. Bookes of the olde Testament which are in the Canon of the Hebrues with all the Bookes of the newe Testament be approued Canonical of the one and other parte and they are sufficiente to decide wholy all the pointes of their Confession and generally all that belonges to true religion neither haue they occasion by the meanes of that to delay any more the conference in respecte of difference betwéene the two parties touching the distinction of the Canonical and Apocriphal Bookes Obiection Notwithstanding the Ministers say their religion is fouÌ„ded vpon the woorde of God yet they grounde Gods woorde vpon inward Reuelation so that Reuelation is the ground of the woorde and consequently of their religion for they receiue for the woorde but that which they thinke to be particularely reuealed vnto them Touching the other Article where they resiste the opinion of the Doctoures that Faithe is gotten by the hearing of Goddes woorde it séemes they offer to â—â—umble vppon small blockes as not to enter into the principall And where they alleage that faithe is a gifte of God and therfore not gotten it is moste manifest by many ordinarie textes of Scripture that it dothe not differ one thing to be giuen and gotten as the kingdom of heauen which is giuen to the blessed and yet we doe get it hauing true Faithe woorking by charitie the scripture also calles it the rewarde and recompence of good woorkes and S. Paule saithe that by liberalitie and almes men gaine the grace of God Yea there can be none other vnderstanding of S. Paules speache Fides ex auditu but that Faith comes by hearing Goddes woorde which is the obteining of the same by the meane of hearing it preached albeit it be a gifte of god They vse the like subteltie in going about to rebuke the opinion that Faithe is the truthe reuealed as putting a great difference betwéene the truthe reuealed and the Reuelation of truthe which subtiltie shoulde be of force against S. Paule who sayeth Panis quem frangimus nonne communicatio corporis Domini est which is as much as panis fractio nonne c. And therefore to speake properly the text of S. Paule must néedes lie subiecte to suche rebukes So that touching this Article to the ende not to incidente notwithstanding the Replie of the Ministers the Doctors will dispute no more of it as being a matter too muche impertinent séeing that in the ende it would procure spéeche of merito and so from one to another It gréeues them to enter vpon the vocation of the lawfull Ministers of the churche and therefore to auoide that question they will not alleage which they might without any superfluous discourse that afore their Doctrine be receiued they muste be examined whether they were lawfull ministers sent of the true church to preach Gods woord and to be heard of the people in their sermones according to S. Paules place alleaged heere before which if they of the newe Religion had well considered they might haue a moste sufficient argument not to receiue their Doctrine bicause it is no lesse cleare than the day that they are no Ministers sent by the Pastoures of the Churche but haue foisted in themselues to Preache and are not able to shewe any signe of their vocation either from men and muche lesse from GOD And if it were lawefull to euery one that saithe he is sent to Preache the woorde it were to raise infinite Sectes as wee see happeneth in this time and so they cease further spéeche in this Argument least they giue a greater heate to the matter Touching the Article declaring howe we may knowe a Reuelation to be of God which the ministers hold is
made and contained amongst Christians in Baptisme afore there were any Apostolicall wryting and in Baptisme it was proposed to beléeue the saide Créede afore there was entrie into the wrytings or speache therof in the primitiue Churche wrytings were examined whether they were to be receiued or not and the vnderstanding of the same together if a Doctrine were true or false by this Simboll and rule of Faithe and to imitate or confront it with it as Irenaeus Tertullian and others affirme And though it should happen that a man neuer heard but the Simboll without knowing whether there were holy Scriptures or not yet he might beleeue the said Créede and be a true Christian so that he were not infected with other particulare false opinions And of the contrarie if the beleefe of the Créede depended vppon the knoweledge of the Propheticall or Apostolicall wrytings as to vnderstand and be assured of the conformitie that therein is afore wée beleue it onely wise men and such as were wel studied in writinges who woulde assure them selues of the saide conformitie should be bounde to beleue the Symboll or at the leaste assured of the truthe of the same and so there shoulde be fewe Christians Therefore the beléefe of the Créede dependes not vpon the knowledge of the Scriptures By meane whereof the Doctoures holde by tradition of the Churche gouerned by the holy sprite that the Creede is of the Apostles and that there is no doubte thereof In like sorte by the same tradition we muste geue Faithe to it as a Doctrine of the Apostles not written and yet of equall authoritie with that whiche is in their writings notwithstanding we had no knowledge of other Scriptures The Doctoures are very sory that the other parte hath so muche declined to aunswere pertinently and absolutely to these twoo pointes why they proponed onely to shewe what Faithe and authoritie men oughte to attribute to this Symbol and all other Doctrine receiued by Tradition of the Apostles without Canonical writing whiche might haue bene lefte by them by the same meane and reason that is shewed that the Symboll was geuen to the Christians by the said Apostles without that they put it in writing For ende the Doctours persuade suche as shal reade this conference not to amaze or maruel at so many perplexities declining from the true ende of the said two pointes proponed with request to remember the conferences of S. Augustine with the Donatistes and Pelagians whose fashion resembles the presente manner of the Ministers with whom they conferre laying them selues notwithstanding vpon the iudgemente of suche as shal reade the matter of this disputation Resolution of the Ministers WHo affirme according to the former propositions alwaies mētioned by them also the better to confirme the faithe of the Duches that as S. Cyprian writeth it is incertaine whether the Symbol which beares the name of the Apostles was made composed suche one by them or els drawne and gathered of their Doctrine and also why it is called Symbolum whether it be by reason that euery one of them broughte his parte and portion to it or that it is a marke or certaine signe of Christian Religion as touching whiche Regardes it is a thing indifferente for Saluation as hauing alwayes one equall weighte and authoritie whether the Apostles write it or whether it was faithfully gathered of their writings as were also the Symbols aswel of Niceus as of Athanasius of whom the Church neuer doubted that they conteined not a pure Apostolicall Doctrine as shée hathe well and euidently declared in ordeining that the saide Symboll of Nyceus shoulde be openlye published to the people when they assembled for the Communion the same being in obseruation at this day in the Churche of Rome where this Symboll is readde and sunge euery Sonday in the Temples whiche if it conteined not Apostolicall Doctrine it shoulde impugne the 59. Articles of the Councell of Laodicene by whiche it is forbidden to reade in the Churche any thing of Priuate inuention but onely the Doctrine comprehended in the Canonicall Bookes of the Olde and Newe Testament whose number is there made The Ministers doo further affirme that the reason and principall cause of the Faithe which Christians adde to this Créed is the knowledge they haue that it is the pure woord of God and he that teacheth it mainteines also that it is Gods woorde the same appearing by the testimony and writing of S. Paule who after he hath proponed to the Corinthians the Deathe Buriall and Resurrection of Iesus Christe whiche be the principall Articles of the Créede as vpon whiche also our iustification is chiefely founded Addeth this speache that he hathe geuen them that whiche he hathe receiued whiche is that Christe is deade for our sinnes according to the Scriptures and after that he was buried and is risen againe the thirde daye according to the Scriptures Christe him selfe also proposing in like sorte his Deathe and Resurrection to his twoo Disciples alleageth to them the Scriptures for their more assurance saying Oh fonde weake of hart to beleue all things that the Prophets haue pronounced was it not méete the Christ suffred these things and that he entred into his glorie then beginning at Moyses and the other Prophetes he declared to them in all the scriptures the things that were of him selfe In the same chapter appearing to them after his Resurrectiō yea afore the créede was made speaking to them of his death and resurrection for their better assuraunce he laies vnto them the scriptures saying It is so written and it was méete that Christ suffred and rise from death the third day by which wée maie inferre that for the grounde of Faithe and assurance of the Articles of the same there is no better meane than to propone the Scriptures And albeit in the tyme of the Natiuitie of the Churche the Créede was proponed to suche as were Catechised afore the Apostles or Euangelistes had sette downe any thing in writing yet it foloweth not for all that that there were not other scriptures vppon which mighte be founded euery Article of Faithe Whiche to decypher by péecemeale the Article of Creation hathe his fundation vppon the beginning of Genesis The Article of the Almightinesse of God hathe his grounde vppon the 40. of Esaie and many other places of scripture The Article of the Conception of Iesus Christe vppon the vij of Esay For the place of his Natiuitie vppon the v. of Micheas and for the Regarde of the Time vppon the xlix of Genesis and ix of Daniel The Article of his death the Crosse vpon the xxij Psalme xxxv of Esay and ix of Daniel The Article of Resurrection vppon the xvj Psalme the Article of Ascension vppon the xcviij Psalme the Article of the Iudgemente in Daniel xij the Article of his sending the holy ghost in Ioel ij the Article of the Church in Esay 2. and Micheas 4. the Article of Remission of
firste place they alleage that God can not do a thing to derogate the order which he hath established in the world in the seconde that it were to establishe mutabilitie and chaunge in Gods councels to confesse that he is able to doe any thing contrary to the said order established in the world in the third that if it were so there should be contradiction in his will whereof should folow that he were a lier And for the fourth blasphemie that the power of God is his will and likewise his not power his not wil And for the fifth they pretende that God would haue a body which in one instant might haue bene in many places afore they beleue that God could haue made it otherwayes they meane to infer that he neither hath could nor can make it by which the Ministers will acknowledge nothing of Gods power but so muche as he shewes by effect for which matter they alleage Tertullian All these blasphemies are drawne out of the propre woordes of the first Article of the Ministers Touching the firste that God can not doe a thing to derogate the order he hath established in the worlde it is proued an apparant blasphemie by the Scripture who in infinite places makes mention of Gods works aboue nature which the Ministers call order established in the world the Scripture teacheth in proper termes the God can do infinite things aboue the order established in the world As the wife of Lot which was conuerted into a piller of Salte that a barraine woman in hir last age hauing an olde husband had a childe That a Vine all drie hathe flourished A shée Asse hath spoken that the Sunne stayed and went backe againe with other innumerable Examples contained in the olde Testament And for the new Testament that a virgin brought forth a childe That a body hath walked vpon the Sea and mounted to heauen and generally all the miracles done by Christ and his Apostles aboue nature the same being contrary to the order established in the worlde From this blasphemie growes an other that God séeing he hathe established his order in the world hath not done nor coulde nor can doe any miracle But to proue by the Authoritie of the scripture that God can do against the order established in the world it is writteÌ„ in Esay 50. My hand which is my power is it abridged that I can not redéeme buy againe is there no more power in me to deliuer Behold by threates I wil make dry the sea wil put the fluddes into the deserte so that the fishes shal perishe for wante of water and shal die of thirste I apparel the heauens with darkenesse and putte a sacke for their couer But more expressely in the newe Testamente where it is saide by S. Iohn that God can raise children to Abraham of the stones Which place albeit may be expounded Allegorically yet by the literall sense S. Iohn declares it was possible to God the Deuil knewe and hath confessed that if Christe were the true sonne of God he might transeforme stones into breade The same notwithstanding contrary to the order established in the worlde And we haue to note that there is no lesse impossibilitie that bread be turned into Flesh by Gods omnipotencie than a stone transnatured into bread Wherin for such as denie this last done by the power of God they declare that they beleeue lesse of the almightinesse than Deuilles The confuting of the seconde blasphemie dependes vpon the disproofe of the first for albeit God contrary to the order established in the world hath done many miracles as hathe bene recited héere before yet there is no mutabilitie or chaÌ„ge in his Councell Touching the third blasphemie that if God did any thing contrary to the order established in the worlde there shoulde be contradiction in his will and therfore he should be a lier The Doctoures Obiecte that it would folowe that suche should be the will of God neuer to doe any thing against the order established in the world and that he wold haue stayed and declared that to be his will by his woorde For otherwayes it coulde not haue bene knowne what was Gods will. And as the ministers neither haue nor can make appeare by Gods woorde that suche is Gods wil as not to do any thing against the order established in the world so they must firste teache and instructe that suche is Gods will afore they conclude that if God made one body to be in two places or other thing against the order of Nature established in the world he should be a lier Touching the fourth blasphemie that Gods power is his will and that his impower is his vnwill According to the sense which the ministers giue it if God can not doe but what he will to be an Heresie of the Heretikes called Monarchians in the primitiue Church against whom Tertullian writes in his Booke aduersus praxeam and since renued by one Petrus Abaillardus and continued by one VVickleffe they in déede measured Gods power according to his will the same contrary to the expresse woord of God which oftentimes declars many things to be possible to God which notwithstanding he wil not doe as appeareth in Sap. 2 where it is recited that God could sende many sortes of afflictions to the children of Israell to chastise them but he would not doe it hauing disposed all things by measure number and ballance and that he might destroy suche as had offended him but he would not but vsed mercy to them In the gospel our Lorde saide to S. Peter Thinkest not thou that I can pray to my Father and he will sende me more than twelue legions of Aungels and yet as he would not pray to him so his Father did not send them although he was able to haue done it in the persone of his sonne Christe might haue let his enimies to haue taken away his life but he would not And the Father might haue saued him from corporall Deathe saithe S. Paule by his power but neither the one nor other would doe it which albeit the ministers might say was foreordained yet the Scripture holdes expressely that he might haue done it notwithstanding it was foreordained And touching the authoritie of Tertullian the Doctoures are glad they produce it as making altogither for the truthe againste their blasphemies and yet they haue omitted many of his woordes and sentences to confute their erroure as the text it selfe heere witnesseth Nihil Deo difficile Quis hoc nesciat in possibilia apud seculum possibilia apud deum qâ—is ignorat Et stulta mundi elegit Deus vt confundat sapientia Ergo inquiunt heretici monarchiani scilicet difficile non fuit Deo ipsum se patrem filium facere aduersus traditam formam rebus humanis Nam sterilem parere contra naturam difficile Deo non fuit sicut nec virginem planè nihil Deo difficile sed si tam abruptè in
the greatnesse of our God to maintein his woorkes incredible by nature which are comprehended in his woord in our Faith and also to confute all suche as woulde deny any of them as impossible to be done by any manner what so euer And bicause Caluin and Beza with their Ministers raise them selues against the power and greatnesse of our Lorde and openly deny him to be able to commit the body bloude of Iesus Christ vnder the formes of Breade and Wine and bicause also that in the Religion pretended reformed to resist the efficacy of the woorde This is my Body this is my Bloude they teach not a more great reason nor more familiare to al those that are out of the way than the impossibilitie of God to be able to make a body to be in twoo or many places that is to say in the Sacrament and in Heauen wée obiecte with good righte to the Ministers that in their Doctrine they derogate the firste Article of Faithe which is of the Almightinesse of god And also we knowe that the anciente manner of the Christians disputing againste the aduersaries of Faith was oftentimes to beginne to aske whether that whereon they doubted were possible to God or not or whether onely he woulde not doo it in which sorte and order Tertullian and others propone the pointes wherein they enter into contention againste the Heretikes In like sort afore we passe further into the matter of the holy SacrameÌ„t we would in preamble wise fele of the Ministers whether they iudged it to be in Goddes power to make a body occupy many places or whether only he would not c. wherein wée are enforced to aduertise al Christians of one manner of dealing common to al the Ministers of the pretended reformed Religion which is when they are asked if God can establish the body of Iesus Christ in the Sacrament or not they aunswere that there is no question of the power of God but of his Will onely And when wée produce matter which declares the will of God then of the contrary they deny that his wil is suche bicause it is impossible to him Alleaging here their contradictions according to the nature of the body And bicause they thinke this to be impossible in action they depraue and interprete the woorde of the Supper otherwayes than either it beares or is written Here is also to be noted that wherin an Almaine called Heshusius reprocheth Caluin that he his felowe Ministers are goodly noble amplifiers of the power of God but when it comes to the déede and pushe as the saying runnes they neither giue or graunte him any more than they thinke méete to introduce their errours and fansies resembling as the saide Almaine compares them a good Traitor who most dooth cherishe and magnifie a man when he is most ready to betray him as Iudas did our Lorde wherin wée are constrained to say of the Ministers touching Goddes Almightinesse as Tertullian saith of the Heretikes Credendo non credunt which is in beleuing the Omnipotencie they beleue it not for when they haue saide that there muste be no exception they hold againe an other way that it must not stretch to euery thing that mannes sprite can conceiue and so they will not apply it but to what they thinke good couering themselues with the nature wisedome eternal wil of God which are no lesse vnknowne and incomprehensible to them than his Omnipotencie in which respecte wee aduise euery one not to be abused with the speach of Caluin nor his ministers but to consider the woorkes which they deny to be in the power of god Wée haue produced to them these foure questions Whether God may make a body to be in twoo places and of the contrary twoo bodyes in one place Whether he can lodge one body in one space lesse than his greatnesse and whether he can make it inuisible which haue bene specially culled and chosen for that vpon them are founded the principal arguments of the pretended reformed Religion againste the true presence of the Bodye and Bloude of Iesus Christ in the Holy Sacrament Wée beleue simply as al other things that the foure questions are possible to God and haue proued it by the infinitie of his power both by the scriptures who giue vnto him al vertue ouer creatures without any exception and also by Examples and straunge myracles don vpon bodyes against their natures which are writteÌ„ as Tertullian holdeth in his Booke of the Resurrection to the ende wée beleue that our God is more mighty than al Lawe and nature of al bodyes whereunto he addes that such knowe God very euill who thinke that he hath not in his power things which thei cannot comprehende in their fansie From whence it comes as S. Cyril saith that such wicked sprites reiecte and condemne al things as impossible bicause they vnderstand them not Besides wée thinke wée haue sufficiently shewed no lesse by expresse scripture than by the Exposition of the same taken of the Ancient Christians that it was not only in Gods power to make twoo bodyes to be in one place and one body without place equall to his greatenesse but also that he had already truely done it in the byrth of the body of our Lorde Iesus Christe in the Resurrection of the same â—â—is entry throughe the doores shutte and in his Ascension aboue al the Heauens like as also wee haue deduced that there was equall and like repugnancy in those deedes as in the other of one body in twoo places whiche by the scripture is no more excepted from the power nor will of God than the others as to iudge it impossible to be done neither hath there bene any Christian afore our time which durst affirme the same to be impossible and out of the power of God notwithstanding the occasion was often offered if they had any waye estéemed it impossible as the Ministers of the supposed refourmed Religion pretende Of the contrary the most parte of the auncient Authours of the Primitiue Churche haue holden expressely that it was in Goddes power to bestowe a creature in many places according to S. Ieromes opinion againste the Heretike Vigilantius that the soules of the Sainctes maye assiste in many places with the immaculate Lambe our Sauiour Iesus Christe Yea there was question Whether the saide soules and sprites of the Holy ones did assiste at any time the Churches where their Graues and Monumentes were the same resembling with S. Augustine in his Booke whiche he wrote of the care to be had of the Dead Chapter 16. wher he saithe that by the power of theire nature the soules cannot be here belowe and in Heauen or in many places but that the same may be done by the power of God and he will not resolue whether they vnderstande our affayres by suche assistaunce in many places or by reuelation of the Aungels or other meane of the power and grace of God. Morouer it is
most certaine that the Auncient Fathers of the Churche in the matter of the Holy Sacramente haue acknowledged mainteined that the Body of Iesus Christe by Omnipotencie was in many places as S. Ambrose vpon the tenth of the Epistle to the Hebrewes and S. Chrysostome in his seuententh Homilie vpon the same Epistle where they both almoste in one phrase and woordes write that albeit in many places there be many actions and oblations of the Body of Iesus Christe yet hauing regard to the thing which is offered that is to the true Lambe and body of Iesus Christe that Sacrifice offered in many places is but one bicause it is but one selfe thing the true Lambe and true body of Iesus Christe which is but one and remaines whole in all places where he is offered And they adde further that the Oblation of the same in diuers places is not an iteratioÌ„ of the sacrifice of the Crosse but in commendation of the same so that in the sacrifice of the Masse they acknowledge and distinguishe twoo pointes the one concerning the Realty of the thing that is offered which they saie is the true Lambe and true Body of Iesus Christ who as then remaining one and in his entyer is notwithstanding in many places And the other concernes the action of suche a thing by the Prieste whiche is no iteration nor like action or oblation to that of the Crosse but diuers in commemoratioÌ„ notwithstanding of that which was made on the Crosse S. Chrysostome in his thirde Booke of Priestehoode cryes out and saith Oh myracle and power of God He that uts on the Right hande of the Father aboue is holden betwene the handes of euery one in this sacrament S. Augustine vpon the 33. Psalme declares that the body of Iesus Christ in the supper was in two places that is in his visible place amongeste his Apostles and yet betweene his proper handes in suche sorte as he carried him selfe But afore he concluded vpon this S. Augustine debates with him selfe howe it was possible that a person shoulde beare his Body betwéene his handes And after he hath examined it to be impossible to Dauid and al other creatures he discends at last to the Diuine power which was in Iesus Christe by the whiche to him alone amongest other men that myracle was possible But leasâ—e wée depraud or wrest the intent of S. Augustine bicause he was carried in a certaine maner as though that diminished the truth let vs consider that the end meaning of S. Augustine is to shewe that Iesus by his Omnipotencie carried himselfe which was impossible to any Creature But if he had only carried in the Supper betweene his handes the Figure Sacrament and Signe of his Body and not the Reall Truthe he had done no more than the leaste man mighte haue done séeing euery one maye beare the Figure Image Signe or Sacrament of his body betwéene his handes or fastened as a Brooche to his Cappe without myracle or power supernaturall so that the certaine manner which S. Augustine vseth diminisheth nothing of the Truth which is that he was visible betweene his hands and in one manner supernatural albeit Real and true S. Basil with others in his Liturgie auowes the body of Iesus Christ to be in Heauen and yet present in the Sacrament by Omnipotencie And yet the Ministers are grounded principally vppon the saide S. Basil to proue the impossibilitie that one bodye or an other creature maye be in many places But he protestes expressely in the very place alleaged by the Ministers not to speake but according to the natural propertie And in his Liturgy he declares that it is not only in Gods power to bring to passe that the body of Iesus Christe be in Heauen and in the Aultare but also that it be truely done so To end this question of one body in many places we say that it is not only in the power of God but also we must beleue that it is so done in the Sacrament to the ende God be not founde a lyer or a deceiuer in his woord by which Iesus affirmed to his Apostles that that whiche he gaue with his handes was his true Body deliuered for vs Which Argumente Tertullian makes in his Booke of the Resurrection after he had disputed against suche as denied it to be possible to God wherin it séemes that they saide as the Ministers said firste there was something impossible to God by Scripture whiche is that he could not lye nor deceiue of which they tooke occasion to passe further and dispute that the Resurrection was also impossible to him like as also the Ministers of the point that could not lie haue labored to inferre that to put one body in two places was impossible to him as well as to lie and deceiue in the ende Tertullian accordes with the Martianistes that he had rather confesse that God could not deceiue and that he is only weake and impotent in deceit to the ende that thereby it might be séene that he hath not otherwayes taughte or spoken nor otherwayes disposed the facte than is contained in his woorde Then if he can not as Tertullian concludes deceiue and abuse we must beléeue the resurrection as his word beares it and not otherwayes to the ende there be no deceit in the sayd woorde and in God Euen so we say and willingly confesse that God can not lie nor deceiue in regarde wherof we must beléeue that he hath so willed and ordained the truthe of the supper as the woord pronounceth and not otherwayes And if it be so that the woord beare Verbatim and expressely that he affirmes that that which he gaue with his handes to his Apostles to eate was his body deliuered for vs we must theÌ„ beléeue that his word speakes not otherwayes then his wil is least he be estéemed a lier And that as he hathe saide this is my Body this is my bloud that truely it is so which God willing we meane to handle in the next conference for declaration that not onely he might establishe his body in the holy Sacrament but also that he would and did so Articles proponed by the Doctors for the next conference and others folowing according to the order of the said Articles ALbeit according to the order of the conference touching the Créede of the Apostles we ought secondly to entreate of an other Article like as euen the ministers themselues in the first dayes of conference did not only consent but made request offering the Articles of their Confession Imprinted vnder Date .1564 to be examined by vs from the firste to the last yet we séeing it can not be much from the matter after we haue handled the omnipotencie of God which stretches so farre as to make him able to bring to passe that the bodie of Iesus Christ be in heauen and in the sacrament continuing stil this matter to enter into the profe of his wil are content to shew that not
the Hebrues By meane wherof it is no lesse blasphemie matter contrary to the doctrine and meaning of the Apostle to approue the repeticion and reitteration of the sacrifice of Iesus Christ than the plurality of sacrifices for sin And if the Doctors would as hath beene their custome to disguise and colour such an abuse preferre their distinction betwene the sacrifice propiciatory and applicatorie as to say the Priestes pretende not in their Masses to sacrifice Iesus Christ for other ende than to apply the merite of hys death to those by whom they celebrate them We answer that in doyng thus they would attribute more than they do to Iesus Christ bicause all the fruite of hys sacrifice comes to vs by the application of the same euen as the healing our cure comes not so much of the confection and preparation of the medecine as by applying the same Besides we make this question to our Masters by what meanes the benefit of the death of Iesus Christ was applyed to the fathers afore his coÌ„ming seeing at that time ther was no Masse soong All men of any spirit iudgemeÌ„t may perceiue that those distinctions are friuolous suborned onely to darken the truth bleare the eyes of the simple and ignorat For Iesus Christ who hath offered the sacrifice is the selfe same which he applies to vs by his spirite his woord and his sacramentes And now to returne to the matter of our beginning to declare to what ende the auncients haue called the Supper all the action of the same sacrifice there is to be noted that in the supper ther be many sortes of sacrifices as the sacrifice of a contcite hart which is offred by publik confession of sins done there After the sacrifice of our bodies which is there offred by open praier following the said confession thirdly the sacrifice of praise and thanks giuing there offered when after the confession prayers they sing Psalmes The preaching of the gospel which is called a sacrifice Rom. 15. comes after as when the confession praiers being done the Minister presents himselfe to the people to reueale the woorde of god Almes which is an other kinde of sacrifice were in times past layd to the supper by the faythfull who by thys meane would testifie not onely the memorie they had of the graces and benefits of God but also their charity and desâ—re they had to relieue the necessities of their poore neighbours Ouer and besides all these kindes of sacrifices there bée two particular in the Supper whereof is mention made in the writinges of the auncientes the breade and wine which were chosen and taken of the almes brought thether for the poore and were consecrated that is to say assigned and deputed to the holy sacred vse of the supper The other kinde is the memorie of the death and sacrifice of Iesus Christ celebrated and repeated in all the action of the Supper which for this reason is called sacrifice by S. Iohn Chrisostome vpon the Epistle to the Hebrues his wordes be these We do euery day no other sacrifice than that of Iesus Christ no rather saith he in correcting him selfe we make the memorie of the same sacrifice S. Ambrose cals it the memorie of our redemption to the ende that we remembring our Redéemer may obtaine of him to multiply his graces vpon vs S. Augustine propones it also more cleare vnder a comparison of the daies of the passion resurrection of Iesus Christ which he applies in this maner Often times wheÌ„ the feast of Easter approcheth we vse this maner of speaking to morow or within two daies we haue the passion or the resurrection of Iesus Christ It cannot be properly vnderstand of the daye that Christ suffered death which is past long since but onely of the memory of his death the which is solemnised and celebrated as vpon that day euery yeare A litle after he addeth to apropriate his comparison hath not Iesus Christe bene offered in himselfe one onely time and yet in the Sacrament of the Supper not onely the day of Easter but euery day he is offered to the people In an other place the flesh and bloud of this sacrifice afore the comming of Iesus Christ were promised by the figures of sacrifices in the passion of Iesus Christ they were deliuered vp and offered in truth And since Iesus Christ ascended into heauen they are celebrated by the sacrament of memorie By these places and many other like we maye deduce that the fathers haue often called the supper sacrifice bicause in it the memory of the sacrifice of Iesus Christ is restored and celebrated The name of sacrifice is also often times applyed by the auncientes to the almes brought by the faithfull in the supper as by Iustine Martyr in the second Apologie by S. Augustine in his .20 boke chap. 20. against Faustus by S. Ciprian in his booke of the almes by S. Chrisostome hom 46. vpon S. Mathew which may also be verified euen by the canon of the Masse where it is sayd we offer to thy maiestie part of thy giftes and benefites the same to be referred to the almes of the faithfull offered by the Minister to God in the name of all the church Sometimes the prayers which were made there were called sacrifices as Cyprian vpon the dominicall prayer and Eusebius in the .vij. of the Ecclesiasticall history Tertullian in the third booke against Marcion where alledging the place of Malachie of the cleane offring which ought to be made to God from the sunne rising tyll the settyng of the same saith it ought to be vnderstand of the Hymnes and prayses to God which S. Ierome also confirmes in hys exposition vpon the sayd place For conclusion of this matter we say that all the places of the bookes of the auncientes wherein touching the matter of the supper is mencion made of the sacrifice ought to be referred to one of the sayd kindes neither can it be found that either they haue sayd written or thought that there was other sacrifice propiciatorie than onelye that whiche Iesus Christ hath once offered on the crosse in his proper body for our redemption by which meane it is sure that he ought to be acknowledged in the Christian church sacrificator of the new testament And touching the other sacrifices as that of a contrite hart mortification of the flesh of thankes geuyng and almes and the pronouncement and memory of the death of Iesus Christ we saye that generallye it belonges to the church to offer them and that there is neither faithfull nor any member in all the body of the Church who for this respect is not sacrificature as S. Peter saith in his first Epistle chap. 2. and S. Iohn in the Apocalips chap. 1. and that for that reason we ought to offer in the Supper such sacrifices vnto God as appeares euen by the canon of their Masse by them euill vnderstanded applied
table did not eate nor taste any thing of the meates there serued should he not doe dishonor wrong to him that inuited him had it not bene better for him not to haue come thither euen thus is it of thée For thou art come thou hast song Psalmes with the rest of the people thou hast confessed thy selfe to be of the number of the worthy and not departing from those that are vnwoorthy how then dost thou tary and not participate at the table of the Lord thou sayst I am vnwoorthy I answere thee that euen so arte thou also touching the Communion of Prayers Thirdly the gobbins and tronshons of the Gospels and Pistles the Creede Prayer and other péeces referred to the scripture altogither confused and shaken of pronounced to the people in a tong not vnderstand contrary to the expresse commaundemente of God and without any edifying of the multitude is no other thing than a vaine vsurpation of the name of God against the expresse defence made by the same which ornaments are too narow and short to couer the shame and horror of the Masse Fourthly what execrable abuse is it to say that the Masse serues not only to the liuing but also for the dead to obtaine remission of their sinnes wherin the priestes forgetting neither shame nor blasphemie deuide their ofte into three parts with this visor vppon it that one is for them that be in heauen an other for suche as liue on earth and the thirde serues for the soules that abide in purgatorie But the Sacrament which is not ordained but to confirme the faith of the word stretcheth no further then the ministerie and the ministerie no longer than this life so that if it be so that those that are in heuen such likewise as are fained to be in purgatorie be dead and departed this world we must necessarily conclude that as Gods woorde can not be preached vnto them so also they cannot pertake in the administration of the sacraments and if they be not administred to them they can nothing profite them The ende of the Resolution An Answer to the last Obiections proponed by the Doctoures touching the Supper WE say that there be many things in the sayde Obiections impertinente to the matter of the Question as where they demaund how many worlde 's the Doctrine hath remained pure bothe touching the supper and other articles of religion whereunto we Answer that euen in the time of the Apostles there were heretikes and Antichristes as Ebion Cerinthus Simon Magicien the Samaritanes and others who by their errors and heresies went aboute to shake euen the Apostolical Churches and corrupte the pure Doctrine of the same whome the Apostles resisted valiantly in all possible sorte reuoking and referring alwayes all things to their former institution and foūdations of the pure woord of God as we sée S. Paule did on the behalfe of the Corinthians and Galathians whose Churches albeit he had most well planted and licoured yet they were corrupted in his life time both in manners and doctrine And where the Doctors aske howe long time the puritie of the doctrine and Religion hath perseuered in the Churche of God after the decease of the Apostles as wel touching the Article of the supper as for others we Aunswere that the continuance hath bene euen so long time as Gods woorde hath bene folowed and preached Touching the Obiection of the Doctors folowing blasing the supper celebrated in the Reformed churches as that we shoulde abuse the Communicantes by giuing them no other thing than a nothing betwéene two platters we Aunswere that that blase doth more aptly become them than vs bicause they offer to suche as they summone to their Masses but the Accidents indiuidible waues and only the sighte of formes of breade and wine to féede them withall A litle after they call the sacrifice of their Masse most pretious wherin we cōdiscend with them and say they haue reason so to exalt it with a noble and most precious title bicause of the greate reuenues and riches which this pretious sacrifice brings them which we may say hath bene to them a fléece or mine of Golde more riche and plentifull than euer was that of Iason or all the mines of the Easte as hauing brought the world to beléeue and spetially the founders of Abbaies Priories and other benefices that their sacrifices were auaileable for the redemption remedie and reléefe of their soules Afterwards the Doctors without all shame call the supper of the Lord detestable bicause as they say we offer nothing there but common bread and wine wherunto we Answer that in our supper we offer in déede bread and wine to the people which after the consecration remain in their substance as before but we denie that for al that the said bread and wine are common bicause as hath bene héertofore amplie declared to the Doctors that both the one and the other by the preaching and pronoūcing of the ordinance of God is changed as is said in respecte of the vse but not touching the nature wher the doctors offer to charge vs with monopolides contributions conspiracies secrete practises against the state of our Prince vnder colour pretence of our supper we Answer that that is not to impugne our doctrine but impudently to despite slander vs for such hath ben the faith of the reformed religion as bisides that it hath ben proued with the losse of their bloud life yet the king in his councel by his edict hath declared vs his most faithful well affected subiects but it is not to be maruelled if the doctors heape these slaunders vpon the reformed churches seeing in al times the Christiās haue bene accused of such crimes by the enimies to the truth As appeareth by the Apologetike of Tertullian and S. Augustines Bookes of the Citie of God By the Treatise of S. Cyprian againste Demetrius and by the Booke of Arnobius which he wrote againste the Gentiles Onely we maruell howe the Doctoures are so euill aduised as to alleage the Suppers in the Refourmed Churches to verifie theyr accusatiōs séeing that as they are at this day publikely done euery where in the view and presence of so many as wil beholde them so there is nothing hid nor so hard as euery one if he wil may not easily be informed only it is the zeale great charitie of our masters the Doctors wherein héeretofore they haue protested euen by the Inuocation of the name of God that caries them without shame or likelihoode thus to slaunder vs whose iustice in this case is to Answere for vs bothe afore God and men And to proue and confirme their poynts afore recited the Doctors adde that it appertaines not to all men indifferently to Consecrate the matter of the sacramentes but to suche only as are ordained by imposition of the Romishe Bishops hands wherunto we Aunswer and confesse the first poynte as hauing saide in other places that the
vocation is necessary to suche effecte But not that this vocation is the imposition which they pretend assuring our selues that our vocation is more lawfull and better grounded than that of the Doctors Where the Doctors in the Article folowing alleage that we haue not Answered them to their sufficient liking touching the partes of the sacrament and the woord required for the consecration of the matter in the same we Aunswer that in our wrytings is no ambiguitie no darke sense nor any inuolution but suche as the Doctors list to finde there wherin as we lay our selues vppon the iudgement of the vpright hearers So also it becomes no more straunge to vs that the doctors chalenge vs of darke wryting than it was to S. Paul that his gospell was hid and couered to those that perished whose vnderstandings the God of this world had blinded Touching the presence of Iesus Christe in the supper wherin they would vrge vs to declare more amplie than in our former Aunswer we say we haue Aunswered sufficient clearly notwithstanding the doctors rest not satisfied wherof we make no greate maruell as knowing that they haue seldome in custome to be contented onlesse we consent both to their demaundes and desires which we are not nowe setled to do and much lesse that our Aunswer excéede the limits and bounds of the scripture neither in this Article of the supper nor in others but onely to folow the phrases and manners of spéeche of the same as neere as we can possibly By meane wherof for a full and resolute Aunswer we acknowledge no other eating of the flesh and bloud of Iesus Christe whether in or out of the supper than that which Iesus Christ declares in the sixth Chapter of S. Iohn who eateth my fleshe and drinketh my bloud he hath life euerlasting also he that eateth my fleshe and drinketh my bloude he dwelles in me and I in him as the liuing Father hath sent me so I goe thither bicause of my father and he that shall eate me shall liue also bicause of me Vppon the last Article which is of the concomitance we Aunswer that the Doctors demaunde was not so harde that we conceiued it not only we dissembled it as not to lose time to speake and write of such dreames wherin also we iudged the Doctors of sufficient suttletie to vnderstande that in denying them Transubstantiation was not to approue their concomitance And nowe to satisfie them we make this addition not to seke to know more than that which Iesus Christ teacheth in his woord that in the supper to participate in his flesh crucified and blud shed for remission of sinnes we must take and eat the bread and drinke the wine which are administred and not deuide or separate them in any sort the same being also defended by the Canons De confecr dist 2. Cum omne crimen Wedensday the fourtenth of August the yeare aforesaide This wryting being dispatched and sent away the Ministers not long after went to the Lord of Neuers with declaration that for their parts they had at large handled this coÌ„ference as finding the doctors by their impertinent and vain questions hitherto to séeke only to winne time without any aduauncement at al of the solution of the supper the Masse And albeit they disguised their demaundes as necessarily to tend to a prepratiue for this disputation yet they contained no other purpose than not at all to enter the conference but rather to kéepe things in suspence vntil they grew weary by which meanes this holy purpose mighte altogither dissolue breake in the ends they besoughte him humbly to aduise the Doctors without vaine varietie or change of matter to auoide the difference and refute that which the Ministers had maintained of the supper and defend that which they had coÌ„demned of the Masse wherein they obtained his promisse which gaue them a hope of profitable matter héereafter and such as might serue to edifie the readers and purge the greatest abuse and error that then occupied the Romishe Church All this notwithstanding there ran immediately a brute thorow the towne that Vigor was falne into a dangerous sicknesse without likelihoode of spéedy recouery the same giuing a feare to the Ministers to be intercepted in their laste hope which they doubted so muche the more as at the instant they were told that Doctor Sainctes was also gone out of Paris to the Cardinal of Loraine by which they could not otherwayes presume than that they should be enforced to a long abode in Paris without any sette exercise to occupie the time as being come thither but by chance for Spyna but made it in his way to passe into Aufon and for the other being Minister to the Church of Orleans it was not long since he was taken out of prison whether he was led in Iune afore vpon a false imputation by the enimies of Gods Churche charging him to be Author of a most pernitious wicked Boke written against the obedience to Kings and Princes by which he founde it very inconuenient for him to tarie so long in the Towne whether he came not at the first willingly For these respects they resolued eftsones to returne to the Lord of Neuers and also to tel him that séeing doctor Sainctes who might haue taried and drawne to him in Vigors place some other at his plesure was departed without any aduertisement of his returne there was also no reason of their abode stil as wel in respect of the incertaintie of their businesse as also that their Churches had neede of them for the exercise of their charge as they desired notwithstaÌ„ding in the end they yelded to their propre incommoditie as to remaine there vntil the Lord of Neuers parted from Paris which shuld be vpon the ende of August being minded then to go to a Lordship of his called Conlomiers for then hauing neither the presence of the Lord of Neuers nor the company of the Doctors the Ministers were at a gaze as hauing nothing to doe nor any man to dispute withall Vpon these declarations the Lorde of Neuers deliuered them their pasport in wryting signed Lodouico de Gonzague with promisse to send vnto them the Answer of the Doctors that by the meane of the Lord de Buci S. Georg who vndertoke the charge of the businesse The Ministers for their parts promised also to be ready to returne to Paris either els to Answer from the place where they should remaine as often as the Doctors would wryte This businesse being thus setled the Ministers departed immediatly with expectation of some spéedie newes froÌ„ the Doctors from whom as yet they haue hard neither argumeÌ„t nor effect only they haue hard that thorow the citie of Paris there hathe bene publike sale of certaine wrytings within whose titles is included this woord of conference as to make séeme to the worlde that they contained matter touching the former disputations this policie was not without great profite to the Printers so vehemente was the desire of men to knowe the truthe for whose satisfying and contentment we thought good to spred abrode the matter as it passed in déede reseruing till an other time to publish that which the doctors would wryte against it if they will wryte at all and also the Ministers Answeres which shall neuer faile In the meane while let euery one make his profite of the present Contentes with prayer to the Father of all lighte to poure more and more the cleare lighte of his spirite vpon his Church in the true vnderstanding of his holy woorde for the restoring and aduauncement of the spirituall kingdom of Iesus Christe his Sonne our Lorde FINIS 2. Tim. 3. 2 Pet. Rom. 15. Iames 1. Luke 16. Luke 2. Sorbonae a College of Papists in Paris Cap. 7.18 Rom. 12.6 Cap 59. 21. Deut. 28. Rom. 8.9 Chap. 2.20.27 1. Tim 3 15 Psal. 30. Chap. 13. Hebrues 13. Rom. 10. Hebr. 11. Rom. 10. Iohn 24. Luk. 24. Hebr 12. Iohn 8. 1. Timo. 2 Hebr. 6. Actor 12. Actor 5. Luke 24 Lib. 4. Cap. 17. Sect. 29. Hebr. 4.14 Iohan. 12. Act. 7. King. 1.11 Iohn 6. Ephe. 2. Psal. 7.5.2.8 1. Cor. 15. 2. Cor. 6. 1. Cor. 1. Iohn 14 Ephe. 3. Iohn 17. 1. Cor. 4.13 Rom. 10. Iohn 6. 1. Cor. 10. Math. 26. 1. Cor. 11. Gene. 17. Exod. 12. Tit. 3. epist. â—3 â— Corrin 1. Cor. 1. In a Sermon of the supper Chap. 16. Hom. 17. epist. 29. Agaynst Faustine 1. Cor. 11. Sermo 3. ad Ephesi
conteined comparison of two Reuelations of the spirite the one made to the body and the other to the members which they maintaine to be of equal value touching the certaintie and in the confession is mention made of the Reuelation of Gods spirite which causeth the consent of the Churche which foloweth thereof as the effecte And if it be so that the cause being preferred afore his effect there is greate reason that the Reuelation of the spirite of God compared with the consent of the Churche should be preferred afore it as the cause to the effect which it produceth And touching the cōtrarietie which they pretend in Confessions Printed in diuers seasons and by sundrie Printers they shall be Aunswered when their pleasure is to debate the Articles particularly Question Where they made a doubt of the true Church euen the like may be said of the Reuelations pretēded of Gods spirit to particular men whom also we may dout whether they be members of the Church or not Touching the other point where they denie to impugne the fourthe Article of their Confession there séemes no small contradiction as comparing the particular Reuelation with the consent of the church as appeareth by their Aunswere it séemes also to serue to small purpose where they alledge the Reuelation to be the cause of the consent preferring it afore the same as the cause afore the effecte the same séeming as who should say the Reuelation is to be preferred afore the word of God and holy scripture for it is moste certaine that the Reuelation goeth before the woorde and scripture And as it appeares in the texte of the Confession which may be easily iudged the Authors of the same speake of the certaintie and infallibilitie of two Reuelations as holding themselues more assured of that they haue in their spirite than that which is of the iudgemēt of the churche Touching the other pointe that particulare men may sometimes faile when Gods spirite leaues them we may conclude by that we ought not to rest infallibly vpon the inspirations pretended of particulare men bicause it may be douted whether they be forsaken of Gods spirite or not which we can not do of the Church therefore it is more assured to stay vpon the Churche infallibly gouerned by the holy spirite than vpon the priuate pretended inspirations which the Catholikes do not folowing their priuate iudgement and therfore can not be estéemed fantastike but rather such are guiltie of that name who prefer their proper iudgement which they couer with the title of particulare inspiration The Doctors require a texte of the Scripture by the which the holy spirite is promised to euery particulare person as to the vniuersal church therby to know how to iudge and discerne what be the scriptures Aunsvvere Touching the first pointe as in déede we do not approue all churches to be true which are so said euen so we allowe not for faithfull suche as vaunt them selues to be so For the second the comparison of the Doctoures is improper in this pointe as who should say the Reuelation is to be preferred afore the woorde of god c. Bicause Gods worde and all the writings aswel of the Prophetes as Apostles are as so many Reuelations of Gods spirite and that betweene the one and the other there is no more difference than betweene genus and species Touching the Article that the Reuelation goeth before the scripture we muste distinguishe betwéene the Reuelations made to the Prophets before they committed them to writing and those which are made to them that read their writings to vnderstande them For the first we confesse they goe before the scripture and for the seconde we say they folowe it Touching the third Article the ministers Aunswere that it is easie to iudge whether Gods spirite assist a particulare man or whether he be drawne from him by the matters he propoundes when they be conferred with Gods woorde and censured by the rules of the same as is saide Touching their demaunde it were a long and weary encomber to alleage all the places where it is written that Gods spirite is communicated to the chosen the better to knowe and discerne the things that are of God in Esay 5◠the Lord promiseth to poure his spirite vppon the faithfull as water vpon the earthe Likewise in Ioel. 2 Ieremie 34. in the first Catholike of S. Iohn 2. vnder the name of vnction and many other places Obiection These places make no proofe at all that the spirite was promised to all to iudge of the Doctrine Other wayes euen women and all artificers that were faithfull mighte iudge of the Doctrine as the Prophetes and Apostles of the contrary S. Paule saithe Numquid omnes Propheta c. He saithe expressely that discretion of Spirites is to haue vnderstanding of the scriptures and be giftes not common to all the faithfull but particulare to some Aunswere The consequence which the Doctors make is nothing woorthe bicause Gods spirite oftentimes is communicated more aboundantly to some than to others and that also some be better exercised in the scriptures than others Touching the place of S. Paule 1. Corinth 12. the ministers say it makes nothing against them bicause the spirite of Prophecie and the spirite of discretion be giftes differing as appeares by the discourse of the Apostle in the same Chapter The second day of disputation being VVednesday the tenth of Iuly THe Doctors required that their Protestation made the day before might be Inregistred which was this that they would not enter into disputation of things receiued into the vniuersall Churche since the Apostles till our time decided and already determined by the holy Councels Ecumenike and general holding them most certaine and vndouted and that all Doctrine to the contrary was false Onely they were ready according to the holy desire of the Lorde Montpensier and the Ladie of Buillon his daughter to make knowne by the expresse woorde of God interpreted by the saide vniuersall Churche and Councels that their Doctrine is holy and conducible to saluation in which Doctrine as the saide Ladie had bene first instructed so all instruction ministred to her in the contrary is hurtful and damnable And lastly that this conference might be in manner of instruction and not a Disputation In like sorte the Ministers protested that they did not ioyne in assemblie with the Doctoures for any doubte they had that all that was centained in their Confession of faith was not certaine and true and grounded vpon Gods woord as appeareth by the places of Scripture noted in the Margent of the sayde Confession beléeuing that what so euer is contrary is damnable and to be reiected thoughe euen an Aungell of heauen would propone it And touching themselues they came not thither to be instructed in other Doctrine than that which they folowe and which they haue learned of Iesus Christe whome they acknowledge as the only maister and teacher of the churche Héere the Lorde of