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
in writing in the two firste conferences where was continuall speache to examine the Articles of their confession without making mention of the Masse And where they pretende a seeming and meaning in the Doctours to examine the Catechisme and not the Articles of the Confession the Doctours are contente to proceede in the saide Articles conferring them with the Catechisme séeing they two oughte to accorde together And so they call all the assistantes to witnesse and iudge by whom it standes that the conference is not begonne Touching the change of order whiche the ministers demaund this day it is a late fashion and a new trouble seeing hitherunto they haue kept the place of respondentes deliuered the Articles of their confession to be examined where the Doctors were alwaies arguers of their side not proponed any thing to examination yet are they contente after the said confession be examined that the Ministers propound suche difficulties as they haue againste the Catholike Doctrine whereunto the doctors with Gods grace will make aunswere Demaunde Whether the Ministers beleue that the créede called the Symbole of the Apostles was made by the Apostles and whether they beleue al that is conteined therein Aunswere It is a thing different whether the Apostles them selues being together haue written it euery one bringing to it his sentence as somme hold whether it hathe bene gathered of diuers places of holy writings yet in the reformed Church we beleue euery point to be drawne out of the pure doctrine of the Prophetes Apostles conteined in their writings as if we should say by the importaunce contentes that it is a summe of the doctrine whiche the Apostles preached Demaunde Leauing a part to auoide tediusnes whether it be a thing indifferente to a christian to beleue that a doctrine hathe ben written by the Apostles or not so that it kéepe a conformitie with the matter of the holy writings the demaund is if al doctrine conformed to the said holy writings may take indifferently the title of the Apostles or other authours of the scripture Aunswere We cannot faile in calling it Apostolike doctrine but naming it the writing of the Apostles séemes to giue a sense that it was either written with their handes or spoken of them But be it what maye be wheresoeuer we acknowledge any doctrine taste sauer of the sprite wherwith the holy men of God haue bene moued we wil cal it Propheticall and Apopostolical doctrine Obiection The Demaunde stretcheth not whether the doctrine be Apostolicall in respecte of suche conformitie but whether by that reason it mighte be attributed to the Apostles and of equall authoritie with the writings wherewith it is conformed bicause it procéedes of a selfe same sprite as the aunswere saithe Aunsvvere The aunswere is already made whiche is that such writing conteines Apostolical doctrine in what sense it maye be termed to be of the Apostles Obiection The aunswere vnder correction apperteines nothing at al to the demaunde for the question is not whether for the conformitie it maie be accompted Apostolical But whether in regarde of this conformitie it maie be attributed to the Apostles and beare the title and name of the Apostles with equal authoritie to the proper writings of the Apostles Aunswere The first demaund was if the créede was made of the Apostles whereunto a sufficient aunswere was made After which it is lawfull to fashion a second demaund which differeth from that Obiection The seconde dependes vpon the first which also is made and whether it be satisfied in aunswere or not let the Readers discerne and iudge Aunswere To depende vpon it is not therefore the same Demaunde Whether they approue the said Créede only bicause they knowe it to be conformable to the writings of the Apostles or whether there be any other thing that induceth them to beleue it Aunswere That not only it is conformable but euen the doctrine it selfe for which cause they beleue and approue it Demaunde Whether a man be not bound to receiue it but in respect he knoweth it to be the selfe writing or haue conformitie with the writings of the Apostles as is saide Aunswere The chefe cause that may moue him that beleues it to beleue it in déede is the knowledge whiche we haue spoken of Demaunde Notwithstanding this be the principall cause yet wée require to be absolutely aunswered whether there be no other sufficient reason to induce beléefe so that this firste maye be necessarie Aunswere Aswel for the matter of the Créede as euery other thing which we beleue the principall cause is the knowledge wee haue that the same hath ben left vs written or gathered out of the writings of the Prophets Apostles And for our parts we search no other reason than that of our Faithe Obiection Yet vnder correction the Demaunde is not fully aunswered Whiche is to knowe whether to receiue the creede of the Apostles this cause be necessarye to vnderstande the writings of the Apostles and that withoute the same no man either can or oughte receiue it The Doctours praye to be absolutely aunswered either in the one or the other without circuit of woordes And the more simplye to vnfolde and explicate the Demaunde thus it is whether a personne oughte not receiue the Créede of the Apostles but vnder knowledge that it is conformed to the writings of the Apostles Aunsvvere Séeing with the doctrine of S. Paule there is no true faith without knowledge assurance of the woord to beleue it is necessary we know that it is the woorde of God. Demaunde To knowe whether they vnderstande this woorde to be written or not written Aunswere The woorde written and reuealed by the Prophetes and Apostles whiche is the fundation of Christian Faithe Obiection The ministers then mainteine that after the créede be beleued or proponed to beleue it is needefull to be taughte or to teache an other the wrytings of the Apostles and Prophets the same being againste all order euer holden in the Churche and against the contentes in the fourme to administer the Sacramentes in the Churche at Geneua made by Caluine and brought in amongst his woorkes The woordes are these Goe to them that haue charge of the childe that is Baptized séeing there is Question to receiue this childe into the companie of the Christian churche you promisse when he comes to age of discretion to instruct him in the Doctrine receiued and approued of the people of God And after these woordes they bring in the Creede according to the whiche they are willed to procéede in the instruction of the childe in all the Doctrine contained in the holy Scripture of the olde and newe Testament so that afore they propone to beléeue the Creede they persuade not to beleeue that there is any woord of God written nor what it is nor what is there contained as to knowe the conformitie of the Créede with the same They lay not also the foundation of the beléefe of the
Creede vppon the knowledge and conformitie of scriptures but vppon the doctrine receiued and approued of the people of God as the Auncient churche yea afore the wrytings of the newe Testament were written had a custome to propone to great and small the beléefe of the Créede afore they would commende to them the holy scriptures as appeareth by christian Antiquities And therfore the beleefe of a Christian dependes not of the woorde written by the Créede but of the woorde reuealed to the people and church of God. Aunswere Touching the firste Article it is moste necessary in teaching the Apostles Creede to a childe or other ignorante persone that therewith also he be instructed in the Doctrine of the Prophetes and Apostles seeing the Créede containes none other matter than this selfe same Doctrine and that they are things not onely conioyned but also like if not in termes at least in sense and substance For the second Article they denie that that which is alleaged before is any way contrary to the order established in the churche of Geneua or other church well directed wherin touching the reason taken of the fourme of Baptisme vsed in the saide churches it foloweth not by the woordes and speeches which haue bene alleaged that Caluine woulde shut oute the Créede and seperate it from the writings and Doctrine of the Prophets and Apostles a thing impossible but sheweth euidently that he ment to comprehende it therein when he added this woorde and generally which the Doctoures haue put in their Allegation to comprehende what mighte be ouer and aboue the holy Scriptures after the deduction which he made of the points of the Doctrine comprehended particularely in the saide Créede Touching the other reason that afore there were any Booke of the newe Testament written the Creede was proponed to such as were Catechised it is agréed vnto But it folowes not for al that that it is not founded vppon the woorde and Doctrine which the Apostles preached albeit at that time it was not set downe in wryting and likewise vppon the wrytings of the Prophetes vppon which the Doctrine of the Apostles is grounded For Conclusion the Ministers putte no difference betwéene Goddes woorde preached and written touching the sense Obiection It séemes the Ministers haue not well vnderstande the meaning of the Doctoures For there is no Question to knowe whether the Créede carie conformitie of hymselfe with the Apostolike writings but whether firste we muste vnderstande and beléeue that the Apostles and Prophetes haue set downe by wryting a Doctrine wherewith the sayd Créede dothe conforme and that other wayes a man can not beléeue the saide Créede But to vnfolde it more easily the Question is if it be not possible that a childe being come to the age of discretion or any other may by instructions of the Parentes or others beléeue the Articles contained in the Créede and be not firste instructed by them that there be certaine Apostolike writings whereunto the Articles of the Créede may be conformed And if it be necessary to moue him to beléeue it to knowe this conformitie And to these let the Ministers Aunswer absolutely Aunsvvere Faithe is by hearing and hearing by the woorde of God according to the consent of Iesus Christe who putting the hearing of the woorde afore the Faithe of the same saythe Who heares my woord and beléeues him that hath sent me c. Like as also he commaunded the Apostles to preache first the Gospell to the ende the hearers by the preaching might be disposed and led to Faithe By these reasones to knowe whether the Doctrine that is taughte be the woorde of God it is necessary to beléeue without the which also it is impossible that a man may either haue Faithe or beléeue in God onlesse he be assured that that which is taught him is Gods woorde And for the Question touching the instruction of children at the age of discretion or others whether it be necessary they knowe the woorde afore they beléeue the Aunswere is that it is néedefull And Thomas sayeth that the Faithe of the Articles of the Créede ought to be explicated that is declared which can not be done without knowledge of the woorde Obiection This Aunswere containes frothe of speache withoute any touche of the pointe proponed For there is no doubte that children and others muste not be Catechised and the Articles of the Faithe vnfolded to them by the woorde of God But the Question is to knowe if it be necessary they vnderstande that thys Woorde be wrytten in the Bookes of the Prophetes and Apostles so as wythoute the knowledge of the sayde wrytings they can not knowe nor beléeue the Articles of Faithe contained in the sayde Créede Whereunto the Doctoures pray the Ministers to Aunswere directly either yea or no. And after the aunswere to adde suche reason as they will which if they will not doe the Doctoures are of minde to procéede to an Article after they haue tolde them notwithstanding for conclusion of all that if this knowledge of the scriptures were necessary to the vnderstanding of the Articles of the Créede examining them according to the conformitie of the same Scriptures that it behoueth séeing the foundation is so necessary amōgst the Articles of the Créede to put this I beléeue there be holy scriptures and it is to note that in the said Simbole there is no mention made that there is holy Scripture so that a mā may be a true christian afore he vnderstand there is any christian Doctrine or woorde of God written therefore not necessary for the beléefe and vnderstanding of the Créede to know the woorde of God to be written in which respect the Doctors protest to speake no more of this Article Aunsvvere By collation and view of the Demaundes and Answers it is easie to iudge who offende moste in circumstaunce of woordes either the proponentes or respondentes Touching the second Article the Answere is as before that the knowledge of Gods woord is necessary to beléeue and to be a christian whether it be written or reuealed Touching the declaration that was made the Ministers Answere in their owne respecte not to approue in any sort that any thing be added to the pure woorde of God And they beléeue the Simbol of the Apostles to be no other thing than the pure woord of God which is proposed to vs by his spirite and therefore it should be a contrauention againste his commaundement to adde newe Articles to it mainteining also that if there had bene others necessary to saluation the spirite of God had not bene forgetful For cōclusion albeit there is no expresse mention of holy Scripture made in the Créede yet couertly it is vnderstande therein bicause the churche which can not subsist that it is not founded and builded vpon the grounds of the Prophets and Apostles is proponed there as an Article to beléeue Replie This Answere the Doctors say is impertinent and no more to purpose than
as the Woorde is euery where of which Woorde the Flesh was taken to constitute a person and Hypostâ—se For when it was vpon the earth it was not in heauen and now that it is in heauen sure it can not be vpon earth And much lesse that it is there séeing we exspect that Iesus Christ come according to the Fleshe whom notwithstanding wee beleeue is with vs on earth according as he is the woorde By these Authorities and such like which are often found in the writings of the Auncients the world may perceiue that Peter Martyr and Theodore de Beza be not the first Authoures of this Doctrine but that it is falsly laide vppon them bicause they haue but drawne and as it were written it woorde for woord out of the Bookes of the Auncients Where the Doctoures pretend that the fourme of Argument which the Ministers vse affirming that to say any thing is impossible to God dothe not derogate his omnipotencie destroyeth the fourme of argument vsed by the Angell speaking to the virgine for the confirmation of his message that nothing was impossible to God the ministers Answer that that is nothing to purpose bicause the question doth neither importe a thing containing in it selfe any contradiction nor that is contrary to the truthe of god Touching the opinion of the Doctors that God can chaunge the nature and qualitie of things there is none that doubtes thereof But when that is done it must also be aduowed that things being changed remaine no more in their first nature and the Ministers say that it is not all one touching the thing héere proponed bicause the Doctoures would haue a thing dwell in his essence and nature notwithstanding his essentiall partes be chaunged yea and wholly extincte and abolished Touching the limitation of the power of God on the behalfe of his creatures there is no man so sencelesse as to enterprise to limite in all respectes that which he will and that confesseth not that he may ordeine and dispose of all his Creatures in general as it pleseth him and as a potter doth of his mould wherein their opinion runnes that the authoritie of Ieremie ought to be referred thither as appeareth clearely by these Hebrue woordes lo gippale mimiuecha col-dauar which is Lord nothing shall be harde to thée Touching the perill which the Doctoures pretende may rise of the Ministers saide Aunsweres they say that people of good and sounde iudgement can not frame any euill consequence of it considering that all this Doctrine is true and containes no obscuritie but if perhappes any cull oute an euill profite of it it is to be imputed to themselues and their euill vnderstanding by which not only any Doctrine but also the woorde of God it selfe may sometimes be peruerted and corrupted To be short all things as sayeth the Apostle are cleane to those that be cleane and filthie to such as are so and haue a wicked Conscience Where the Doctoures alleage that there may be occasion taken by the Doctrine aforesaide to interpreate the Scriptures according to a selfe sense and fansie the Ministers denie it and say That if the worlde enterprise it it is casie inough to reiecte his interpretation as not correspondente to the Rules and Analogie of Faithe wherewith the sayde Doctrine and interpretation of the Ministers dothe agrée and consent And where they say that the Ministers chaunge and alter the Scripture they Aunswere that it is a reproche and slaunder not to be verified againste them neither touching their writings their woordes nor any thing by them deliuered either by speeche or thought Where they say that the Scripture is of opinion that the bodie of Iesus Christe is in two places the Ministers denie it and say that on the contrary the Scripture establisheth him in heauen and not elsewhere And Heauen muste containe hym vntill the time of restauration of all that hathe béene forespoken by the mouthe of his holy Prophets from the beginning of the worlde And where they alleage that the Scripture ought not to be interpreted according to the sense and fansie of euery one The Ministers confesse it with this Addition that all interpretations ought to be examined as S. Paule saithe and that suche examination be made by the collation and conference of the Scriptures And lastly where the Doctoures accuse the Ministers to haue alleaged no place of the Scripture before they produced the Auncientes to confirme their sayde Doctrine the Ministers say they are falsely imposed for that if they well remember they alleaged to the same ende in the beginning of their discourse the opinion of S. Paule written in the seconde Epistle to Timothe and the second Chapter where it is saide that God can not denie himselfe and also that is written in the sixthe Chapiter to the Hebrues that it is impossible for God to lie Which places togither with the opinions of the Auncients were not alleaged as to diminishe the omnipotencie of God but rather to establishe it and cut of the way to many impieties and blasphemies which they would falsly exhibite and couer them vnder the couler of Gods almightinesse without hauing regard to the will declared to which we must referre the power The sixth day of disputation being Tewsday the sixtenth of Julie THe Doctoures Obiecte that they haue made this Argumente God can not bring to passe that one body be in two places then God is not Almightie which consequence how necessary it is is fully manifest without other proofe by the lawe of contradiction for according to the rule holden in all Schooles of Philosophers two contradictions can not be true To be able to doe all things and not able to do certaine particulare things be contradictions séeing this particulare thing is one part of the whole So that it must néedes be that if the antecedent be true the consequent must be false according to the lawe of contradiction for both can not be true together as things of contradiction And albeit by the knowledge of the very termes the consequeÌ„ce may be iudged to be good yet it may easily be knowne by the handling of the Obiection against the Answere of the Ministers that the Doctours haue proued the consequence This was the reason of the Ministers God can not lie nor sinne and can not bring to passe that things done should not be done bicause that either it impugnes his nature or there is repugnancie of the parte of the creatures bicause there is contradiction entangled But the Doctors affirmed in their Obiection that there is no suche thing in the Question proponed which is if one body may be in two places whereof they make this kinde of Arguing taken of their Obiection God can doe all things that impugne not his nature either when there is no resistance of the parte of the creatures and that there is implied no contradiction to affirme that a body may be in two places at one instant is a thing not repugnaÌ„t
bicause the one is a miracle of Gods power in nature and the other a wonder againste nature and contrary to Gods will. In the Article folowing the Doctoures doe falsly impose vppon vs an opinion that it was a thing impossible to God that a Camel passe thorow the eie of an néedle séeing in our former Aunsweres we neuer touched that pointe but only that part of the sentence speaking of rich men But now to Answer the Obiection and fully resolue it we say the euen as God may saue a riche man by chaunging him and purging his heart of all vaine trust and presumption wherewith being infected he is incapable to enter into the kingdome of heauen euen so it is no lesse easie for him to make a Camel passe by the creuise of a néedle hauing circonsised and digged the greatnesse of the same with other things which mighte let him to passe In the first place that the Supper which is celebrated in the reformed Churche is the true institution and ordinance of the true Sonne of God. And after that the end for the which it was instituted is to assure the Faithfull of the true participation which they haue in the fleshe of Iesus Christe crucified for their saluation and in the bloud shedde for remission of their sinnes and lastly for the confirmation of the newe aliance which God hath contracted with his people Thirdly we say it is necessary that the breade and wine remaine in their propre substance yea after the Consecration and that other wayes they could not be sacraments of the body and bloud of Iesus Christ Finally we say that the vnfaithfull presenting themselues to the supper can not by meane of their infidelitie receiue other thing than the outward signes of bread and wine and that to their iudgement and condemnation On the other side we propone to the Doctoures touching their Masse that as it is celebrated at this day in the Romishe churche it is nothing but an inuention and tradition of man. That it is a corruption and prophanation aswell of the holy supper of our Lord Iesus Christ as of the true and lawfull vse of the same That it is an abuse of the sacrificature of the Papistes priestes and that in the newe Testament there is no other sacrificature ordained to procure and obtaine remission of sinnes nor also to intercesse either by prayers or merites to obtaine the fauor of God than the onely sacrificature of Iesus Christe We say moreouer that the sacrifice of the Romish priests is a blasphemie and Sacrilege and that there is none other Oblation than that which Iesus Christe hathe once made in the Crosse of his body by which the ire of God might be appaesed his iustice satisfied sinners reconciled to God sinne pardoned and the bonde of eternall deathe cancelled and made nothing We say the seperation of the priest in the Masse from the rest of the people is a defacing to the Communion of the supper and by consequence damnable afore God. It is an intollerable Idolatrie to worship breade wine whether it be in the Masse or out of the Masse There rest yet two pointes in the wrytings of the Doctoures wherof we admonishe them the one is that we neuer found in the scripture that faith was a humaine worke but that it is a woorke of God and a gifte which he giues to his chosen The other is that we confesse not to be able to produce any Auncient author which hathe saide in plaine termes that one body cannot be in one instant in diuers places bicause the contrary séemes so absurde and straunge and so contrary to reason and faith which all faithful men ought to haue that we thought such opinion could neuer find place in the hart of any professing to be a Christian To ende this Aunswere we could with greater delite entreat vppon the questions aforesaide than dispute vppon the opening of the doores the sepulchre and the heauens as to our gréefe we haue done those dayes passed and that for two reasons The one bicause the decision and resolution of such questions can not be drawne and gathered of the scripture And the seconde bicause it can not muche serue either to the aduauncement of the honoure and glory of God or to the reléefe and instruction of his Churche Thursday 25. of Iulie the yeare aforesaide The Replie of the Doctors to the vvriting of the Ministers sent vnto them by the Duke of Neuers the .25 of Julie 1566. about .8 of the clocke in the Euening WHere the ministers complain of their wrong to be called blasphemers as making themselues innocent with Iesus Christe S. Stephen and Naboth vppon whome suche crime was falsly imposed the Doctoures say that in this they folowe the good Donatistes who stoode alwayes vpon complaint of the great wrongs and iniuries which they saide they endured of the Catholikes And yet the Histories stande as witnesses of their conformitie with Iesus Christe S. Stephen and Naboth and also howe néerely these ministers resemble those holy examples The Anabaptistes might haue saide no lesse to them of the reformed churche when they call them Heretikes And so muche also might haue sayd and did say Seruet who for his blasphemies was burned at Geneua estéeming himselfe happie to be iudged by Caluine a blasphemer for his Doctrine and to endure the sentence and paine of death Therfore we must not beléeue the Minysters to be other than the blasphemers though they shake of that name no lesse impudently than any other heretike But it behoues to examine whether their Doctrine import blasphemie or not we say there is no blasphemie more worthy of greater cursse than to denie the almightinesse of God which is no lesse than to denie simplie that God is not which deniall containes a Theme For to take from God that which is proper to him according to his nature is as much to say he is not God according to S. Basile in an Homelie of his intituled God is not author of euil He writes that it is no lesse blasphemie to say God is Author of euill than to say that God is not God bicause that to take from God his bountie which is naturall to him is wholely to spoile him of his Diuinitie wherein the like may be saide of his omnipotencie which who so denieth or diminisheth denieth also his Diuinitie The question then is to knowe if the ministers will abolishe the omnipotencie of God not in propre termes for they séeme to confesse it but in affirming that his almightinesse is measured according to his wil so that he cannot doe but that he wil with other suche like propositions contained in their former Answeres which whether we haue proued or not to containe blasphemies we lay vs vpon euery sound iudgement which hath any way serched the holy scriptures or the bookes of the Auncient Christians which as they may also be knowne by the friuolous Aunswers of the ministers to
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
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
the Question For the Doctours demaunde seeing it is essentiall and naturall to a body earthly and heauie in respecte of his waight and heauinesse to tende downeward to know if God by his only vertue against the natural propertie of a body heauie and waighty can not hold and suspend it on highe And touching the euasion which the Ministers make of a most strong and mightie argument againste their Doctrine that two bodies may be in one place according to the proofe taken of the scripture not only to iustifie that God can bring to passe that two bodies may be in one place but also that he hath done it serues for nothing to couer their erroure as to say that in S. Iohn it is not written that our Lord did not enter by the gates shutte but that he was in the midst of them and stoode where the saide Ministers helde their peace and omitted this Verbe venit reasting onely vppon this Verbe stetit For the expresse Texte of S. Iohn Chapter .21 verse .19 saythe that the doores being shut Iesus came into the place where the Disciples were assembled and was there in the middest of them And therefore we nowe aske them séeing the Scripture sayeth he came thither the Doores being shutte and was in the middest of them Whether he was in the middest of them and in the saide place wythoute entring Or if he dyd enter seeing the Texte beares that the Doores were shutte when hee came how will they proue by the Scripture that he entred there but by the shutte doores the same séeming a greater miracle to be in the middest of his Disciples without entring into the place where they were This refuge is too light to saie it is not written that he entred For S. Augustine in his Booke de Agone Christiano Chap. 24. vseth these woords Nec nos moueat quòd clausis ostijs subito euâ—n apparnisse Discipulis scriptum est vt propterea negemus illud fuisse humanuÌ„ quia contra naturam huius Corporis videmus illud per clausa ostia intrare omnia enim possibilia sunt Deo. Nam ambulare super aquas contra naturam huius Corporis esse manifestum est tamen non solum ipse Dominus ante Passionem ambulauit sed etiam Petrum ambulare fecit Wherein appeares that S. Augustine holdes openly that our Lord entred by the shutte doores referring the whole to the almightinesse of God. Besides the Texte of S. Luke ioined with the authoritie of S. Iohn declares that he entred throughe the doores for the Apostles had not had reasonable occasion to thinke it was a Sprite and not a Body seeing him in the semblance of a man before them but that he entred otherwayes than a true Body and a true man can doo meaning that he entred by the shutte doores whiche a true man and true body coulde no waye doo Neither coulde it serue to any pourpose to saie that the doores were open and then shutte by myracle or otherwayes For so mighte a true body a true man enter the same taking away al occasion to thinke that it was a Sprite or Vision Moreouer the Doctours saie that all the Auncient Heretikes and Christians were of this common accorde that Iesus Christe passed through but their difference was suche as at this daye is betwene the Doctours and the Ministers The Aunciente Heretikes helde that Christe after his Resurrection had not a true bodye bicause he did woorkes contrary to the nature of a body the same implying contradictioÌ„ in the naturall body that in one instante he was in one selfe place with an other bodye as when he had passed throughe the doores The Ancient Christian Catholikes aunswered that truely the nature of the Body bare that he coulde not passe throughe the doores issue out of the bodye of the Virgyn in his byrthe without breaking it nor come throughe the stone of the Sepulcher in his Resurrection but yet that it did not imply contradiction that two bodies shoulde be together by the Omnipotencie of God bicause it was so happened in the three cases done and recited The firste that speakes of it is Iustinus Martyr in the 117. Question againste the Gentiles wherein he makes this Demaunde If a bodye grosse or thicke saith he be lette to be able to passe throughe the doores howe did our Lorde enter the doores being shutte after his ResurrectioÌ„ And if it be so why was the stone rolled by the Angel from the mouthe of the graue to the ende his body might rise againe he aunsweres euen as our Lorde withoute chaunging his Bodye into a Sprite walked vppon the sea making in deede by his Diuine power the sea harde to walke vpon it and not onely to beare his body but S. Peters also euen so by his diuine power came he out of his graue the stone lying vppon it and entred to his Disciples the doores being shutte by whiche as we haue to vnderstande that things procéeding of diuerse vertues oughte to haue a like Faithe euen so wée oughte to know that suche things as passe nature when they are done in the same by power diuine ought not be measured according to the reason and propertie of nature in whiche respecte our Lorde séeing his Disciples troubled with his entrie offered them to touch the partes of his body the markes skarres of his woundes to the end they might sée he did not enter by changing his bodye into a sprite but in his proper body composed of his conuenient dimensions thicknesse and that by his Diuine almightinesse which did al things excéeding the force of nature S. Hilarie in his third Booke of the Trinitie euen of thée saith he which wilt search things iuscrutable be iudge of Gods secrets his power I aske couÌ„sel that thou giue me reason and solution only of this deede yea to me that am ignorant beleue simply in God touching al things as he hath saide and pronounced them I meane that as the Lord hath oftentimes presented himselfe after his Resurrection to be séene and knowne of those who beleued it not So the same Lorde applying him selfe to the imbecilitie of our vnderstanding and to satisfie the doubtes of the vnfaithefull shewes a secrete an acte of his Omnipotencie Therefore expounde to me who euer thou arte that wilte be a searcher of the Omnipotencie of God the reason of this facte The Disciples were enclosed together and drawne into a secrete place the Lorde reuealed him selfe to Thomas to confirme his Faithe according to the condition he desired that is to touche his body and proue his woundes For whiche reason and cause it muste needes be that he bare euen that true body wherein he had receiued those woundes I aske then séeing he was Corporall by what parte of the house did he thruste or intrude him selfe within For I see the Euangelistes opnion is plaine that Iesus came the doores being shutte and was amidde his Disciples Did
presumptionibus nostris hac sententia vtamur quiduis de Deo confingere poterimus quasi fecerit quia facere potuerit Non autem quia â—amia potest facere ideoque credendum est illum fecisse etiam quod non fecerit sed an fecerit requirendum Potuit ita saluus sum Deus pennis hominem ad volandum instruxisse quod melius prestitit non tameÌ„ quia potuit statim fecit potuit praxeam omnes pariter hereticos statim extinxisse non tamen quia potuit extinxit oportebat enim miluos esse hereticos oportebat patrem crucifigi Hac ratione erit aliquid Deo difficile id scilicet quod non fecerit non quia non potuerit sed quia noluerit etenim posse velle est non posse nolle By which texte may easily be séene according to Tertullian that God can doe many things which he will not doe as to make a man to flie but dothe it not he can destroy the heritikes yet spares them bicause he wil not do all he caÌ„ do And touching their conclusion of the saide place of Tertullian that the power of God is his will his impower likewise his vnwill they wel declare their sleight examination of the meaning of that place for Tertullian saith it not of his owne sentence considering he should conclude againste that he had saide afore but he inferres it against the Monarchian heretikes who held that what God might do he would do and it was done By which reason Tertullian concludes againste them that what God had not done muste néedes be hard and impossible to him so that according to those Heretikes it was all one to be done and might be done and not to be done as muche as to be impossible to God And of that as Tertullian inferreth would folowe that the power the will and the déede of God should be all one and of the contrary a thing not to be done and to be impossible to God to do it should also be all one And euen so also would be al one the power of God and his will and his impower and his vnwill which Tertullian concludes for an absurd thing procéeding of the opinion of the saide Monarchian Heretikes and not of his sentence which was altogither contrary wherin as we sée the ministers consent in opinion with the said Monarchian Heretikes which Tertullian refutes so the moste euident proofe standes in the fifthe blasphemie And for conclusion against the said blasphemies the Doctoures declars that God can doe much more than he wil doe and more than he hath established in the world for otherwayes woulde folowe yet other blasphemies as this that the power of God should not be infinite but limitted An other that for necessitie all things should be done in the world bicause God could not otherwayes doe than entertaine the order established in the world which Caluine himselfe detestes saying that God of his omnipotencie chaungeth and altereth the order established as it séemes good to him and to thinke otherwayes were to limite his power and prouidence Where the ministers say in their saide first Article that the auncient Doctors of the churche denied the omnipotencie of God it is a most manifest falshoode great wrong for they deny it not but interprete the scripture which séemes to deny it and so giue to vnderstaÌ„d how it ought to be taken that much lesse by the same scripture well vnderstanded there is any exception at al suffred against the almightinesse of God séeing that in the contrary it is confirmed as S. Augustine saithe in his fifth Booke de Ciuitate Dei. Cap. 10. Gods power saithe he is in nothing diminished when it is saide he can not die nor be deceiued For he can not suche things bicause if he coulde them his power shoulde be lessened concluding that he can not doe things which are of infirmitie bicause he is almightie Vppon the ende of the first Article the ministers chalenge vs as saying their difference is that we mainteine a body to be in many places bicause God can do it and that of the contrary the ministers holde that it is not in Gods power to do so bicause he wil not The doctors declare that for their part they neuer concluded to be true that a true body was in two places bicause God could do it But the Question was only to know if God could doe it to come afterwardes by order to proue by Scripture that he wold do it they haue already heretofore recited the scripture of the supper and the Ascension adding withall the Doctrine of Caluine touching the said supper to shewe that Gods will is to bring to passe that a body be in two places as in déede it is according to the expresse woorde of God. Besides we haue produced to the same end the scriptures of the doores being â—â—t of the birth of our Lord and of the Resurrection thorow the â—â—one which be like déedes and of the selfe reason to one body in many places Of the contrary the ministers to deny the will of God and depraue holy Scripture which sheweth that suche is Gods will that a body be in diuers places alleage not any thing more instantly than the impossibilitie of God to doe it But to the ende that al the world vnderstande the difference betweene vs we presently declare that there hathe bene no other difference touching this Article vntill now but to knowe whether it be in Gods power to bring to passe that a body be in two places at one instant or not And for the second Article the Doctors say the Ministers Aunswere not to the matter For the Obiection was not if quantitie were accidente of a Mathematical body aut de predicamento quantitatis as the philosophers hold but to know if it were of the essence and necessitie to the quantitie of a body to be circumscript and enclosed in place And touching S. Augustine alleaged by the Ministers he speakes expressely according to the propretie of the diuine nature and corporall nature saying that the Diuine nature is euery where but not the corporall as of his naturall propretie requiring a certaine place wherof the Doctoures make no difficultie arcording to the saide naturall propertie But the Question is if aboue nature by Goddes omnipotencie it may not be that a body be withoute place equall to his greatnesse the same being openly coÌ„fessed by S. Augustine when he speakes De clansis lanuis hauing no longer regarde to the nature of things but to the power of God And we coulde wishe that the ministers woulde alleage this Epistle of S. Augustine against the Doctrine of Caluine and his Ministers as often as they alleage the texte of the place of bodies againste the power of God touching the body of Iesus Christe in the Sacrament Touching the third Article the ministers are abused for according to the Philosophers and natural reason of bodies whiche
the Ministers folowe Loâ—us est superficies Corporis continentis by which if the highe and laste Heauen were circumscript of place there must needes be an other body aboue the highe and firste Heauen a quo primum Coelâ—m contineretur sic in infinitum For the rest the Ministers giue no answere to the other obiections made vpon this Article Touching the places of Scripture which they alleage to proue that there are places aboue the Heauens they doo paraphrase and abuse the ambiguitie of the name of a Place For in al their speache of the dimension of Bodyes whiche thei say doth necessarily require a place equal to their greatnesse they must meane Corporall places as the dimension of bodyes demaunde And now when they speake of places aboue Heauen they must vnderstand meane theÌ„ other than Corporal as not being such places or like to those wherin our bodyes be heard but places incomprehensible and imaginable where bodies and Sprites are indifferent without distinction of certaine spaces and places Corporall for their greatnesse in whiche places the Rule of the Ministers is false by which they mainteine that one body cannot be in one place if it conteine not roumth according to the greatnesse of the body for the reste we saie the manner of Heretikes is to interprete the Scriptures spiritually when they should take them according to the Letter and of the contrary to expounde by the Letter that which oughte to be vnderstanded spiritually and by figures as the Ministers expounde the house of God in the other world Literally and Corporally as to conteine spaces and Corporall habitations diuerse and separated one from an other albeit it oughte to be vnderstanded spiritually for the diuersitie of degrées of beatitude neither can the Doctours here omitte one manifest contradiction of the Ministers in this Article wherein they pretende that the Bodies and Soules of the blessed are lodged aboue al the Heauens and yet they lodge the Bodye of Iesus Christe within Heauen And touching the Article condemned by the Facultie of the Diuines of Paris we answer that it is an ordinarie vse with the Ministers to alleage Authorities either corrupt or improper For the Article saithe that the Bishop of Paris hauing assembled the Facultie condemned all suche as would mainteine twoo seuerall Heauens the one for Aungelles and the other for the soules of men whiche apperteines nothing to the present question In the fourth Article the Ministers impose vpon the Doctoures who neuer attribute the propertie of God to any creature and haue saide many times before that to be euerywhere and incircumscript was not naturall to any creature but onely to god Wherein the Authoures alleaged by the Ministers as S. Basil Dydimus and Vigilius speake not otherwayes than of the propertie of Nature to be euerywhere or not and yet denie not that it is in Gods power to bring to passe that a creature or bodye be in twoo or many places aboue his nature but as hath bene saide when they come to the power of God many of those ancient authours confesse it to be possible to God and that he hath done so in the Sacrament and therfore the Ministers answer is out of the matter séeing al the contention is but of Gods power not of natural properties In this fifth Article the Ministers haue not rightly comprehended the reason of the Doctours who haue not alleaged that Aungelles are circumscripte naturally as well as bodyes by whiche they woulde inferre that the circumscription of place simply depended not as of the only essential cause of the dimensions of a body as by al their said reasons the Ministers pretende notwithstanding the Doctours are not ignorant that to put difference betwene corporall and spiritual creatures there is a custome in the schole to distinguish the Angels sunt diffinitiuè in loco bodies circuÌ„scriptiuè In the sixth Article to satisfie the Doctours request to produce one only place or testimonie of the Ancients to proue it not in Gods power to make one body in twoo places The Ministers for al the authorities they can haue alleage falsly one place of S. Augustine where it is said as is recited vpon Gratian de Consecratione Distinct 2. C. Prima quidem that S Augustine wrote that it muste be that Christes body be in one place whereunto the Doctours answere that it is not so set downe in the proper text of S. Augustine which is in the 30. Treatise vpon S Iohn the tenure being thus in all the ancient exemplaries of S. Augustine Corpus Domini in quo resurrexit vno loco esse potest Veritas eius vbique diffusa est Here is no Oportet as the Ministers recite hauing it of Gratian. And to the ende it be knowne that there oughte no greate trust to be had in the fragmentes of Gratian without hauing recourse to the exemplaries of S. Augustine In the title of the Canon there be these woordes drawne out of the Exposition of S. Augustine vppon the 54. Psalme from whence he drawes the onely beginning of his Canon and yet he brings it not in as for truth the residue of which Canon is taken of diuerse places of the saide S Augustine And albeit there were Oportet yet S. Augustine vsing his custome speakes according to the propertie of the Bodye opposing the Diuinitie to the Humanitie and toucheth not the operation of Goddes Omnipotencie whereof when he doothe make mention and that he speakes of the Sacramente he affirmes expressely the Bodye of Iesus Christe to be in diuerse places by the Almightinesse of God as wée hope to deduce aswell of him as other Auncientes in our resolution The eighth Article conteines many Erroures againste Philosophie and Truthe as first in that they make no Distinction betwéene a body called Mathematicall whiche is hauing dimension of largenesse length and height and a body Physical or natural that is composed of a forme substantial and matter by the vnitie of which it is made a body natural and substantial In the second place if the body should be without quantitie yet would it differ from our soules separated which be no substance materiall and consequently it would differ also from Angels and Sprites In the thirde place for conclusion of this Article the Ministers declare plainly not to acknowledg any substantiall Body And where they saie that if God could separate the dimensions of a substance and not corrupte it that that substance should remaine spirituall as the Angells they are abused for that substance shoulde not remaine immateriall as our Soules and Angelles doo which be not capable of dimensions and therefore shoulde be still differente from Angels and our Soules To the ninth Article the Ministers answere nothing to pourpose for the Doctours holde not that grauitie weight are essentialles in a body but to encline downewarde is essential to the heauinesse weight of a body thei demaunded also in their obiection if an Earthely body and
For conclusion of this Article we would willingly aske the Ministers if they holde as an Article of Faithe the virginitie of the mother after hir deliuerie and if they can proue it by expresse and inreprocheable woorde of God written bicause Beza calles in doubte these two poyntes at his pleasure and the Religion pretended reformed amongste other Articles of Faith of their diuers confessions imprinted recites sometime the Virginitie of the mother of God after hir deliuerie and sometimes it is omitted And in some Confessions is brought in no more but that Iesus was borne of the virgine Marie and only issued of the séede of Dauid The Doctoures applie for the Resurrection and issuing of Christes bodye thorowe the stone of the Sepulchre the moste parte of the Authorities alleaged by them vppon the doores shut as the absolute reading of the saide Authorities will make Faithe togither with Gregorius Nazianzene in his tragedie of the Passion of our Lord who ioynes as many other Auncients these thrée miracles hapned in the body of our Lord aboue nature the birth without breaking the virgine the resurrection thorowe the stone and his entrie thorowe the doores shutte We say also that Caluine and Beza make conscience to ioyne with the Ministers that oure Lorde rose not againe the Sepulchre being closed and shut yea they had rather fall into the friuolous absurdities and vaine Expositions héere afore alleaged than discende into the opinion of the Ministers bicause there is more Testimonie in the texte of the Gospell that Iesus was risen afore the stone was rolled away by the Aungell as the most parte of the Aunciente Christians doe consent which meane also giues occasion to beléeue more easily the Resurrection of our Sauioure than if the stone had bene taken away before his Resurrection for so it mighte haue bene more easily sayde that the bodie was transported and not raised or risen neither doothe the Texte beare that the Aungell rolled away the stone afore the Resurrection or when Iesus did rise or rather after as is greate likelihoode in Scripture in reason and all Antiquitie Pope Leo is euill alleaged by the Ministers as concealing that is wrytten in his Epistle touching the shutte dores as also producing euill the matter of the Resurrection for it is not sayde that our Lorde did rise after the stone of the monumente was rolled awaye But it is sayde agaynste the fantastike sorte that the substance putte on the Crosse and that which rested in the Sepulchre and likewyse that whiche rose agayne the thirde day the stone of the Monumente being rolled awaye is the true Fleshe of Iesus Christe By whiche speaches the Pope meanes not to saye that oure Lorde did not rise afore the stone was reuersed but only declares that the body of Iesus Christ risen was a true body and not fantasticall whose Resurrection appeared by the opening of the monument And this is the common interpretation of the Auncient authors touching the reuersement of the stone For ende of these Auncient testimonies we maruel that the ministers séeing them so manifest and as conuinced not only that God can bring to passe that two bodies be in one place but also that he hath done it dare reprochefully depraue the vnderstanding of the same and yet they say that the reasons taken of suche and so euidente testimonies are impertinent Like as by like licence common with the Heritikes they feare not without any texte of the scripture nor any place of the Ancients to enterprete two bodies penetrating to be no other thing than one body to giue place to an other of which false and licentious interpretacion euen the common vse of spéeche amongste the Philosophers dothe condemne them Like as also their fine example touching such as walke thorowe the aire which moues them and the birdes when they flie is farre to subtill And where they vaunt in the sayde Article that in denying two bodies to be able to be in one place by the omnipotencie of God or one body in two places they yet aduaunce and magnifie the power of God the same is as true as when in all other their erroures by whiche they oppugne Gods truthe and blaspheeme it yet they bragge alwayes to aduaunce Gods glory seeming héereby that they haue néed to couer their filthinesse and deformitie with some cloke of spéeche the better to blinde the simple and ignorant The ministers haue also good reason not to seeke to excuse the interpretacions of Caluine and Beza as too friuolous and yet they preferre their owne much more vaine before their Maisters by which may be séene the agréement betwéene the Maisters and Disciples vsing all the foundacion of their religion which is to beleeue and preferre afore all others their particulare and priuate interpretacion and inspiration where the Ministers say that the body of oure Lord was not inuisible to the disciples of whome is spoken in S. Luke 24. but only the hauing a swift body was sodainly withdrawne we Obiect that the sodaine departing which S. Ambrose and de Lyra speakes of makes not that the body was inuisible according to the Gréeke woorde aphantos not signifying sodaine departure but incapacitie to be séene and knowne and so the text of the Scripture is apparantly for the Doctoures as also that as often as bothe the auncient and present Diuines giue example that Christ made himselfe inuisible they alleage ordinarily this place The ministers who vaunte to rest onely vppon the pure woord of God for the exposition of the scripture bring forthe their dreames grounded vppon their owne persuasion as hath béene séene touching the doores being shutte vsing the like licence to expounde the texte of S. Paule which mainetaines expressely that our Lorde pierced the Heauens and they say that it is a likely truthe that the Heauens deuided and were open And if they be asked from whence they fetch this interpretacion their Aunswere is from Goddes woorde grounded of their inwarde inspiration by the which they accommodate the saying of S. Mathevve that the Heauens were open when the Piller discended vppon oure Lorde as thoughe all the Heauens were deuided and that the spirite could not descend without the same were opened being not aduised that the scripture in many places takes the Heauen for the aire And where they alleage that S. Stephen sawe the Heauens open when he was stoned it were more conuenient to the ministers to interprete such visions to be done in spirite as there is great likelihoode Otherwayes two miracles must be confessed the one in the Diuision of the Heauens and the other in that the sight of S. Stephen pierced not only into the Heauens but also euen aboue where the ministers confesse the body of Iesus Christe is vpon the righte hand of his Father which S. Stephen saw the same being against the order of God established in the world by which it is necessary that there be a certaine difference betwéene the eie séeing and the
thing which is séene Neither is it lesse harde that suche a thing be done than that two bodyes be penetrate We must not forgette that oftentimes the scripture in the appearings and spirituall visions vseth this language that the Heauens were open and yet in suche cases there was but spirituall vision and likewise but spirituall appearing And as the Ministers séeke to take the rigoure of the woorde opening of the Heauens euen so they must not note it straunge if we wrest in like rigoure the penetration of the Heauens specially in the Article of the Ascention where is Question of the body of Iesus Christe which had already pierced bodyes more impenetrable than the Heauen which pointe of penetration of the Heauen we referre to be more amplie handled an other time as nowe to auoide tediousnesse Touching the eight and twentieth Article where the ministers againste expresse scripture defend obstinately that God of his power can not bring to passe that a Camell or Cable enter the eye of a néedle we can not a little maruell bothe at their blindnesse séeming to sée nothing in the midde day and at their frowarde obstinacie By which as we can not iudge that they vnderstand not wel their fault but sinne euen against their conscience oppugning the truthe by them well knowne so it séemes God suffereth this to happen to them in this text and place of the scripture so manifest to the ende that by this Article the world may vnderstande howe farre more hardie they are to giue false vnderstandings of scriptures more obscure than this yea in the matter of the Auncient Christians which are against them But to the ende the world vnderstand their great wrong to denie that our Lorde can bring to passe that a Camel or cable passe thorowe the hole of a néedle we obiecte that it were impossible to God to saue a riche man vsing this Argument taken of the texts of the Gospell it is more impossible or harde that God saue a riche man than to bring to passe that a Camel or cable passe thorow the hole of an Néedle God can not bring to passe of his omnipotencie as the Ministers say that a Camell enter the hole of a néedle then he can not of his almightinesse make that a riche man be saued and enter into the kingdome of Heauen The Maior is of the Scripture the Minor is confessed by the Ministers and the consequence is necessary and according to all Philosophie he that can not doe the moste easiest can not doe the moste hardest The Auncientes also haue expounded withoute gaine saying the present Scripture as Origen in his Homilie vppon this place saying it is possible that a Camell enter the eie of a néedle not for all that that it be possible as in respecte of men but to God like as the manner by which suche things may be done is knowne to God and his Sonne Iesus Christe and to him to whome it is reuealed S. Augustine likewise in his Booke de spiritu littera Cap. 1. and 5. writes in this sorte to Marcellinus it séemes to thée an absurde thing when I tell thée that a man may be withoute sinne albeit there is none suche founde except Iesus Christe thoughte it to seeme absurde to thée that a thyng may be done whereof no Example can be shewed séeing as I beléeue thou doubtest not at all that it was neuer done that a Camell entred the eye of a néedle and yet it is said that suche a thing is possible to God. By their Aunswere to the nine and twentie Article it may easily be knowne that they beguile and abuse their Disiples making them beléeue by faire woordes and writings that Really in the Supper they receiue the bodie of Iesus Christe euen he that issued out of the wombe of the virgine and was putte vppon the Crosse for the restauration of mankinde And they séeke to make to vnderstande that these which put not to the Sacrament which they call of the Supper wyth the Breade and Wine but some Spirituall effecte onely as redemption iustice sanctification eternall life and other giftes and benefites which Iesus Christe brings to hys chosen diminish the excellencie dignitie of the same Sacrament and that they be Zuinglians yea and that ouer and aboue suche spirituall effectes it muste be beléeued that the body of Iesus Christe is truely receiued in the Supper and yet they feede an other opinion in their braine For when they are pressed to Argue not being able to sustaine that fantasticall presence confessed in their writings they make themselues Zuinglians and returne to the spirituall presence of Iesus Christe in the Supper the same being as muche to say that bisides the Breade and Wine they receiue some spirituall effecte and not Really the body as the Ministers holde in the presente Aunswere which as they make manifest by that they recite of the Apostle S. Paule so by the same may be gathered what is their opinion touching the supper which is that the body of our Lord Iesus Christ is not Really but onely by spirituall effecte in the heartes of the Faithfull For the Galathians by the hearing of the preaching of S. Paule did not receiue Really the body of Iesus Christe crucified but onely had an imagination of the Crosse and Passion of Iesus Christe and receiued onely the frute of their Faithe That is by that meanes they were iustified and sanctified before God. The Allegation also which the Ministers make of S. Cyprian tendes to this ende to shewe that in the Supper is receiued onely certaine effectes spirituall which notwithstanding Allegorically are signified by these woordes to embrace the Crosse of Iesus Christe to sucke his bloude c. wherein they denie albeit againste the intente of S. Cyprian in his Sermon of the Supper the Reall presence of the body of Iesus Christe The Doctoures confesse that the Argumente which they haue made tendes to the Caluinistes and not to the Zuinglians neither did they thinke that the ministers woulde otherwayes iudge of this Sacrament than Caluine Beza and the other ministers who vaunte them selues to be ministers of the churche of the Caluinistes which they call reformed But those which exhibited to the Bishops being at Poissi the Cōfession touching this Sacrament vsed an other maner of spéech They without difficultie confessed Really the Bodye of Iesus Christ to be present in the Supper which at this daie the Ministers denie with the Doctoures conferentes And as farre as the Doctoures can iudge the Ministers be come of Caluinistes Allemanistes which suche wil not wel disgest as mainteine the Doctrine of the Churche whiche they call Reformed séeing their principal supposts faile them at néed as vnable to aunswere one Argumente obiected by the Doctours as affirming in their aunswere to be so farre illumined with the Holy Sprite which makes them vnderstande and knowe al things Touching the Article folowing they reueale openly their present opinion touching
the presence of Christes Body in the Sacramente bicause they saie that the faitheful receiue no more in the time of the Gospel than the Ancientes before the Lawe and vnder the Lawe And it is certaine the Ancients receiued not Really the body of Iesus Christ which was not then formed so that we muste conclude that vnder the Gospell is not receiued Really the Body of Iesus Christe in the Sacrament which the Ministers cal the Sacrament of the Supper To the 31. Article they aunswere not as in déede they coulde neuer answere And necessarily they must confesse that in vertue of theire Faithe they doo that whiche implies contradiction for they mainteine a thing in one instant one place to be present and not present neither doth their spirituall or rather fantasticall presence any thing seeing according to their Doctrine the body cannot be present but with his dimensions Locally Diffinitiuely and Corporally otherwayes it were to take cleane away or corrupte the body And the manner to be there spiritually cannot make that the body be not there otherwayes they saye falsely that it is present in the Supper and abuse the worlde wherefore it is necessary that if the body be there yea spiritually if their Doctrine be true of the nature of a body that the body of Iesus Christe be Corporally Diffinitiuely and Locally in the Supper Besides séeing he is absent according to their confession it folowes that he is not there present And as to conclude the Ministers saie he is there and that he is not there so for an absolute solution without entring into the principall of the argument they thinke to escape with obiecting to vs certaine woordes of briefe which wee haue not yet seene which wée thinke they haue found in certaine Breuiaries of Monkes as that thei remember wheÌ„ they were in the Couent they vsed so to chaunt and say But albeit such things were found in the Breuiaries vsed in the Romish Church yet such manner of speach might be defended in the sense which the Auncients haue giuen when they said the Apostles Conficiunt Corpus Christi Like as also the scripture saith that they baptize they forgiue sinnes saue those whom thei conuert which is vnderstand as Ministers of God who of his authority and as Maister baptiseth forgiueth sinnes and iustifieth the faithful persons Where the Ministers maruel that the Doctors cal faith humaine vertue considering the great woonderfull effects it woorketh the Doctours replie that they haue no great occasion of woonder séeing that all woorke so long as it is in man that it woorkes there with God is reputed humaine as also the scripture cals the Faith of man the woorke of man The Doctours delare to the Ministers that according to their custome resting alwayes vpon smal things they folow not that which is the principal in the mater not vnderstanding or faining not to vnderstand where lies the difficultie of that which is handled as they doo in their aunswer vppon the Argument proponed by the Doctours by which they obiect that the Ministers by their faith whether it may be called Diuine or Humaine may doo more than God can to whiche Obiection the Ministers without entring to the pointe aunswere with songs In the 32 Article thei passe ouer very lightly many obiections made by the doctors wherin whether ther be superfluity or repetition or whether they be impertineÌ„t the iudgment remaines to the Reader notwithstaÌ„ding al the the doctors wil not forbeare once againe to require theÌ„ to bring foorth some place of scripture to ground that God cannot bring to passe that one body be in twoo places séeing this coÌ„sequence is too foolish vaine God cannot lye he cannot then bring to passe that a body be in twoo places for so must thei subsume Wel God hath said ordeined that one body cannot be in two places then he cannot make that it be so but they shall neuer teach the truth of the assumption or Mâ—nor propositioÌ„ the contrary wherof hath bene verified sufficiently by many testimonies of the Scripture We demaund also that the Ministers produce some Ancient yea a man euer reputed Catholike that durst pronouÌ„ce that God could not bring to passe that one body be in twoo places But in all their answeres they coulde not bring foorthe any of that opinion excepte S. Augustine albeit falsely alleaged bothe in respecte of the Letter and for the sense of the Letter neither will wée cease to vrge aswell the Ministers as al others that there is founde neither place of Scripture nor Booke of any Auncient that God cannot bring to passe that one body be in twoo places Touching the laste Article wée are fully determined to shewe by the pure and expresse Woorde of God interpreted by the common consent of all Antiquitie that our Lord hath instituted the Sacramente and Sacrifice of the Aultare And wée wil teache the effecte and vertue of the Masse according to the Institution and Ordinaunce of Iesus Christe making also to vnderstande that the Ministers haue polluted and defiled the Sacramentes instituted by Iesus Christe And lastely that the Supper mainteined by the Ministers is no Sacramente in any sorte but a prophanation of Holy things conteining execrable Blasphemies which al the worlde ought to abhorre Sondaye the xxij of Iuly the yeere aforesaide The Aunswere of the Ministers to the writing of the Doctours sente to them by the Duke de Neuers xxij of Iuly aboute fiue of the clocke in the Euening 1566. THe Ministers afore they enter into particulare Answere to the Obiections and Reproches of the Doctours séeing in all their speaches withoute any occasion they laie vppon them imputation of blasphemie thinke good in their beginning to tel them that albeit thei haue heaped iniuries vpon them yet they holde themselues neuer the more wronged and muche lesse to be guiltie in blasphemie bicause they repute them for such no more than our Lorde Iesus Christe in the iudgemente and opinion of Caiphas the soueraigne Sacrificator and S. Stephen vppon whom the saide crime was vrged by the enimies of truthe and also Naboth notwithstanding he was innocent for it is a custome common to suche as hate the truthe and the light to blaspheme that which they vnderstande not and so yeelde to their proper and naturall furie as S. Peter Iude write that impudently they denie things moste apparante without shame confesse others that are straunge and obscure the same being offered of the Doctoures to the Ministers of whom they will heare nothing with iudgemente nor iudge their Doctrine vprightly but séeme in all the course of this Disputation either to confront them generally without respecte or at least to giue sentence without examination that what so euer they produce is either lyes or matter of blasphemie And albeit the Ministers handling the Omnipotencie of God according as they haue learned by the consent and contentes of the Scriptures agrée alwayes that he is
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
in the scripture it is spoken of the Diuinitie aswel as when there is speach of the Humanitie of Iesus Christ Where the Ministers say wée confesse our Canons to be false it is a manifeste slaunder For wée acknowledge no Canons if they deriue not from the Councelles and other Authentike Bookes and not as they are gathered by any particulare man as is the Compilation of Gratian to whom there is no further faith giuen than he deserues that is recited by him For Resolution of the eighth Article wée sende the Ministers to the Phisophers Schole to learne that there is in the Predicament of substaunce a Body whiche is Species of Substance and in the predicament of Quantitie an other body which is Species of quantitie and also to learne that the body which is of quantitie is Accidental and not essentiall to the body of the predicament of substance Besides the Ministers erre againste all Philosophie to call a Substance materiall incorpored But the Doctours wil not stande vpon those things and are sory they haue not to doo with men better principled in Philosophy who would 〈…〉 â—son than the Ministers doo 〈…〉 Consequence of twoo Bo◠〈…〉 be in twoo pla◠〈…〉 â—nd like in◠〈…〉 â—e if the 〈…〉 the 〈…〉 passion they woulde examine the testimonies of the Auncientes and reasons drawne from the same But by this wée proue that when there is any thing that presseth the Ministers it is then they sette a good countenaunce and make shewe to haue good righte Besides the Doctoures maruell muche howe the Ministers dare affirme that Iustine and all the Auncientes haue not put the myracle of the doores in the body of Iesus Christ séeing Iustine makes this expresse question howe it is possible that a body grosse be not let to passe throughe the doores shutte in the answere of which question they conclude it that bicause that myracle was done in the nature of the Bodye of Iesus Christe the Apostles iudged it was not a true Body but a Sprite As if the Body had bene transnatured into a sprite which Iustine saith did not happen but that withoute any chaunge of nature suche operation to passe throughe the doores shutte was giuen to the Bodye of Iesus Christs by the Omnipotencie of God as also Iustine saithe not that anye myracle was done in the Sea when Iesus walked thereuppon but that by the Almightinesse that was in him he made it portable without chaunge of the nature of his Bodye or of the Sea notwithstanding the myracle was in his Bodye whiche contrary to his nature did so walke It is not inoughe to alleage S. Hylarie that the power of God made place to the Bodye of our Lorde for he doothe not onely auouche that but addes the manner of the facte whiche is that the Bodye passed withoute chaunge or diminishing his nature or withoute any opening And yet notwithstanding he passed by the operation of the Omnipotencie whiche wroughte in his Bodye piercing the close and shutte places Nihil inquit cessit ex solido Parictum with other like speache whiche he vseth by which cannot be vnderstand any other thing than a penetration of many Bodyes S. Chrysostome disputes expressely that contrary to his nature he passed through the doores shutte aswell as out of the belly of the Virgyn without breaking neither dothe he saie simply that he is ignorante wherein consisted the facts séeing he discribes it but he amplifieth the vertue of the facte and saith that the reason and greatnesse cannot be comprehended bicause it procéeded of the power of God incomprehensible Touching al which pointes the Doctours referre themselues to the reading of the Bookes without any further debate against the Ministers who thinke alwayes to abuse the ignorance of suche as beleue them to denie or affirme what they thinke good And as we gréeue and are weary to reiterate the reasons herebefore so familiarely and clearely deduced so by the euasions of the Ministers so often repeted we are enforced eftsoones to intrude that which by common consent of the Ancients they oughte to beleue touching the Articles We much maruel of the manner of Answeres of the ministers who without regard to the matter obiected to them say what they thinke good of the pointes proponed and not answere to the Argumentes as in the Article that toucheth the byrth of Iesus Christe in the deduction whereof wée haue brought foorth many testimonies of the Auncients holding that our Lord came myraculously from the belly of his mother as he was also conceiued Wherin as the said Ancientes affirme that that Natiuitie was done withoute any breaking to the body of the Virgyn so they condemned in Heresie al such as helde the contrary whiche the Ministers séeke yet to mainteine and for al their aunswere affirme it staying as they say vppon the Scripture and dare not openly say that they reiect the iudgementes of the Aunciente and Primitiue Churche to repose vpon theire owne sense which notwithstanding appeares clearely inough in theire Answere vpon this Article wherein they falsely apply the Scripture as thoughe it conteined that in the Byrth of our Lorde A perta fuerit vulua Virginis And where thei say that that disclesing impugnes not her Corporal Virginitie by which the question is mente they bely the Resolution of the Auncientes who haue determined vppon this matter In the Article of the resurrection whether there be other matters than coniectures the reading of the Obiection of the Doctors shall witnesse the same being to be séene of suche as desire to know the truthe And where vppon the ende of the Article of the Resurrection the ministers complaine that we lay wrongs and scoffes vppon them we doubte not but they take in displeasure that their suttleties and maners of doing are discouered which if they were well knowne the world woulde not be so simplie beguiled as héeretofore they haue bene The Resolution pretended by the ministers as being not written aphantos autois but apauton is not pertinent For be it in what sort so euer our Lord was inuisible to his Disciples whether it was by sodaine vanishing away or otherwayes the which vanishing in a body present at the eie not troubled can not be done but that the body is made inuisible to them And how so euer it be the Gréeke text beares inuisible and vnseene Touching the Article for the opening of the heauens the ministers according to their custome aunswer not directly For it is not saide that the Heauens were deuided or open when he mounted thither as in the baptisme of Iesus Christ and the vision of S. Stephen but the scripture saith expressely that Christe pierced the heauens and not that the heauens disclosed to him Neither can the ministers forbeare to reproche vs in deprauing the vnderstanding of our writings the same being witnessed in this present Aunswere wherin they faine to vnderstand that in that text of the scripture importing that Christ pierced the heauens we would signifie
month shal we kil them Muttons or Béeffes which may suffice them Or shal we gather all the Fishes of the sea to content them God answered to Moyses the hand of the Lord is it shortned thou shalt sée now whether my woorde wil come to passe or not In like manner as often as we reade in the Scriptures that the multitude or other particular sort fel into infidelitie or distrust of the aide and succors of God we shall finde that ordinarily it moued in respecte they rested vppon the nature and disposition of humaine things and did not comprehende sufficiently the power of God and of the contrary to confirme them we finde that this power was put before their eies wherof we haue héere before produced certaine Examples of Esay and Ierome In the newe Testamente the Virgine séemed to make some doubte of the meane of hir Conception as hauing regarde to the naturall manner of conceiuing For shée sayde howe may this be séeing I know no man But the Aungell Aunswered nothing is impossible to God drawing her by that from the imagination of naturall propreties which is the roote of infidelitie exhorted hir to aspire to the almightinesse of God as being the first stone and rocke wherupon is builded true religion This being considered and so to resolue with the Ministers for this conference we say that by good right gods almightines obteines expressely the first place amongest the Articles of the Apostles Créede as being the same by the which the other Articles of Faith and dooings of God aboue nature are beleued and mainteined against all contradiction and repugnancie of nature or reason that may be pretended or alleaged and without the which neither Article of the Faithe or any dooings of God surpassing nature and conteined in the Scripture can be defended against the malice and deprauation of humaine Sprite which tendes alwayes to infidelitie and disobedience to God and is prompt and suttle from his byrth to depraue and reproche the woord and commaundement of the same by meane whereof wée say that so much the more euery good Christian oughte to enforce himselfe to hold preserue this Article whole without either suffering any exception or to restraine it to our single pleasure or purpose vnder colour of incertaine pretended repugnances of Creatures mouing in the Sprites of men for want of direct vnderstanding comprehending the greatnesse of God for as the Scripture giues to vs alwayes this Omnipotency in generall without any restrainte in regarde of creatures and dooings of God so it teacheth vs that creatures are vnder his obedience as the Clay in the handes of the Potter to receiue such chaunge and forme as he thinks best without that they can say why doo you this to me or why chaunge you me such similitude of speach vse the Prophet Esay Ierome and S. Paule Wée say further that so much lesse ought it to be licenced to men to limit and bound the said power according to the contradictions which they imagyn in their fansies of the nature wisedome or eternall will of God séeing the expresse sentence of the Scripture is that as God can doo more than wée vnderstand so he smiles at such as wil meddle with his nature wisedome eternal wil as if they were his Counsellers and knewe further of his iudgements and ordinaunces than his owne woord dooth pronounce and in the ende all sprites created are constrained with S. Paule to cry out confessing their ignorance of the power wisedome of God and of his dooings Oh depth of Riches of the knowledge wisedome of God Oh that his iudgementes are incomprehensible and his wayes impossible to finde For who is he that hath knowne the intent of the Lord or who hath bene his Counseller Wherewith wée may also note vpon this pointe a godly sentence of S. Augustine in an Epistle of his to Volusianus Wée confesse that God can doo something which in searching wée cannot finde meaning that as God can doo something so albeit in our naturall iudgemente wée thinke it impossible yet let vs hold it possible only the capacity of our sprite is not able to comprehende it Wée say further that by suche licence and meane to exempt from Goddes power at our pleasure vnder colour of certaine impossibilities of nature or repugnancy supposed by our owne iudgement in the nature wisedome or will of God euery one may study to faine the like in all matters of Faith wherein suche things may be easily inuented or disguised And that it be so if all the Heresies be obserued that haue withstād it in euery time from the first Article of the Creede euen to the laste it will appeare that they al haue kept this way and methode to shake euery Article of the Faith as impossible to God considering the impossibility of the facte according to nature and certaine pretended inconueniences against nature wisedome will and glory of god To this effecte also wée apply the twoo firste Bookes of Tertullian whereof the one is of the Incarnation of Iesus Christe and the other of the Resurrection of his Fleshe againste the Marcionistes wherein the Christian Reader shall reade like Argumentes of the saide Marcionistes labouring to exempt the Incarnation of our Sauiour and Resurrection of his Fleshe from the Omnipotency of God. Nowe to conclude this pointe wée speake it to all good Christians that to the ende to adde nothing to the Scriptures whose speache is alwayes of the power of God to his Creatures withoute any lymitation and to the ende to glorifie the infinite power wisedome and eternall will of our Creatour and Redéemer and also not to open the vessell of the secretes of God to euery impudent who of his owne folie will sette Lawes to men but to the power wisedome and eternal wil of God. And lastely to the ende not to bring into the worlde all Heresies onely but also an Atheisme who according to his sense and fansie may and will oppose and gainesay the infinite power of the true liuing and eternall God. Wée affirme eftsoones that it is necessary to beleue confesse and mainteine that our God is the Almighty Lorde without ende to whom as nothing is impossible so euen the least of his woorkes standing daily afore our eies cannot be comprehended And in plaine speache he is no more a Christian nor a faithfull man who restraines or drawes into any lymit the power of God for thereby he reuerseth the maintenaunce of the Faithe which ought to be generall as to the which no exception can be giuen But as the Omnipotency ought to be kepte in his generalitie and perfection so our opinion is that it is not inough to say that God is almighty and hath the vertue to doo any thing as to inferre that it is done for all that our Lorde can doo he hath not yet done nor neuer wil do bicause his power is infinite But the knowledge of this omnipotency serues to confesse magnifie
firste of Auguste at seuen or eight of the clocke in the Euening 1566. AFter wée had giuen our Resolution vppon the Article of Goddes Omnipotencie wee ment not eftsoones to returne vpon that Argument as hauing already sufficiently handled it but suche is the horrour of the newe Blasphemies conteined in the laste pamphelet of the Ministers that against our saide meaning wée are forced if not to reply at the leaste to admonish them together with the Readers of this presente conference in the matter of the saide moste execrable blasphemies with suche are vrged to confesse who will not acknowledge the Reall presence of the Body of Iesus Christ in the Sacramente of the Aultare are not ashamed to deny also euen the power of God him selfe The consideration whereof as wée hope will not onely confirme the Catholikes in the faith of the saide Article but also with Goddes aide bring home againe many that are strayed and separated from the Catholike Churche vpon the vnderstanding of the detestable erroures and blasphemies succéeding with the contradiction to the Real presence of the Body of our Lorde in the saide Sacramente whiche might also serue the Ministers for their conuersion if without passion they woulde examine sincerely iudge of the reasons actes proponed touching the power of God where as resisting the Holy Sprite in place to confesse their errours they are turned into all sortes of wrongs and iniuries againste suche as of good will reuealed them misconstruing our purpose as not to tende but to deface and roote them out wherin as wée were neuer moued so muche as in thoughte so of the contrary we desired nothing more than the saluation of the Ministers togither with all suche as were fallen from the true Catholike Churche whereof what better witnesse can we prefer than that in our ordinarie preaching we persuade the people to pray to God for them only we séeke to roote vp the raigne and kingdome of Sathan and to abolish all heresies and peruerse Doctrine rather by the preaching of Gods worde than any other meane And much do we maruel that the Ministers séeme so hotly netled against vs in their laste Aunsweres séeing it is without occasion on our side as only chalenging many of our propositions to containe matter of blasphemy which they might haue suffised either to denie or disproue leauing the Readers to iudge without entring into so warme choler seeing that as they make profession of pacience and modestie so though they were vrged in iniurie yet they shuld not enforce reuēge They ought to remember the goodly titles wherwith they honoure the Catholike doctrine as with the name of superstition idolatrie impietie abhomination and many other like yea not sparing the personnes calling the Popes Bishops and Priestes Antichristes and ministers of Sathan Against which checkes we are cōtent when occasion moues to proue by Gods woorde that such titles are inconuenient no lesse to the persons than to the Doctrine preached by them And so albeit the ministers their furie deserue a sharpe replie yet to qualifie their Waspishe stomakes we will forbeare to Aunswere the iniuries that touche our persons and estates and leauing all to the iudgement of the Readers without passion we will only proceede to the pointes that concernes the Doctrine In the firste place the ministers do great wrong to vs and oures to resemble vs with the Donatistes as imputing falsly to vs to drawe the Church into a certaine place as did the Donatistes who placed hir onely in Afrike For it is moste manifest that we neither knowe nor confesse other Churche then the Catholike who as the name beares hathe bene visibly since the Apostles and stretcheth thorow all the world in what Region Countrey or place so euer the faithfull beléeuing in Iesus Christ be albeit we reuerence the Romish church as amongst others the first and principal as Ireneus Tertullian S. Cyprian S. Augustine with other Auncientes gaue hir this honor to confesse hir principally and as mother of all the other Churches And therfore with farre more iust reason that obiection might be applied against the ministers who can not say that their Churche is Catholike as hauing taken hir originall in our time séene and knowne at Geneua and founded vppon the priuate opinion of one man without that in any time before it can be shewed that any suche opion hathe bene holden in any nation what so euer which shal be handled in his order when we discende to examine the errors maintained by the Ministers against the Article I beléeue the holy Catholike Churche For the rest the Ministers oughte not to haue alleaged the violence crueltie and furie of the Donatistes againste the Catholikes seeing suche example condemnes them and their like But bicause it doth but kindle a memorie of the hurts passed which Fraunce hathe suffred by the setting on of the Ministers and for feare to stirre vp eftsoones to newe wrongs we will stay no longer vpon this spéeche shewing notwithstanding to the Ministers that the Donatistes reproched the Catholikes to endure persecution by them and that to roote them vp they solicited Emperoures and Magistrates as the Ministers doe euill applie to vs who confesse to desire firste of all the Conuersion of all Sectes and if they will not come to amendment that then by good and holy lawes the Magistrates to lay suche punishment vppon them as God be not blasphemed nor the people tormented according to the Doctrine of S. Augustine in an Epistle sent ad Vincentium contra Denatistas where he Confesseth that the Catholikes persecuted the Donatistes as of the contrarie the Donatistes afflicted also the Catholikes Onely their persecutions differed for the Catholykes dyd not execute but by the Magistrates and that procéeded of Charitie to roote vp the euil which hindered the publike peace and tranquillitie where of the contrary the Donatistes persecuted without aucthoritie of the Magistrate and procéeded of malice pretending nothing but ruine and subuersion S. Augustine allowes the firste to be good and according to God and the seconde he makes to be wicked and of the inspiration of Sathan wherin he brings many examples of the scripture we haue stand somewhat long vppon this pointe the rather to purge the slaunder which the Ministers haue laide vpon vs as that in our preachings wrytings and conference we haue not searched but their destruction and alwayes to persecute them construing it as a matter of particulare hate againste them and not of charitie and zeale to the truthe to conuert as wel the ministers as suche as are seduced and abused by them wherein we call God to witnesse and protest all the contrarie with request to the ministers to beléeue vs attending Goddes iudgement vppon it who is the only searcher of the heartes and affections of men Touching the Article where the Ministers say that God is almightie bicause he can doe all that he will if they would haue red the wrytings of S. Thomas whose
Doctrine they disdaine they should wel know that this reason is nothing bicause the Angelles and suche as are blessed being alwayes conformed to the wil of God may doe all that they will doe and there is no creature that cā hinder the effect of their wil and yet they are not omnipotent touching the saying of S. Augustine taking it as the ministers do the reason of Gods almightinesse is too weake and false But to haue a true vnderstanding of this sentence we muste consider that there is difference betwéene the will of God actuall and the power of the wil for God may wil many things which he will not nor neuer would and therfore he can will more then he will not actually wherein we ought rather to measure his omnipotencie then according to his actuall will. In this sorte must we interprete the texte of S. Augustine that Goddes omnipotencie stretcheth to all things which he can will and not according as he actually willeth S. Augustine also is recited by the ministers being destitute of testimonie of the scripture albeit in their former Aunswere they vaunt to haue taken that reason of the scriptures In the Article folowing the ministers charge vs falsly to haue curtalled some woords of their last wryting which shall not be found true For our text beares these woords it is vndoubted that aboue all conceite and imagination of mannes spirit Gods power is great infinite and incomprehensible by which may be clearely séene that we speake vniuersally of all conceite and imagination withoute exception of any whether it be of wisdome or of follie therefore it was without néede to expresse the woordes of the ministers séeing the Doctors spake generally the which that which goeth before dothe shewe as the ministers haue recited it where it is said that we reprehended them in that they gaue some restraint and limitation of the omnipotencie of God as not suffering it to stretch generally to all things that mannes wit mighte imagine or conceiue where in these woordes generally and all things they declare that we woulde comprehende according to humaine iudgement euen the foolish fansies and imaginations which men may comprehend And that we would not cutte of anything of the wryting of the ministers who perhappes were of opinion that we would not say that God can doe all that a fonde braine can imagine as fearing that we would inferre against them that God could doe any follie which should not folowe for albeit in the iudgement of men certaine things are estéemed fonde yet séeing they are possible in themselues they may be done of God but wisely notwithstanding the witte of man iudge the contrary Like as in many iudgementes man beguiles himselfe estéeming that for follie which is wisdome with God as S. Paule saith So that we say that all things which are to be imagined by man are to be done with God without excepting any thing sauing suche things as implie contradiction to be and not to be which can not be done in respecte of repugnancie procéeding of their parte and not by faulte of the power of God wherein we pray suche to whome these conferences shall come to note that the ministers are alwayes found slaunderers when they lay that crime vpō vs like as in the former wryting they stande as conuinced therein The Ministers will also be founde slaunderers in the Article folowing where they clippe our sayings and falsly lay vpon vs to haue writtē that God cā do any thing against order in déede we sayd that to holde that God could do nothing against the order which he hath established in the worlde is to blaspheme God in which may be discerned the slaunder of the ministers who mangling the speeche haue taken away these woordes established in the world where they inferre that it is a blasphemie to say that God may do a thing which is not well ordered it is oute of doubte but to doe any thing contrary to the order established in the world importes not any thing disordered but onely mutation and chaunge of order without any disorder which the Ministers confesse in their Article folowing We greatly abhorre the blasphemies cōtained in the next Article whereof the firste is that one body be in diuers places is a thing derogante to the truth of God bicause in God there shoulde be yea and not so that the Ministers hold that God should not be true if he broughte to passe one body to be in diuers places and yet they neither teache nor can teache that God hathe euer sayde that one body coulde not be in diuers places it impugnes the wisdome of God bicause in his woorkes there shoulde be disorder and confusion wherein likewise they confesse that God shuld not be wise if he made one bodie at one instante to be in diuers places The thirde is that suche thing resistes the omnipotencie of God séeing in suche acte there should be suche imperfection that muche lesse according to the opinion of the Ministers that God in doing this shoulde be omnipotent but of the contrarie he should be imperfect and impuissant The fourthe is that if suche a thing were done it shoulde be againste the eternall and immoueable will of God and therefore God should be mutable Oute of which blasphemies is necessarily vomited a manifest Atheisme that God should not be God if he made one body in one instant to be in diuers places For God can not be but true wise almightie and immoueable which blasphemies we are content to coate and marke only with admonishment how many miseries spring of their Doctrine that denie the Reall presence of the body of Iesus Christ in the holy Sacrament and not to stay any more to confute them as being too manifest and hauing regarde with all to the saying of Ireneus that there be heresies whome to discouer is to refute them In the Article folowing they resiste that with so many times they haue saide that God coulde not bring to passe that one bodie be in two places at one instante bicause it impugned the order which he hathe established in the worlde as though God could doe no other wayes than according to the order which he hath already established and in this present Article they confesse that God can chaunge and alter the said order out of which Confession we draw this argument God can chaunge and alter the order which he hath established in the world and that withoute any preiudice to his truthe his wisdome power and immoueable will then he can chaunge the order by the which he hathe established as the Ministers séeme to holde that one bodie should not be but in one place and to bring to passe in the contrarie the order being changed that one bodie shall be in diuers places and yet in that there is no derogation to his truthe wisdome power and will and by consequent that God of his omnipotencie may bring to passe that one body be in diuers places Touching the