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
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
place Touching the fourth and fifth Articles to know whether the Ministers haue imposed any vntruth vpon the Doctors they send the Readers to the actes of the former conference as also to learne in what sense and to what ende the Ministers haue alleaged the Ancients which they may more easily perceiue by the reading and diligent obseruation of theire places and sentences there inferred Touching the sixth Article wherin the Doctours had rather confesse their Canons to be false than in deferring the authoritie of the same to auowe the body of Iesus Christ to be true and being true that it is necessary that it be in one certaine place the Ministers answere that by the obseruation of S. Augustines place from whence is taken the saide Canon it is easie to iudge that the terme Oportet is muche more conuenient there than this woorde Potest To the eighth Article the Ministers answere that a substance without quantitie neither is or can be any waie a body whilest it is and remaines so and the reason is bicause they are twoo diuers predicaments that of the substance that of the quantitie vnder the which one selfe thing for one selfe respecte cannot be in any sorte comprehended Besides Christe alleageth no other reason to declare his body was not a sprite but that he had members and partes which bicause of their measures mighte be handled and touched Wherupon it foloweth that without that a substance can not be a body And touching the difference that shuld rest according to the opinion of the Doctors betwéene our soules and bodies exempt from quātitie if the same were possible we say that albeit they were substaunces different bothe in number and species yet they shuld be like touching genus and that bothe the one and other should be contained vnder the kinde of substance not corpored The ministers passe ouer the ninthe Article as a matter but of repeticion of woordes and sufficiently aunswered alreadie Touching the tenth Article we say in the first place that the consequence whereof there is Question can not otherwayes be defended by the Doctoures than by the rule that saithe of one absurditie may be inferred all things we complaine bisides of the time which the Doctoures make vs lose in the reading of so many matters already aunswered and which seeme so often repeated by them for none other ende than to fill paper and persuade the world that they do something For in the first place the Euangelist saithe not as the Doctoures pretend that Christe entred not by the shutte doores but only that he came the doores being shutte so that he speakes not there in any sort of the manner of his entrie nor how the doores were opened nor yet of any other parte of the house by the which he entred And as al the sayings of the doctors cannot be founded neither on the scripture nor any authoritie of the Auncients by them alleaged who stand rather againste than with them So for conclusion they haue no other ground of their opinion than their singulare coniectures and imaginations wyth sinister interpreting the wrytings of the Auncients to whose Faith they would constraine and assubiect the Church to the ende that hauing laid this foundation they may builde afterwardes thereupon all their absurdities and erroures which they meane to deduce And where they presupposed that when Iesus entred the doores shut when he walked vpon the waters and came out of his graue those miracles were done rather in his person than in other things Iustine wrytes the contrary that without any mutation happening in his body nor in the body of S. Peter he brought to passe by his diuine vertue that the Sea againste his nature serued him as a way As also S. Hillarie saith to the same respecte that by his power he did all things passible with whom S. Iohn Chrysostome consents as attributing all that to a power Diuine and confessing frankely that he was ignorant of the manner and fashion thereof By meane wherof the Ministers maruell much of the presumption of the Doctors to offer to determine a thing left indecided by the scripture the Auncients and touching the which according to the wise opinion of S. Hillarie bothe the sense and the woorde do faile and the truthe of the facte excéedes the capacitie of humaine reason How then dare the Doctors say so impudently that Christes body passed thorowe the doores that there was penetration of Dimensions and that two bodies were in one place séeing that of all this there is not one only sillable either in the scripture or witnessed by the Auncientes who confesse as is saide that their vnderstandinge and senses were to weake to comprehend or declare the reason of suche a Misterie Touching the birthe of Iesus Christe the ministers stand vpō the scripture whose cleare opinion is that the virgin was bigge bellied shée broughte foorthe and was deliuered shée gaue sucke and that in the deliuery aperta est vulua And yet dothe none of all this derogate or preiudice the state of hir Virginitie or integritie the same consisting in thys one pointe that shée neither knewe nor was knowne of any man. Wée say moreouer that in beléeuing this we folowe the scripture and by consequence can not erre nor be Heretikes neither likewise any other that assubiecte their sense to Gods woorde as the Auncientes by vs alleaged haue done in this In the Article folowing proponed by the Doctoures touching the manner of Christes Resurrection it containes nothing but coniectures and reproches with superfluous and weary repeticions which we haue already satisfied at the full by our former Aunsweres And what so euer folowes after in the writings of the Doctoures are but wrongs and iniuries in place of reasons and argumentes the same being the laste shifte of contencious wittes who being destitute of reason and not able to yelde to truthe defende themselues with clamoures and sinister impositions The Doctoures had some reason in their interpretation of the woorde Aphantos if there folowed autois but the Euangeliste saithe apantoin shewing clearely that the interpretation of the said place and vnderstanding of S. Ambrose in which the ministers do settle is better than the exposition of the Doctoures Touching the opening of the Heauens we Aunswer that they coulde not faile vsing the phrase of the Scripture who saithe clearely that at the Baptisme of Iesus Christe the Heauens were deuided and open when S. Stephen was stoned And as we take it for an imagination of man to applie to the aire the signification of the Heauen So we thinke it should be to diminishe the maiestie of God and Iesus Christ raised aboue all the Heauens to establishe the throne of his Maiestie so lowe as in the aire Neither is there any resemblaunce or likelihoode in the saying of the Doctoures touching the being of two bodyes in one place and the persuasion of the Ministers of the sighte of S. Stephen which stretched euen to the Heauens
to pray to God in their beginning as they had desired were not taken awaye meanes for good order established the better to brydle the confusion of popular showtes and voyces as happen ordinarily in the Schooles of Sophisters and people inclyned to cauell Thys spéeche of the Lord Admirall kindled such a sense of reason in the Lorde of Neuers that induced chiefly by the spirite of God and partly by an heroycall instinct of heart laboring in desire to aspire to the direct truth of things hée became a sutor to their Maiesties that by their authoritie and suffraunce the sayde disputation might procéede and be eftsoones restored wherein as he preuayled to the full effect of his request and purpose so after he had ymparted wyth the Lorde Admirall the disposition of the King and Quéene they ioyned in deuise touching the order to be obserued in the sayd conference naming the sayde Lorde of Neuers and the Duke of Buyllon as Presidents of the place wyth certaine numbers of Gentlemen mutuall assistauntes to recorde and witnesse the manner of their procéedings prouyding lastly two Notaries of Parys for eyther side to subsigne and set downe in wryting the true discourse of eyther seuerall parties These condicions thus determined by the Lordes were also receyued of the Doctors Vigor and De sainctes for the Papistes and De spina and Sureau Ministers Assembling according to the appointment the ninth of Iuly at the Lorde of Neuers house where in hys presence and hearing of the reast of the assistants after the Ministers had prayed which the Doctors did shonne as retyring elsewhere till they had done Doctor Vigor vndertooke the first spéeche with protestation that neyther he nor his companion came thyther to enter argument with the Ministers in any néede or meaning to be instructed in pointes of religion and much lesse to impugne in any sort the counsels and specially that of Trent by which they were forbidden to dispute with Heretikes Assuring resolutely for themselues to abyde constantly in the fayth of the Church of Rome onely such was the request of the Lorde of Montpensier who to reclaime his daughter the Lady of Buyllon had procured that conference as they were the rather drawne thyther aswell to satisfie hym as also to declare their holy zeale to séeke and bring agayne to their flock such as were gone astray The Ministers for their partes protested lykewise not to be enforced to conference by any doubt they made in anye article of their confession as knowing the same to consent simplie and fully with the perfite worde of God but rather to strengthen and defende it agaynst the Sophistries of such as séeke to impugne it pretending also to kéepe and establish the sayde vertuous Ladie of Buyllon in that state and holye institution which Gods grace had happily instilled into hir These protestations thus mutually alledged the Ministers looked that the Doctors according to the meaning of the Lorde of Montpensier and desire of his daughter woulde beginne their disputation with the matter of the supper and the Masse albeit vsing the example and pollicy of such as pretending the siege and batterie of a towne beginne to raise their Trenches a farre off so they the better to prepare themselues to decyde and consult in the sayde two poyntes began to lay their foundation by the authoritie of the church vpon the which they sought to establishe the certaintie of the articles of fayth and generally of all the holye scripture And so the demaundes and obiections passing from the Doctors and aunswers returned by the Ministers De sainctes began and Despina aunswered as followeth Question Vpon what doe you establishe your religion Aunswere Vpon Gods worde Question What vnderstande or meane you by Gods worde Aunswere The wrytings of the Prophets and Apostles Question Doe ye receyue by their wrytinges all the bookes of the Byble as well of the olde as newe Testament gyuing to them all an equall authoritie Aunswere No but according to the instruction of antiquitie we vse distinction betwéene the Canonical and Apocryphall bookes calling such canonicall vpon whose doctrine both faith and all christian religion is founded and the other we name apocryphall as vpon whose authoritie we cannot establishe any article of fayth onely they are proper in respect of their notable sentences to instruct the state of lyfe and maners of christians Question Howe know you that the one are canonicall and the other apocryphall Aunswere By the spirite of God which is a spirite of discretion gyuing lyght to all such to whom it is communicated to make them capable of power to iudge discerne spirituall things and comprehende the truth when it is propounded to them by the testimonie and assuraunce which he kindles in their hearts wherein as we discerne the light and darkenesse by the facultie of the sight that is in our eye euen so being furnished with Gods spirite and guyded by the lyght which he kindles in our hartes may we easily deuyde and knowe the truth from deceyt and generally all other thinges which may contayne falshoode absurditie doubt or difference Question But some may vaunt to haue the spirite of God which haue him not lyke as we finde by the hystories that all the heretikes thought assuredly to haue the truth on their sides studying to authorize their doctrine by the inwarde reuelations which they fayned to receyue of Gods spirite by which may appeare what daunger it were to reappose or commyt the censure of a booke or doctrine to the testimonie of Gods spirite which a priuate man perswades or faynes to haue receyued in his hart Aunswere This perill is easily auoyded by the aduise of the Euangelist Iohn in his first Catholike as not to settle an indifferent beliefe to al spirites but rather to prooue and examine them diligently afore we admit them and then allow what they propownde wherein the examination which we ought to make in thys case is to consider first the ende of the doctrine that shall be pronounced purpose of any booke presented to vs For if it tende to rayse and establishe the glorie of God it is true according to the woordes of Iesus Christ in Iohn hee that searcheth Gods glorie is true and there is no iniustice in him in this viewe and examination we haue also to consider that if it consent with the proportion and analogie of fayth as Paule sayth it agrées fully with the chiefe groundes of religion Question All men say and may saye as much but for this reason it is an argument insufficient tyll I be warranted by effect and other proofes how I may rest and stay my selfe vppon it Besides this aunswere excéedes the lymites of the proposition as presupposing the scripture to be knowne to be the grounde of religion and the proposition was layde to giue the reason to assure me that the scripture was of God and that we must put a distinction betwéene the bookes of the same Aunswere
It is easie to iudge whether the ende of the doctrine which is propownded stretch to establishe and exalt the honor and glorie of God as if the same mooue exhortations to men to withdrawe whollie their trust from creatures and reappose and lay it altogyther vpon God to haue recourse to hym in their necessities to depende vpon his prouidence in all their transitorie affayres and lastly to prayse hym with thankesgyuing for all the benefits they haue which being presupposed there is no doubt that the doctrine including this purpose and ende is not good and to be receyued touching the obiection that our former aunswere fell from the boundes of the first proposition it séemes not so bicause the first matter propownded tended to knowe what was the grounde of our religion to the which it was aunswered that it was the wrytings of the Prophets and Apostles Question This aunswere is common to the Lutherans and Anabaptistes yea and to the Deistes who aboue the reast professe to searche the glorie of God and what else the aunswere conteynes and generally all men vsing this spéech coulde not but erre in all the articles of the Créede except the first But to cut of this circumstance of spéeche and returne to the point we thinke it not lawfull to vse a foundation of the scripture afore it be knowne and assured that it is the holye scripture and that there is difference betwéene the bookes of the same and also afore it be manifest that I haue a particuler inspiration of the holye spirite and that such a priuate breathing of the holy ghost be a sufficient ground of religion Aunswere The Deistes or other heretikes can not serue their turne with the sayde aunswere for the confirmation of their errors bicause the Deistes denying Iesus Christ can not glorifie God seing that to glorifie the father it is néedefull first to knowe and glorifie the sonne and euen so the other heretikes who notknowing the truth nor by consequent Iesus Christ whichis the waye the lyfe and the truth muste néedes be ignoraunt of God and howe to glorifie hym And where our aunswere is noted superfluous or to wander indecently we lay our selues to be measured and iudged by the conference of the demaunde and aunswere And touching the last point of the obiection that the reuelation which a priuate man sayth he hath of the spirite of God is to hym as a grounde of religion that is without the sense wordes of our aunswere which stretched onely to laye the foundation of true religion vpon the doctrine of the Prophetes and Apostles of whose truth all the church generally and euerie particuler member of the same are assured by the testimonie and inwarde reuelation of the spirite of God. Question All that is here spoken must be added to the other aunswere afore it be good and it séemes that the aunswere contaynes but matter of mockerie For it is most certaine that when all truth is in the doctrine of one man he is no more wicked or an heretike But we search still the beginning of truth and what it ought to be And touching the replye denying that the particuler reuelation is the ground of religion there is no great difference For if the particuler reuelation be a sufficient grounde for euery one to know that which is of the Apostles and Prophets it is by consequent the foundation of religion as being the grounde to know vpon what euerie particuler man knoweth and sayth his religion is founded Aunswere We framed our aunsweres according to the nature and maner of the demaunds by which appeares no likelihoode of disposition to scoffe or iest séeing that in such a conference as this is where is question to searche the honor and glory of God mockerie could not be without impietie But touching reuelation to be like to the scripture which is the grounde of religion we denie it and affirme them to be things different notwithstanding their coniunction as following one an other according as it is written in Esay Beholde my allyance with them sayth the Lorde my spirite which is in thee the wordes which I haue breathed into thy mouth shall not depart out of thy lippes nor from the mouth of thy seede and so as followeth by which maye be iudged the distinction that the Prophet vseth betwéene the reuelation of the holy spirite and the worde Question I leaue for conclusion of this conference euerye one to iudge of the conueniencie or agréement of the aunsweres and obiections And touching the wordes alledged out of Esay of the vnitie of the worde and holy spirite they be but spéeches without purpose and newe matter neyther ought we to compare the reuelation of euerye particuler man which was the question with that of the Prophet Esay who had the other proofes that the holy ghost spake by him and made demonstration thereof many times Lastly what soeuer is alledged I leaue to the iudgement of euerye christian Aunswere Euen so also we referre to iudgement what hath béene inferred mutuallie of the one other part And touching the place of Esay which we produced there is no question at all of the reuelation of the Prophet nor the spirite that was communicated to hym but onely of the spirite and wordes which God promised to all his people with whome he entred his alliance For the other proofes pretended that the Prophete had of his vocation we make no doubt at all of them onely we protest that to be principall and most assured which he had by the testimonie of Gods spirite as appeareth in the sixt Chapter of his prophecie Question Be it that he spake to his people by the person of Esay yet it followes not but that he spake first to Esay neyther doe I denie that he promised not his spirite to his people meaning to his vniuersall Church not that he would that euery one yea being in thys church might vsurpe or vaunt to haue this spirite promised particulerly And touching the particuler inspiration of Esay it was not founded onely on his fancie and presumption but in the assuraunce which God gaue him in supernaturall woorkes as is witnessed in hys sixt chapter Besides it was not sufficiently grounded to be beléeued as to haue an inspiration if he had not declared it by other effects and prophesies which hapned as belonges to euerie Prophete to doe afore he beléeued But referring all these things as matters fetched from farre and out of the first proposition I leaue the iudgement as before Aunswere There is not one of the church if he be a true member of the same to whome the spirite of God is not communicated according to the testimonie of the Apostle Paule and also the Euangelist Iohn in his first Catholike For the presumption pretended there is great difference betwéene presumption and the imaginations of the spirite of man which is but darknesse and of himselfe knoweth nothing in the things of God and the
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
Booke of the Holye Ghoste Chapter 22. whose opinion is that the Aungell whiche appeared to Cornelius was not in the selfe place where Philip was and he whiche of the Aultare spake to Zacharie did not furnishe at the same time he spake to him his Seate and place in Heauen But the Holy Ghoste is in Abacuc and Daniell in Babylon and in Ezechiell vppon the Floudde of Chobar for the Sprite of God replenisheth the Earthe wherein the Prophete crying saithe Whither shall I goe to hide me from thy Sprite where shall I flée to decline from thy face And Dydimus confirming this in his Booke whiche he hathe written of the Holy Ghoste makes this question If saithe he the Sprite of God were a Creature he shoulde haue his substaunce circumscripte and limited as haue all other Creatures whiche are made and created So that as it is that Goddes Sprite replenishes the worlde and is not circumscripte in any place nor lymited so it followeth thereupon that he is God. Vigilius in his Disputation whiche he wrote betwéene Sabellius Photius Arius and Athanasius vnder the personne of Athanasius writes in this sorte By this it maye chiefely appeare that the Sprite of God is God that he is euery where and not conteined in any place as the Prophete writes whither maye I withdrawe my selfe to hide me from thy Sprite By these places wée maye conclude that if a Bodye be not circumscripte termined and closed within certaine lymittes he coulde not be a Creature whiche oughte not only to be vnderstande by other Bodyes but also euen by Iesus Christe as appeareth by Theodorete in his seconde Dialogue saying then the Body of the Lorde is risen againe exempte from all corruption impassible and immortal decked with Diuine glorie adored woorshipped with the Celestial powers And yet albeit he be in this sort qualified he leaues not for all that to be circumscript as he was afore he was glorified whereof it foloweth that being true Body Creature he cannot at one instante be in sundry places Touching their allegations that the examples aforesaide apperteine nothing to the questiō proponed bicause it stretcheth not but to know if God may change the qualities into a Substance the substance remaining The Ministers deny it bicause in the Question there is mention of a Bodye whiche cannot be without his Measures And the measures and Dimensions be not as Qualities and Accidentes which may come to a Body and departe from it without that it be corrupted which is the nature condition of Accidents but they are of their proper Essence so that it is impossible that a Body be a Body but that he be measured circumscripte The first example they produce to confirme their saying is that it may happē that a weighty thing which naturally in respect of his heauinesse enclines downward may be raised on high wherunto the Ministers answere that the same may be in déede by a violēt mouing but this example is nothing pertinent to reuerse that which they haue said bicause such things conteine no contradiction in themselues neither are they contrary to the essence of the thing where they happen for a stone which a man throwes on highe leaues not for al that to be a stone like as also by the same mouing it is not depriued of his weightinesse Touching the Example of the Fire they aunswere that there is one selfe reason bothe of lighte and heauie things and that without any corruption of their Essence their naturall mouings maie be chaunged by force and violence donne to them Touching their allegation of the fire which contrary to his nature that is to skorche and burne refreshed the three Iewes in the Furnace of Babylon they aunswere that the fire for all that was in nothing altered neither touching his Essence nor in respecte of his qualities Whereof the proofe fell oute in that it sparing the sayde thrée Children burnte and consumed the Tormentoures or suche as had office to dresse it By whiche maye be well alleaged that why it did not offende them procéeded not for that his nature or qualitie were in any thing chaunged but onely bicause his action was suspended And where they alleage that two Bodies may be at once in one place prouing the same by that whiche is written in S. Iohn that Christe entred where his Disciples were the doores being shutte The Ministers aunswere that it is not so in the Texte but that the Disciples being assembled in one place Iesus Christe stoode and appeared in the middest of them By which it cannot be inferred that he entred the place where they were without opening the doores nor that he did pearce or penetrate them to make his entrie And it is no lesse likely true that they were open and shutte againe than the doores whiche the Aungell opened shutte againe when he was sente to deliuer S. Peter out of Prison and when he was likewise sente for the deliuery of the Apostles And where they bring in a grosse Body passing throughe a straite place alleaging the example of a Cable throughe the hole of a Néedle the Ministers finde it alleaged to euill pourpose as an argumente founded vppon a thing impossible and saye further that the Doctours haue euill vnderstande the tearme of Camelos whiche is vsurped in the Scripture not for a Cable but for a Camell As is manifeste inoughe to those that are but slenderly exercised in the antiquities of the Hebrewes and as appeareth by the opinion of Angelius Caninius vppon the ende of his Chaldey Grammer Touching the conclusion whiche the Doctors drawe of the former examples it is to euil pourpose and grounded vppon the Antecedentes and premisses which they bring in presupposed and neither as yet confessed by vs nor wil not be in the sense wherein they alleage them for the reasons héere afore declared Touching that which they say against the opinion of the Ministers that one body at one instante can not be in two places yea were it the body of Iesus Christ and that it was neuer written by any the Auncientes nor proponed afore the comming of Peter Martyr and Theodore de Beza the Ministers mainteine it was aduouched afore their time as S. Augustine in his Epistle written to Dardanus vsing these termes According to this fourme saith he meaning the corporall fourme of Iesus Christ we must not thinke that it is euery where as also we must vse good héede that in establishing to him his Diuinitie we take not from him the truthe of his bodie And in an other place he saith that by reason of the nature and measure of his body he is in one place of heauen Theodoretus vsing the selfe same spéeche or Phrase in his seconde Dialogue as hathe béene alleaged heere before Like as also Vigilius in his fourthe Booke against Eutiches vseth this Question if it be but a Nature of the Worde and the Fleshe howe comes it that the Fleshe is not in euery place
be broughte in by Caluin and his like to eschue confession that God is able to bring to passe that one body be in diuerse places and yet the proper text of the Scripture witnesseth that two bodyes may be by the power of God in one selfe place as also that one bodye hauing colour and afore visible by Goddes power is made inuisible without any let to the eies of suche as may sée the same being confirmed by S. Luke saying Aphantos egeneto apanton I nuisibilis factus est ab ipsis notwithstanding there were no more leâ—te of the parte of the Disciples For it is saide afore that theire eies were opened to know him Whereunto all antiquitie consentes The Doctours adde to confirme the penetration of the dimensions an other acte that our Lord mounted to the Heauens which he did neither diuide nor rent and therfore it must needes be that he penetrated them as the Scripture beares in proper termes The Doctoures signifie to the saide Ministers that they cannot produce one onely Anciente of sounde renowme hauing expounded these places of whom thei may learne their so many diuerse interpretations neither dothe it serue to colour their exposition the texte alleaged of the Actes of the Apostles where S. Peter went out of prison in which place is no speach at al of opening the doores of the said prison neither is it saide as in S. Iohn that the doores of the prison being shut S Peter came foorth but that the Aungell arriued there when the Garde before the doore watched the prison where they saye the doores were open to S. Peter it agreeth not with the opinion of S. Iohn that the doores were shutte when our Lorde entred The like reason alleaged by the saide Ministers of the fifth of the Actes is vnprofitable to this purpose aswell as the firste and for the same cause And to shewe clearely and euidentely that againste the naturall propertie of Bodyes God can make that a greate and grosse Bodye maye passe into a space and place inequall to his greatenesse largenesse and thickenesse The Doctoures haue recited that whiche our Lorde saithe in S. Mathewe 19. It is more easie that a Cable enter the eie of a Néedle than a Riche man into the Kingdome of Heauen whereunto the Ministers haue aunswered two things The one that in the inuolution we must not turne Cable but rather Camel notwithstanding their own french Bible of the impression of Antony Kebul which they haue brought conteineth the versioÌ„ of this word Cable like as also Caluin in his Harmony of the foure Euangelists saith it is the better Wherein may be séene and founde true that which Tertullian inueigheth againste the Valentinians and Irenaeus againste him in the firste Booke Chap. 14. that suche as are separated from vs to putte themselues in an other schoole deuise alwayes some new thing to the end the Disciples may be founde more able than the Maisters But be it that the woorde of Camel is graunted to them which the Doctoures doubte not hathe bene expounded by S. Hilarie S. Ierome others the reason is yet stronger For it is more vnlikely and repugnante that a crooked Camel grosse and greate enter the hole of a Néedle than a Cable The other reason giuen by the Ministers is that God maye bring to passe that a Camell or Cable enter the eie of a Néedle whiche is notwithstanding againste the pure woorde of Iesus Christe whiche saith It is not impossible to God to doo it but rather easie and by comparison more easie to God than to make a Riche man enter into the Kingdome of Heauen whiche our Lorde saithe notwithstanding to be possible not to men but to God to whom nothing is impossible whereupon the doctours saie that if God can doo that whiche is moste harde he maye doo that whiche is moste easie The texte of the Scripture importes that God may bring to passe that a rich man enter into the Kingdome of Heauen whiche is moste harde then he maye bring to passe that a Camell or Cable enter the eie of a Needle whiche is more easie The aunsweres of the Ministers here before confuted tend to these absurdities and blasphemies that Iesus Christ by his Omnipotencie could not enter throughe the doores being shutte that he coulde not issue out of the wombe of his Mother through her body without breaking that he could nor bring to passe that a body visible should be inuisible that a body greate and grosse coulde be in a place inequal to himselfe that he could by his Diuine power make penetration of the Dimensions and that he maye bring to passe by the same power Diuine that one body be in two places for it is al one reason of this laste Article and the others albeit such things are declared in the Scripture not onely possible but that the moste parte haue bene done And the Doctoures doe much maruell how the Ministers dare denie this séeing themselues must necessarily confesse if the Doctrine of the Supper which they giue be true that the bodye of Iesus Christe is in diuers places which they proue thus The faithfull receiue in their soules Really the substance of the body and bloud of Iesus Christe by the operation of the holy Ghost and not onely the bread and wine or the effecte and vertue of the same Sacrament as Calume saithe in his institutions lib. 4. cap. 17. sect 11. The Doctoures conclude thus it is impossible that a person receiue the substance of the body of Iesus Christ in himself but that the body of Iesus Christe must be in him All the Faithfull which be at the Supper receiue him in their soules so that it muste néedes be that the body of Iesus Christe be in them and by consequence in diuers places as euery where where their Supper is made and likewise in Heauen They say further that Caluine in his Institutions lib. 4. cap. 17. sect 24. mainteines that in the Supper the power of God is requisite to the ende the Fleshe of Iesus Christe penetrate into vs and that humaine nature can not comprehende that but néedes must Gods power woorke in it By which meane Caluine puttes by the power of God the Fleshe of Iesus Christe in many places as bothe in heauen and vs into whom he must penetrate by the power of God And in the .10 number he saithe that the truthe signified and represented by signes muste be represented and exhibited in the very place where the signes be which he proues by reason in many places that is that the signes must not be voide no more than the pilloure was voide of the holy spirite But euen as the essence and substance of the holy Ghoste was conioyned and present with the pilloure euen so that the Fleshe and Bloud of our Lord afore there was true Sacrament must néedes be knitte and vnited with the signes The places be against Heshusius and in his Booke of the Supper
one Body to be in diuerse places the Ministers vsed no other reason to withstande it than that al this was contrary to the Order established in the worlde touching the nature of the Bodye which as it cannot be vnderstande but of the common order wée sée in nature so the Doctoures haue therefore broughte in againste them that God cannot doo a myracle contrary to the order established in the worlde taking it as the Ministers haue declared in their former answeres against the order of nature as knowing for our partes that the Ancients obserued not this difference aboue nature or contrary to nature which appeareth by Tertullian heretofore alleaged where is saide that God can bring to passe contrary to nature that a man flée aswell as a byrde But wee wil not stay vppon rigour of woordes but apply to the Ministers with whom wée conferre who cal a woorke against the order established in the world a body to be in diuers places bicause it impugnes the common disposition and property of bodyes by which reason the Doctours holde that al other myracles ought also to be accompted contrary to the order established in the worlde bicause they are against the common disposition and property of nature And folowing stil the vnderstanding which the Ministers now giue of the order established in the world for the estate and disposition which God hath appointed conserues enterteines al things by his eternal prouidence and immoueable wil to guide al things directly and prouide that no confusion happen in his woorkes Here the Ministers committe eftsoones a new blasphemy against Gods Omnipotency for he may wholy chaunge alter destroy such order as he hath established in the world albeit he wil neuer doo it and raise a new world more perfecte than this And if it were so that he could doo nothing contrary to this order his power were terminable and limited for he coulde not doo but certaine effectes according to the order which he had established in the worlde which should happen not by the repugnancy of the Creatures but bicause God shoulde binde euen his owne handes And so contrary to the Scripture his hande should be shortened and his power restrained and lymited from which blasphemy flowe infinite others as shal be well declared by vs vpon occasion and due oportunitie Touching the seconde and thirde Blasphemies noted by the Doctours the Ministers say they haue satisfied in one woorde by a newe interpretation of the order of the world whiche fals oute nothing to pourpose to dissolue the Arguments produced by the Doctours And the Ministers passe ouer the places of Scripture alleaged which open the Blasphemy and dissemble the contradiction of the Doctrine with Caluines opnion touching Gods prouidence in the order established in the world like as also they spare to answere our obiection that from the third Blasphemy many others doo flowe fearing least in confessing them they heape not blasphemy vpon blasphemy by that meane make their Doctrine hateful to al the world To aunswere the fourth Blasphemy the Ministers vse a distinction of the Will of God whiche may be considered in twoo sortes the first is called Wil knowne by signes and the other a will of his good pleasure According to the firste they confesse that God can doo more than he wil and not according to the seconde which is as they say equall with the power of God and hid and vnknowne to men which distinction if it ought to haue place we say that the fundation vpon which they fixe the truth pretended of this proposition God cannot bring to passe that one body be in diuerse places is wholy reuersed For they will haue Goddes power measured according to his wil not according to the seconde which is hid from men so that it must néedes be according to the firste by which they confesse that God can doo more than he wil. By whiche it foloweth that their Rule which they haue giuen to measure the power of God is false for it cannot be measured by his wil séeing he can doo more than he will. The Doctours saye further that the Ministers ought not require them to proue that God would that one body were in twoo places to shewe that he could doo it for the Doctours would obiecte to them that to teache that God can doo any thing we muste not proue that afore he woulde doo it séeing that according to their confession God can doo more than he wil. Wée say further that séeing the wil of God appeares not to vs but by signes woords effectes and that the order established of God in the worlde according to his prouidence which the Ministers agrée withall is hid to men that the Ministers cannot affirme and shewe that God hath established such an order in the world that one body cannot be in diuers places for it behoued them to teache and instructe of such ordinaunce of God and declaration of his will. Many times they haue bene required to preferre onely one place of Scripture where such wil of God is manifest or where it is saide that he cannot bring to passe that one body be in diuerse places Touching the place of Tertullian wee leaue to euery directe iudgemente the vnderstanding of the same And as for Theodorete we finde him euil alleaged by the Ministers as woorking more against them than he aides them For wher he writes that we muste not say indeterminately that God can doo al things comprehending therein both good and euil in this he makes no restraint of Goddes Almightinesse but of the contrary he amplyfieth it bicause that not to be able to doo euil things is a vertue power as hath bene heretofore amply recited Where the Ministers require vs to shewe that God would that one Bodye be in diuerse places wée aunswere that they are twoo different questions if God can doo it and if he would doo it And séeing it maye be confessed of all Christians as in déede it ought to be that the power is in God it may be easie to proue the Will by the woorde of the Supper and the Ascension which they of the Religion pretended refourmed haue in custome to depraue and wreste by the impossibilitie which they faine to be in God to put one body in twoo places The Doctors leaue also to the iudgement of the Readers whether the ministers haue alleaged S. Augustine to pourpose or not like as concerning the quantitie whether it is essentiall to be a bodye or not wée neuer called it in doubte that it was not essentiall speaking of a bodye as the Philosophers doo In predicamento quantitati◠〈…〉 is to knowe if it be 〈…〉 certaine place 〈…〉 it is not 〈…〉 â—dy w◠〈…〉 d◠〈…〉 as that which they alleage to confirme that our Lorde is in a place aboue the Heauens is too friuolous séeing that by the same reason they might conclude that the Diuinitie shoulde be circumscripte And there be Aduerbes signifying place when
Article of the distinction of the willes of God the ministers mumble all togither vnderstanding nothing in the saide distinction no more than where they say that a body to be in two places is of the societie of those things which God hathe declared by his woorde that he can doe nothing againste them First there is question of gods omnipotencie which is referred to that which he can not to his essence that which is in himself as is to be all one wise good which things belong not to the omnipotencie but of the essence in him selfe Secondly what reason is there to conferre the being of one body in one place or to know whether God can make it to be in two or more places with the essence of God which is one incomprehensible c. séeing that such things being numbred appertain to the essence of God And to be able to make a body in many places belonges not proprely to him nor is referred to the same Thirdly the ministers say that God by his woorde hathe declared his will concerning that he was one which serues nothing to the present matter But pardoning them those follies how dare they compare with the essence of God that which is in contention of the being of one body in one or diuers places séeing God hath neuer sayd that he could not do it as he hath pronounced manifestly al the other perfections which appertaine to the diuine essence by which may be espied that it suffiseth the ministers to fill the paper withoute grounding their opinion vpon any substantiall reason Séeing they take for reproche when they haue any woord cutte of notwithstanding the sense remaine whole we maruell they feared not to receiue the like Obiections from vs as in the Article where is mention made of the definition of a body they conceale that which giues solution to their difficultie we defined a body to be a kinde of quantitie constant of thrée dimensions length largenesse and depth which definition comprehendes all the essence of a body which is of the predicament of quantitie neither is there mention made of the circumscription of place in any sorte the ministers say that by our definition we limite the body and therefore it is circumscripte but they haue left out this litle woorde place maliciouslie as is to be supposed For the question is not whether a body be limitted or not séeing no man saithe it is infinite But the Question lies whether it be circumscript of place essentiallie so that it cannot be a body if it be not in place wherin bicause they could not Aunswere to the argumente they haue cut of that which was against them The foure next Articles are woorthy of no newe Replie and therefore we sende the Readers to that which hath bene sayd before only it is a great matter that the ministers hold that a miracle can not be done in the bodye of Iesus Christe without chaunge of his nature imposing that opinion vppon Iustine who as well as other Auncientes hathe sayde and maintained that the body of Iesus Christe without chaunge of nature did passe thorowe the doores although the operation of the miracle was done in the nature of the bodye without chaunging it but in giuing it a qualitie and spiritual perfection aboue the natural qualities of a body that is suttelty With like boldnesse the ministers call the Scripture for the place of the Camell to passe thorowe the eie of a néedle a parable and similitude as they doe that of the supper and al others which resist their errors and to escape they say that God saues not the riche man if he be not chaunged and conuerted And so they say he can not bring to passe that a Camell passe thorowe the eie of a néedle withoute diminution and chaunge of his greatnesse But the ministers doe not admonishe that when oure Lord spake of the entrie of a Riche man into the kingdome of Heauen he put not the difficultie proprely in the entrie to the kingdome but in the conuersion of the Riche man whereby he may obtaine the entrie and possession of Heauen wherfore when our Lord sayth that it is more easie to God to make a Camell or Cable enter by the eye of a Néedle than a Riche man into the kingdome of heauen he meanes to compare the conuersion of a riche man which is impossible to men to the passage of a Camell being in his grosenesse otherwayes as there should be no likelihoode of difficultie so our Lorde would not say that suche a thing was impossible to men We say further that we haue not produced this place as to proue the penetration of dimensions proprely but to shew that God may bring to passe that a body occupie a place which shall not be proportioned to his greatnesse which is as muche againste the nature of grose and thicke bodies as that one body be in diuers places Where the ministers glory in that they are not constrained to confesse any thing of the doings of God alleaged oute of the scripture by the Doctors it foloweth not that the said Doctors haue broughte forthe vaine reasons to enforce and conuince them referring themselues to the Actes of the conference And touching to know if God could do such miracles alleaged aboue the nature of a body the ministers can not escape what euasion so euer they pretend that they are not coÌ„uinced to haue denyed as well the power as the fact though not openly yet at the least couertly For affirming that God can not bring to passe that one body be in diuers places bicause it dothe impugne the order he hathe established in the worlde his wisdome also and his will which dispose all by good order and that it was against the nature of the bodie if there may be as muche saide as truely there may of all the other things mentioned touching a body with like reasons in confessing the one they must necessarily confesse all the other as containing like reason wherunto the ministers haue secretely accorded being not able to giue any difference nor shewe why God can not doe the one and be able to doe the others And albeit they will neuer confesse the debt nor yelde as ouercome as they vaunt yet there is no maruell seeing it is the nature of Heretikes to become obstinate and resist the truthe what reasons so euer are proponed The Scribes and Pharisies neuer confessed to be ouercome of the Lord notwithstanding his arguments were irreprocheable Likewise albeit such as contended against S. Steuen had no more to Answer yet they forbare not to resist the holy spirite that spake in him euen as the ministers resiste the selfe same holy spirite speaking by the scripture the mouth of the Ancient fathers of miracles done in the body of Iesus Christe aboue nature which the ministers impugne I know not by what vain and friuoious escapes Touching this matter S Ierome saith heretici conuinâ—â— possunt non
touching their escapes they are to be conuinced by the simple reading of the bookes Touching the residue of the Ministers resolution containing many iniuries slaunders and wronges against vs we aunswer nothing hauing regarde to the maner of theyr doinges Like as also we consider it should be but paine lost to teache the Ministers who for their instruction esteeme more their particular reuelation than all the doctrine of the vniuersall church and all the Christians together And lastly we pardon them with all our heartes at the wrongs they haue done vs as beyng people estraunged from their full sense and without iudgement which they well declare by the maner of their doing The Doctors obiection touching the Supper against the Aunswer of the Ministers IT appeares sufficiently in the actes of the first dayes arguing why in the beginning of the conferences we touched not the articles of the supper wherein the Ministers do maliciously slaūder vs in saying we refused to enter into the matter of the same as is truly proued as well by our sundry offers made to them to conferre thereof verbally to the ende to aduaunce it with more spéede and so at leysure to set it downe in writing which the Ministers refused as also by our former obiections touching the article of the almightynesse By these we touched the groundes wherupon are builded the errours of the religion pretended reformed against the reall presence of the body and bloud of Iesus Christ in the holy Sacrament The same being to be iustified further in that wée obiect to them certayne argumentes agaynst their Supper the rather to make them enter into it To the whiche eyther they haue aunswered nothing at all or at least so impertinentlye that euen the woordes of their aunswer discouer their disposition to flée the combat As yet they continue by their last writings hiding so farre as they can that which they thinke of the supper notwithstanding they haue bene required to aunswer both to purpose and truth But whether they or wée refused the effect standes to iudge For though they wyll not aunswer yet we wyll not forbeare to aduise them and reueale to the whole world the intollerable errours aswell in the Supper as in all the doctrine of the Ministers Who being asked yet dare not confesse and iustifie what hath bene written by the inuenters of their supper But now to begyn to speake of the supper the Ministers mayntaine it celebrated according to the ordinaunce of Iesus Christ and maner with the Apostels vsed in all the primitiue Churche when she floorished and whylest she remained in her purenesse Whereunto we aunswer with this question howe manye worldes they thinke that the doctrine hath remayned in her purenesse touching the Supper and whether as then the Church stood not as pure in the doctrine of al the other Articles as in this Besides whether since that tyme there was not found any place through the whole worlde where the true doctrine of the supper and the other Articles was retayned and preserued As also in what place and by whom from world to world it was preached and aduaunced In these we desire to be satisfied by the Ministers as importing muche bicause that afore Caluin preferred hys Catechisme there was no memorye in any Region of suche doctrine as he taught neither was the supper celebrated in the maner it is now in the reformed Church And we woulde gladlye relieue the Ministers who in their writinges séeme straungelye passioned that we haue sayde that their Supper differs not from a common Banquet sauing that it is woorse as beyng prophane and polluted But to encounter this they make a great speake of all the action of their sayde Supper and by goodlye accessories carying a forme of all pietie they labour to make it highlye commended couering a goodly nothing betwene two platters And of the contrarye to treade downe and deface the most precious sacrifice of the body and bloud of Iesus Christ in the Masse by tearing in péeces some accessorye of the same as though wée vsed it without reason and signification whiche the Ministers eyther vnderstande not or dissemble not to vnderstande But as thynges ought not to be taken and estéemed by their accessories but according to their value nature and truth so the Ministers haue to foresee that all the sectes standing at this day in all the worlde against the catholike Churche for the matter of the Sacrament vse at least thys brauerie that they do Who if they were asked there is not one of them which would not enforce to proue that their sect approcheth nearer Iesus Christ hys Apostels and the primitiue Churche than the Religion pretended reformed Touching all which we referre our selues to the writinges of the Lutherians Zwinglians Anabaptistes Trinitaries Maister Alasco with other lyke Therefore it is not reasonable by these faire voyces and speeches to preferre the supper of the Ministers afore other sectes with iudgement that it is good holye impoluted and according to gods word but rather to repute it infected and defiled with impietie as couering a dreame in place of truth and giues the accessaries of pietie to impietye and falshoode Neither haue we dispraysed their Supper for the thankes they giue to God or in respect of their confession of sinnes or their preaching if it containe matter of truth or for any other preparatiue But in this haue we named it to be detestable as not containing but common bread and wyne contrary to the ordinaunce of Iesus Christ and yet they attribute vnto it some spirituall effect with other goodly accessaries of pietie the same being a matter of more abominatiō and inuented by Sathan who séekes by suche maner of supper to quenche and abolish the true supper according to the institution of Iesus Christ and rob the faythfull of the fruite and truth of the said true supper in making them giue onely common bread in place of the body and bloud of our sauiour Iesus Christ Here we could recite the wicked accessories as well as they speake of the goodly which are in their supper as the secrete and newe enterprises which are practised vnder colour and shaddowe of the assemblies drawne together at their sayd supper but least the Ministers reproche vs that the Clerke speake of weapons of contributions c. we wyll altogether hold our peace and referre our selues to that which is contenting our selues to deduce certayne causes by the which we maintaine that there is no truth in the sayd Supper according to the institution of Iesus Christ First that in the supper of the Ministers and their lykes there cannot be made any consecration of the matter of the bread wyne which are there proposed and therfore there is not made in the sayd matter anye mutation either before the vse or in the vse or after and by consequence that the bread and wine in that Supper cannot be but common That there is no consecration made in their Supper it
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