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
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
gifte of God. They saie further that the lawfull Ministers oughte to he sente not of Pastors pretended and whiche haue nothing of Pastors but the Title and name onely but of God as appeares in Ieremie where this marke is sette foorthe to knowe and marke a false Pastor when he insinuates him selfe or is sente of other than of God. Touching the Article folowing they saie that the true marke by which we maie iudge certainely of a Reuelation is rather the woorde of God than the consente of many bicause it happeneth many times that the multitude in the Churche declining from the woorde doothe wholy swarne and goe astraie as in the time of Micheas Iesus Christe and since in the time of Constance the Emperour Touching those Prophetes who folow and are ledde by their sprite as they that leauing Goddes woorde reste vpon the commaundementes and traditions of men or the vanity of their braine it is not to be douted that suche are not false Prophetes and to be eschewed and reiected onely wée muste vse greate difference betwene the Reuelations and testimonies of Goddes sprite and the vaine imaginations of the minde of men To that the Doctors alleaged that Heretikes as Anabaptistes and others serue theire turne to confirme theire errors with those places of scripture whiche the Ministers haue produced they denie not but it maie be so for that the Scripture being common maye be alleaged of euery one Neither oughte wée to staie vppon that whiche is produced but to weighe and examine howe and to what ende and pourpose it is alleaged by whiche will appeare the difference that is betwene the Ministers and heretikes Touching that whiche was inferred of Brentius and Bucers opinion that by the onely tradition of the Churche the Canonical Bookes maye be discerned from the Apocryphal the Doctoures séeme to miâ—â—erue their purpose with that seing they mainteine that all the Bookes of the Bible are Canonical and yet by their reporte of Brentius and Bucer it appeares that both the one and the other according to the Tradition as they saie do put a distinction calling the one Canonical and the other Apocryphall To the Article folowing wherein the Doctors alleage certaine places of the auncients to take away the difference betwéene the Canonical and Apocriphal Bokes the Ministers answere that as they haue alleaged certaine to proue it so also they are able to produce of the same for the disproofe as S. Ierome in his Prologue named Chaleatus and in an other which beginnes prater Ambrosiuâ— to whome writing the summe of euery Booke of the Bible he makes no mention but of those which the ministers call Canonicall They are able also to alledge two or three Cataloges recited in Eusebius who receiue not for Canonical Bookes but suche as the ministers them selues approue The Councell of Laodicen alleaged by the Doctors speakes for the ministers as not comprehending that wherof there is question and touching experience they Aunswere that it is a question de facto as being better to be alleaged againste the Doctors than the ministers Lastly to the ende no more time be spente in so often repetition of one selfe thing and that we prepare to conferre the pointes of the Confession which the Doctors wil debate the ministers declare that the .xxiiij. Bookes of the olde Testament which are in the Canon of the Hebrues with all the Bookes of the newe Testament be approued Canonical of the one and other parte and they are sufficiente to decide wholy all the pointes of their Confession and generally all that belonges to true religion neither haue they occasion by the meanes of that to delay any more the conference in respecte of difference betwéene the two parties touching the distinction of the Canonical and Apocriphal Bookes Obiection Notwithstanding the Ministers say their religion is fouÌ„ded vpon the woorde of God yet they grounde Gods woorde vpon inward Reuelation so that Reuelation is the ground of the woorde and consequently of their religion for they receiue for the woorde but that which they thinke to be particularely reuealed vnto them Touching the other Article where they resiste the opinion of the Doctoures that Faithe is gotten by the hearing of Goddes woorde it séemes they offer to â—â—umble vppon small blockes as not to enter into the principall And where they alleage that faithe is a gifte of God and therfore not gotten it is moste manifest by many ordinarie textes of Scripture that it dothe not differ one thing to be giuen and gotten as the kingdom of heauen which is giuen to the blessed and yet we doe get it hauing true Faithe woorking by charitie the scripture also calles it the rewarde and recompence of good woorkes and S. Paule saithe that by liberalitie and almes men gaine the grace of God Yea there can be none other vnderstanding of S. Paules speache Fides ex auditu but that Faith comes by hearing Goddes woorde which is the obteining of the same by the meane of hearing it preached albeit it be a gifte of god They vse the like subteltie in going about to rebuke the opinion that Faithe is the truthe reuealed as putting a great difference betwéene the truthe reuealed and the Reuelation of truthe which subtiltie shoulde be of force against S. Paule who sayeth Panis quem frangimus nonne communicatio corporis Domini est which is as much as panis fractio nonne c. And therefore to speake properly the text of S. Paule must néedes lie subiecte to suche rebukes So that touching this Article to the ende not to incidente notwithstanding the Replie of the Ministers the Doctors will dispute no more of it as being a matter too muche impertinent séeing that in the ende it would procure spéeche of merito and so from one to another It gréeues them to enter vpon the vocation of the lawfull Ministers of the churche and therefore to auoide that question they will not alleage which they might without any superfluous discourse that afore their Doctrine be receiued they muste be examined whether they were lawfull ministers sent of the true church to preach Gods woord and to be heard of the people in their sermones according to S. Paules place alleaged heere before which if they of the newe Religion had well considered they might haue a moste sufficient argument not to receiue their Doctrine bicause it is no lesse cleare than the day that they are no Ministers sent by the Pastoures of the Churche but haue foisted in themselues to Preache and are not able to shewe any signe of their vocation either from men and muche lesse from GOD And if it were lawefull to euery one that saithe he is sent to Preache the woorde it were to raise infinite Sectes as wee see happeneth in this time and so they cease further spéeche in this Argument least they giue a greater heate to the matter Touching the Article declaring howe we may knowe a Reuelation to be of God which the ministers hold is
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
shoulde remaine a Virgine and that a thing done shuld not be done that being vnderstand as the Theologians say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 u câ—â—posito which is the things being suche and so done it is true and the reason is that otherwise it woulde implie contradiction But in the Question proposed there is nothing like which only Demaundes if God by his power can alter and chaunge the Nature and qualitie of things created as if he could bring to passe that a heauie thing abiding in his qualitie of heauinesse waighte which naturally weighes downewarde shoulde remaine by the onely vertue of God hanging on high as we reade in the holy Scripture that the fire which naturally ascendes and stretches on heigthe discendes downewarde by the vertue of God and also that fire of his proper nature ardente and burning makes cold his owne qualitie that is the heat reasting in the substance as also that two bodyes may be in one place as appeareth when our Lord entred where the Apostles were the doores being shut or that a great and large bodie remaining in his grosenesse and bignesse passeth thorow a place inequall to his greatnesse and largenesse as the Camell thorow the eie of a needell All which Examples as they are taken of the scripture so if it muste be that God can not bring to passe that one body be in two places he can no more doe the things aforesaide by the reasons which shall be deduced héereafter to that ende And as it wil neuer be found to enter into the brain of an interpreter to denie such power so the first that hath denied it openly was Peter Martyr and after him Beza The Doctoures say further that the fourme of arguing which the Ministers vse impugnes and reuerseth that which God obserueth in the holy scripture and the Angel speaking to the virgin for God ordinarily when he assureth any thing impossible to nature that men cannot coÌ„prehend alleageth generally his power like as also the Angel laying a fouÌ„dation of the Incarnation of our Lord saith generally there is nothing impossible to God as touching his creatures But is it so that the generalitie of an argument is deserued by particular exceptions and made vnprofitable and without force by that meane When God then alleageth generally that his power can doe it it may be doubted of and thought that the things proponed of God may be of those that are impossible to him aswel as the exceptions alleaged of the ministers And that also should be false which the Aungell saithe that there is nothing impossible to god by that that many things are alleaged and proponed to the contrarie So that to the ende God and his Aungelles be mainteined true in their woordes we muste not doubte that he can not chaunge and transforme his creatures and al their qualities muche more easily than a potter is able to worke his clay and fourme at his pleasure any vessell thereof Further if we limite the power of God towards his creatures there is daunger that we fal not to deny him his Empire and dominion ouer them for to be Lord ouer a creature is no other thing than to haue power to chaunge and alter him and giue him suche a nature and qualitie as he thinkes good as hauing him altogether in his power And therefore God in Ieremie to shewe that he had power to reuerse and destroy Ierusalem according to his pleasure begins to say I am Lorde ouer all fleshe is there any thing impossible to me and therfore the Doctoures conclude that there is daunger if this question be mainteined as impossible to God that euery one will doe as muche alleaging the selfe examples that the ministers do to exempt from Gods power al things that displease him And when suche matter shall be produced out of Scripture he may interprete the Scripture in other sense saying that suche a thing shal be impossible to God in the naturall sense of the woordes of the Scripture euen as the ministers chaunge the Scripture which saithe that the body of Iesus Christe is in two places that is the woorde of the Supper compared with the woorde of the Ascention and they say that that spéeche of the Supper oughte not to be vnderstanded literally bicause it is impossible to God that one Body be in twoo places And so the Doctours saie that euery one woulde corrupte the Literall sense of the Scripture holding that the thing is impossible to God and therefore the Scripture muste be otherwayes vnderstande and yet it maye so happen that it is only bicause it doth displease him producing notwithstanding the same reasons and allegations whiche the Ministers doo to declare that all things are not impossible to God. The Doctors conclude eftsoones that it is better to mainteine the Scripture in his truthe albeit shée propose things incomprehensible and impossible to our iudgement than to giue way to euery one to depraue Goddes woorde applying it to his owne will and fansie vnder shadowe to saie that it is impossible to God and so to alleage other examples Lastely they will not omitte that the Ministers who haue so déepely protested to rest stay vpon the pure woord of God allege not against Gods power but the ancient doctours aiding themselues with their authorities against the expresse woord of God which beares that nothing is impossible to him generally without some exception Aunsvvere The Ministers aunswere that the Doctoures proue not their consequence but leaue it as in a distruste not to be able to confirme it as is moste likely They make no mention but of the Antecedent of their consequence to the confession of whiche it will neuer be possible to them to bring the Ministers by the reasons and authorities by them alleadged so strengthen theire saide consequence bicause of a Particulare they inferre a Generall whiche is againste the Rules of Dialectice where they saye that the authorities alleaged by the Ministers apperteine nothing to reproue their consequence and to shewe that God forbeares not to be almighty notwithstanding that he cannot doo any thing which derogates his nature They referre themselues for that to the ancient authours aforesaid who for the same and reason of the ministers alleage the saide exceptions Where they pretende that the Authorities and Sentences alleaged of the Auncientes doo nothing apperteine to the presente question as denying that they oughte to be vnderstand of other things excepte suche as conteine in themselues contradiction The Ministers aunswere that euen so doothe that whiche they propone of a Body that in one instante he maye he in diuerse places the same being asmuch as if they had saide that a Bodye is and is not at one time and that a Body is one and not one And lastely that a Creature maye be incircumscript and not enclosed in certaine limittes whiche if it were so he shoulde be no more a Creature but a God as maye be gathered of the saying of S. Basile in his
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
be broughte in by Caluin and his like to eschue confession that God is able to bring to passe that one body be in diuerse places and yet the proper text of the Scripture witnesseth that two bodyes may be by the power of God in one selfe place as also that one bodye hauing colour and afore visible by Goddes power is made inuisible without any let to the eies of suche as may sée the same being confirmed by S. Luke saying Aphantos egeneto apanton I nuisibilis factus est ab ipsis notwithstanding there were no more leâ—te of the parte of the Disciples For it is saide afore that theire eies were opened to know him Whereunto all antiquitie consentes The Doctours adde to confirme the penetration of the dimensions an other acte that our Lord mounted to the Heauens which he did neither diuide nor rent and therfore it must needes be that he penetrated them as the Scripture beares in proper termes The Doctoures signifie to the saide Ministers that they cannot produce one onely Anciente of sounde renowme hauing expounded these places of whom thei may learne their so many diuerse interpretations neither dothe it serue to colour their exposition the texte alleaged of the Actes of the Apostles where S. Peter went out of prison in which place is no speach at al of opening the doores of the said prison neither is it saide as in S. Iohn that the doores of the prison being shut S Peter came foorth but that the Aungell arriued there when the Garde before the doore watched the prison where they saye the doores were open to S. Peter it agreeth not with the opinion of S. Iohn that the doores were shutte when our Lorde entred The like reason alleaged by the saide Ministers of the fifth of the Actes is vnprofitable to this purpose aswell as the firste and for the same cause And to shewe clearely and euidentely that againste the naturall propertie of Bodyes God can make that a greate and grosse Bodye maye passe into a space and place inequall to his greatenesse largenesse and thickenesse The Doctoures haue recited that whiche our Lorde saithe in S. Mathewe 19. It is more easie that a Cable enter the eie of a Néedle than a Riche man into the Kingdome of Heauen whereunto the Ministers haue aunswered two things The one that in the inuolution we must not turne Cable but rather Camel notwithstanding their own french Bible of the impression of Antony Kebul which they haue brought conteineth the versioÌ„ of this word Cable like as also Caluin in his Harmony of the foure Euangelists saith it is the better Wherein may be séene and founde true that which Tertullian inueigheth againste the Valentinians and Irenaeus againste him in the firste Booke Chap. 14. that suche as are separated from vs to putte themselues in an other schoole deuise alwayes some new thing to the end the Disciples may be founde more able than the Maisters But be it that the woorde of Camel is graunted to them which the Doctoures doubte not hathe bene expounded by S. Hilarie S. Ierome others the reason is yet stronger For it is more vnlikely and repugnante that a crooked Camel grosse and greate enter the hole of a Néedle than a Cable The other reason giuen by the Ministers is that God maye bring to passe that a Camell or Cable enter the eie of a Néedle whiche is notwithstanding againste the pure woorde of Iesus Christe whiche saith It is not impossible to God to doo it but rather easie and by comparison more easie to God than to make a Riche man enter into the Kingdome of Heauen whiche our Lorde saithe notwithstanding to be possible not to men but to God to whom nothing is impossible whereupon the doctours saie that if God can doo that whiche is moste harde he maye doo that whiche is moste easie The texte of the Scripture importes that God may bring to passe that a rich man enter into the Kingdome of Heauen whiche is moste harde then he maye bring to passe that a Camell or Cable enter the eie of a Needle whiche is more easie The aunsweres of the Ministers here before confuted tend to these absurdities and blasphemies that Iesus Christ by his Omnipotencie could not enter throughe the doores being shutte that he coulde not issue out of the wombe of his Mother through her body without breaking that he could nor bring to passe that a body visible should be inuisible that a body greate and grosse coulde be in a place inequal to himselfe that he could by his Diuine power make penetration of the Dimensions and that he maye bring to passe by the same power Diuine that one body be in two places for it is al one reason of this laste Article and the others albeit such things are declared in the Scripture not onely possible but that the moste parte haue bene done And the Doctoures doe much maruell how the Ministers dare denie this séeing themselues must necessarily confesse if the Doctrine of the Supper which they giue be true that the bodye of Iesus Christe is in diuers places which they proue thus The faithfull receiue in their soules Really the substance of the body and bloud of Iesus Christe by the operation of the holy Ghost and not onely the bread and wine or the effecte and vertue of the same Sacrament as Calume saithe in his institutions lib. 4. cap. 17. sect 11. The Doctoures conclude thus it is impossible that a person receiue the substance of the body of Iesus Christ in himself but that the body of Iesus Christe must be in him All the Faithfull which be at the Supper receiue him in their soules so that it muste néedes be that the body of Iesus Christe be in them and by consequence in diuers places as euery where where their Supper is made and likewise in Heauen They say further that Caluine in his Institutions lib. 4. cap. 17. sect 24. mainteines that in the Supper the power of God is requisite to the ende the Fleshe of Iesus Christe penetrate into vs and that humaine nature can not comprehende that but néedes must Gods power woorke in it By which meane Caluine puttes by the power of God the Fleshe of Iesus Christe in many places as bothe in heauen and vs into whom he must penetrate by the power of God And in the .10 number he saithe that the truthe signified and represented by signes muste be represented and exhibited in the very place where the signes be which he proues by reason in many places that is that the signes must not be voide no more than the pilloure was voide of the holy spirite But euen as the essence and substance of the holy Ghoste was conioyned and present with the pilloure euen so that the Fleshe and Bloud of our Lord afore there was true Sacrament must néedes be knitte and vnited with the signes The places be against Heshusius and in his Booke of the Supper
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
weighty remaining in his substance and natural heauinesse coulde not by Goddes almightinesse be suspended on highe but that it must encline downwaede notwithstanding it were against his nature and inclination For the rest touching the answere to many Articles concerning twoo bodyes to be in one place and the places of Holy Scripture and Anciente Authoures produced by the Doctours to proue that it was in Goddes power to make twoo bodyes to be in one onely place and by the like reason that it was also in the same power to bring to passe that one body of the contrary be in twoo places we saie for the firste that the Ministers doo wrong to denie this Consequence twoo bodyes maie be in one place by Goddes power then of the contrary one bodye by the same power maye be in twoo places for there is asmuche repugnancie of Goddes order established in the one as in the other and no lesse contradiction in nature grounded vpon one cause and reason which is in the lymitation and circumscription of a bodye to the whiche as it is naturall to be in place so is it natural to him to be in place proportioned and corespondent to his dimensions And if for the number of diuerse places where one body were it might be inferred that it were no more a body as implying contradiction euen by the same reason according to one onely place where were many bodyes it coulde not be inferred that they were no more bodyes than many bodyes were one whiche woulde implie like contradiction to the firste And where the Ministers denie the Antecedent which is that twoo bodyes maye be in one place we haue produced to proue it the text of the doores being shut the byrth of the body of our Lord of the Virgyn the comming out of the Sepulcher the passage of a Camell through the creuis of a Néedle the penetration of the heauens which Iesus made at his Ascension and bicause they deny these doings conteined expressely in the holy scripture interpreted by the ancient Christians depraue it at their pleasure the Doctoures auouch againe vpon the textes of those Scripture as foloweth Firste touching the doores shutte S. Iohn saithe that Iesus is come He meanes to the place where his Disciples were neither came he thither without entring for that wer a more greate myracle to be in the middest of them without entring than to enter there simply In the seconde place it is saide â—um fâ—res essent clausa or tanuis clausis which is to say He entred the doores being shutte neither dothe it appeare that the Scripture makes mentioÌ„ rather of the doores than of an other place but to shewe on what part he entred Thirdly the Scripture addes not in vaine that the doores were shut without saying that any opening was made myraculously for it is alwaies saide â—â—od venit tanuis clausis And if it were true that the doores had bene opened by Diuine vertue it shoulde be false that our Lorde entred tanuâ—s â—â—rsisâ— for then shoulde he haue entred tanuis apertis by what meanes so euer they had bene opened And to declare that the common consent of all the Auncientes hathe bene that Iesus entred by the doores shutte the Doctoures preferre foure fundations drawne cute of the Auncientes In the firste they all confesse expressely that the myracle of the entring was made in the Bodye of Iesus Christe The seconde that suche myracle was done aboue the nature of the Bodye by the vertue of god The thirde is that expressely the Auncientes iudge that in that did consiste the myracle that the bodye passed throughe the doores shutte and was so with an other body And for the fourth fundation they adde that in regarde of suche an entring the Apostles taught that the bodye of Iesus was no true bodye but a Sprite or Vision whiche the Ministers passe lightely withoute aunswere But if it be so that by Goddes power as the Ministers holde there was made an opening either by the doores or other parte of the house to giue entring to the bodye of Iesus Christe then the myracle shoulde not consiste in the saide Bodye but in the doores or other parte of the house whiche were opened and yet there was nothing contrarie to the nature of the Bodye of our Lorde for it resistes not any Bodye what so euer it be to enter by an opening made by myracle or otherwayes Be it that Iustine is not the Authour of the Questions againste the Gentiles yet it cannot be denyed that they were not of some Aunciente Christians of the Primitiue Churche And the Doctoures haue attributed them to him on whose name they be entituled onely the saide Iustine in the place alleaged makes the myracle to haue passed in the Bodye of Iesus Christe whiche being grosse and thicke entred throughe the shutte doores againste the nature of a Bodye by the power of God and therefore the Apostles estéemed it to be a Vision by reason of an entry made withoute opening as Sprites are woonte to enter Sée the Texte S. Hilary dothe not onely saie that he entred by the Omnipotencie of God in what sorte so euer it be as the Ministers séeke to turne and wrest his authoritie but as one that had euen nowe to doo with the Ministers he repulseth and scoffes at al their euasions subtilties whiche they contriue of this dooing He saithe that nothing gaue place to make opening to suche a bodye neither loste he any thing of his substance nor to enter was in nothing diminished He addes that the doores and all other openings were closed and faste barred and yet in this lyeth the myracle that the true naturall body of Iesus Christe againste his nature by the Omnipotencie of God entred a house faste closed and couered without any opening by whiche he shewes apparantly that the myracle consisted in the Body of Iesus Christe Herein we referre to the texte which we desire to be wel examined by the Ministers S. Ambrose in the place recited saith that S. Thomas was abashed when he sawe the Bodye of Iesus Christe enter Per inuia septa corporibus quod natura corporea per impenitrabile Corpus sese infuderit inuisibili aditu S. Chrysostome in the Homilie of S. Iohn Baptiste and in his Commentaries vppon the Gospell of S. Iohn saithe expressely Qui intrauit per ostia clausa non erat Phantasma non erat Spiritus verè corpus erat Quid enim dicitis respicite videte quia Spiritus carnem ossa non habet quae me habere videtis Habebat carneÌ„ habebat ossa clausa eraÌ„t omnia Quomodo clausis ostijs intrauerunt ossa caro clausa sunt omnia intrat quem intrantem non vidimus Nescis quomodo factum sit das hoc potentiae Dei Where without difficultie S. Chrysostome as also S. Ambrose confesse the myracle to be done in the Body of Iesus Christe in that he passed through
of August 1566. THe Ministers forbearing all that is superfluous and immateriall in the wryting of the doctors as their repetitions and dissembling withal their wrongs and accustomed scoffes by which they proue muche better the spite they beare to the truthe and vs then the questions proponed we will rest only vppon the pointes which séeme to require Answere In the first place we denie to haue imposed vpon the Doctors that they haue drawne and restrained the Church into a certaine place but rather to a certaine company and to the traditions giuen folowed and approued by the same wherein we praise God that the saide Doctoures are come now to acknowledge that the Catholike Churche stretcheth thorow oute all the world and that it is not enclosed within bounds and limites of the authoritie and traditions of the Romishe Churche which as we confesse was highly estéemed of the Auncients when errors abuses and vices did not abounde in it as is happened since So nowe being so corrupted as well in manners as in Doctrine as nothing is more hateful than the woorde of God the light the truthe and vertue we say that as the estate of the saide Churche hathe bene chaunged so also oughte the value and reputation wherin it hathe dwelt And yet in what degree of honour so euer it hath ben raised in times passed the Auncients neuer estéemed it an vniuersall Churche nor hir Bishop an vniuersall Bishop as appeareth by that which S. Ierome wrytes to Euagrius and the resolution of one of the Councels of Carthage And touching the reformed Churche in Fraunce we say not that it is the Catholike and vniuersal Churche but only a member of the same and that shée hathe hir foundation not vppon the opinion or Authoritie of men but vppon the Doctrine and wrytings of the Prophets and Apostles For the rest touching the protestations of charitie zeale by the which the Doctors feare to be driuen forward into the inuectiues and pursutes which they raise againste vs and other the Faithfull by the example as they say of S. Augustine and other Bishoppes who not long since solicited the Magistrates against the Donatists Their procéedings which they haue and doe vse against vs and other the Faithful reueale plainely inoughe that with false shadowes they couer themselues with those examples Bicause euen the Catholikes which they alleage persuaded the Magistrates to vse moderation and softnesse to the Donatistes and other Heretikes prouing all meanes to reduce them afore they ministred the rigor of paines and iudgementes enforcing themselues furthermore to bridle and represse the fury of the people that they should not be put to the spoile and ouerrunne Where they of the contrarie sharpen againste vs bothe the people and Magistrates and that by slaunders and false imputations with all other meanes they can suborne to that ende Touching the omnipotencie of God and the Diffinition we haue laide of the same drawne out of S. Augustines bookes the Doctors in their laste wryting inferre no newe thing to driue vs from it For that which they alleage of the Angels to be able to doe what they will and therefore to be almightie as well as God if the diffinition aforesaide of Gods almightinesse had place is no Example either to the presente purpose or to proue that there is in Angels a power equall with God séeing it is most certaine that their wil and power depende elsewhere and that God rules ouer them to chāge suspende and stay them as it pleaseth him and as he can doe to all other creatures which can not be saide of God without blasphemie But be it in what sorte so euer if they will reprehende the diffinition of Gods almightinesse proponed by vs it is not with vs but with S. Augustine that they haue to doe for the saide diffinition was taken woorde by woorde out of his wrytings We muche maruell that hauing so amplie aduouched to them our opinion of the omnipotencie of God with declaration that it stretched indifferently to all things which mens fonde fansies coulde conceiue or imagine that yet they will eftsoones regrate vpon that pointe alleaging that God can do wisely that which the foolishe imagine fondly For it is moste manifest that Fooles may imagine many things which are impossible to God As for example that God is not as is written in the Psalme .14 and .53 that he is corporall as the Anthropomorphites did déeme that the worlde is eternall as the Peripaticiens did teache that there be two Princes as the Manicheans held All which things can not be attributed to the omnipotencie of God withoute blasphemie But in this are we best contented that touching this Article our maisters after long and sharpe debate with so many blasphemies euen when we stoode in the truthe of it are yet constrained in the ende to consent with vs and folowe the interpretation and restriction which we gaue touching Goddes omnipotencie as appeareth by one speeche of their last wryting whose woordes be these All things say they that are to be imagined of man are to be done of God without excepting any thing but suche as implie contradiction to be and not to be Then what reason is there that for suche things wherein they cōsent to vs which be excepted frō Gods almightinesse that we for excepting them shoulde be guiltie in blasphemie and not the Doctoures who say and confesse the selfe same thing This proposition that a naturall bodie euen that of Iesus Christe is in diuers places at one instante is of the numbre of those things which implie contradiction as hathe bene already sufficiently proued therfore we conclude that the omnipotencie of God oughte not to be referred and stretched so farre The Doctoures charge vs afterwardes with foure horrible blasphemies as they terme them grounding them vppon our opinion defending that one body can not be in diuers places at one instante as to resiste the truthe wisdome and omnipotencie of God this the Doctoures finde so straunge and farre from reason that they disdain to refute it thinking it is vnworthy of Answere and that only it suffiseth to recite it whereunto we Answere that to say it is a blasphemie vnworthy of Answer is an easie and most ready mean to shake of all difficulties wherwith they may be entangled The Doctoures are also importunate with vs to bring foorthe by Goddes woorde that one body can not be in diuers places at one instante whereunto we Answer once againe that it belongs to the Doctours to proue the contrary by one text of the scripture that one body may be in one instante in diuers places séeing they are proponantes and we respondents in this conference And yet we haue declared héere before by liuely reasons drawne out of the scripture and essential propreties of God the nature of bodies the Authoritie of the fathers that the matter of the question is altogither impossible and touching their argumēt containing this nature form God
of the Lady after he had imparted his intente with the Duke hir husbande it was agreed that the persuasions should be ministred to hir in the presence of certayne Ministers as Spina with other suche as he woulde call vnto him with libertie to alleage what they coulde against the doctrine of Vigor vnder this condition that if after the Conference they were not consuted and wholly vanquished by him his daughter shoulde remayne quiet in hir opinion without further attempts to draw hir from it Herevnto the Duke of Buyllon did not vnwillingly condiscende and for a better proofe of his readinesse in the cause he imparted the whole businesse with the Admirall by whose aduise with others assisting the procéeding Spina was immediatly sente for who at his comming tolde the Lordes that the qualitie and humor of his aduersarie considred he hoped for no great frute in this conference as beeing far more parciall for the Pope and his traditions than of any zeale at all to the word and truth of Iesus Chryst which albeit was affirmed by all the assistants yet it was agréed that he should vndertake the conference that for two considerations the one to instruct and strengthen the good duchesse agaynst the sophistries cauillations of Vigor the other to take from him al occasions to brag as he is wont to doo that the Ministers durst not appeare before him Here the order methode to procede in this businesse was agreed vpon with licence to Spyna to require the authoritie and sufferance of the King that to auoyde confusion it might passe in a small presence that a certayne Theame and subiecte might be proponed to conferre vpon And lastely that there might be established two Moderators for all the Actes and two others deputed to gather faithfully all the Reasons and arguments of either parte All whiche orders béeing orderly communicated to the Duke of Buyllon by the L. Admirall and Spina he iudged them of suche reason as not to be denied warning Spina to prepare him selfe agaynst the firste of Iuly when the conference should begin in the after noone Spina intreated Monsieur Barbasta minister to the quéene of Nauar to accompanie him in this disputation who at the day and houre aforesayde conducted by thrée Gentlemen appoynted by the duke of Buyllon went to the L. of Montpensiers house where the duke of Buyllon aduertised belike of their comming mette thē in the hal and there induced as it séemed by the doctors who were in the chamber frō whence he came asked Spina if afore the beginning of the conference he were determined to make his prayers according to the custom of the reformed churches He answered yea and that neither he nor his companion either might or ought to set vpon a matter of suche importance as to treate vpon the mysteries of Christian religion afore they prepared them selues thervnto by inuocation to the name of god With which answere he returned eftsones into the Chamber of the Doctors who after some priuate counsell amongest them selues appoynted Doctor Ruze to tell them that for their parts they would not assiste their prayers and that there was no more reason for them to be present when they prayed than for the ministers to forbeare their Masse The ministers answered that in good conscience they could not beginne to dispute afore they had prayed to God and for the Doctors they had libertie either to assiste or be absent from their prayers at their pleasure but touching them selues they were content to make their prayers in the place where the assembly and conference shoulde bee onely they sayde there was greate difference betweene their prayers which haue conformitie with the pure worde of God as they them selues confesse and the matter of their Masse which conteynes many things quite contrary as is easely seene and iudged by suche as will examine it by the rule of the Scripture and therfore by reason of the impietie and idolatrie in their Masse as they can not any way communicate therewith without offence to God and bring them selues guyltie afore him so yet neither he nor the other Doctors his companions stoode barde from the societie of their prayers by that difficultie bicause there was neither poynt nor article which by their owne confession was not holly and consonant to god Doctor Ruze replied that they rested vpon a small matter but they answered him that as the principall exercise of Christian religion stoode vppon prayer so it was also the moste necessarie meane to obtayne Gods grace without the which mortall men coulde not attayne to any successe in their doings and therefore very dangerous to omitte it they tolde him also that they marueled on his behalfe that professing the name of a Doctor and a Deuine he made such a negligent estimation of prayer which is the true practise fruite and vse of all the knowledge touching God and his worde like as by this the worlde might discerne what was the nature of their iudgementes who measured diuinitie by idle and vayne speculations He answered that the Duke of Montpensier would neuer suffer such a brauerie in his house and muche lesse that it should be sayde that it was a place for the Ministers to make their prayers in The ministers protested to be farre from their profession to braue it and that muche lesse they would vse any brauerie towards Princes whom they honored with all feare and obedience but that they would condemne themselues if they vsed it to any man of what meane condition soeuer he were wherwith they assured him that aswell he as others which layde such slaunders vpon them afore Princes to kindle enflame them against them shoulde one day giue reason of their doings afore the maiestie of god Here Doctor Ruze asked them why they stoode so resolutely vpon this poynt of prayer they answered that the purpose of the Conference was to reueale the true sense of the Scripture and deliuer it to the vnderstanding of the Bearers which coulde not be done without the spirite of God who cleareth the vnderstanding of men to comprehende it and openeth their mouthes to pronounce it in which respecte they are to implore and obteyne Gods grace by prayers besides God hath commaunded all suche as haue neede of wisedome to demaunde it of him to searche what they would finde to knocke at the gate if they would haue it opened to them all which beeing not otherwise to be obteyned than by prayers they concluded that for that occasion their inuocation was necessarie They alleaged moreouer that all things ought to be referred to the glory of god and therefore prayer to be requisite in the beginning and thankesgiuing in the ende and consummation of all our indeuors euen as when wee begin and ende the ordinary refection of our bodies wee blesse and glorifie the name of God. Here Doctor Ruze tolde them that they should not haue any let to pray so that they prayed in their hartes but they
answered that that suffised not but that they muste aswell exercise their mouth as S. Paule commaundes Then withdraw you apart sayth he and make your prayers al alone they tolde him that was also inconuenient in suche a presence as béeing commaunded by God to make their lighte shine afore men to the ende that seeing their good works they might haue meane to glorifie God and be edified therewith besides by this they might procure cause of slaunder to their neighbours as to confirme the lewde opinion raysed by their aduersaries touching their doctrine and exercises which is that in respecte of the errours and blasphemies they dursie not publish it and therefore the better to purge this reproche they thought it moste conuenient that as they were to speake publikely so also their prayers might not be kepte from the hearers Lastly they sayde in reason and duetie they ought not to be denied there the authoritie which the king had agreed vnto them in the conference at Poyssy where in all the seuerall assemblies it was lawefull for them to make publike prayer to God afore they entered any spéeche of disputation They added for their laste reason that it was néedefull to comprehende within their prayers bothe they al such as should assiste the conference to the ende that by the helpe of Gods grace aswel they as others might be made cleane from all passions as béeing hindered with nothing to iudge rightly of suche matters as shall fall in question of the one and other side leauing by that meanes a facilitie to the hearers the better to make their profite I am ashamed to recite in this place a worde which escaped from doctor Ruze in this talke who in a disdayne to God and his seruice sayde that if the ministers wold go pray he wold go pisse the while the same seeming so impudente to the ministers that they cried what resolution what counsell yea what one good worde to bee hoped for in a heart filled with suche apparant disdayne of God The Duke of Buyllon and the sayde Doctor Ruze séeing the constancie of the Ministers not to enter Conference onlesse they prayed publikely in the presence of the assembly after they had imparted the same with the lord of Montpensier and the other doctors that were with him they determined to sende them away as not meaning to dispute with-them vnder suche condition Whereupon the Ministers departed being called backe againe before they were at our Ladies bridge they returned with expectation of cōsent to their request wherin notwithding they were deceiued For Doctor Ruze meeting them at the gate tolde them for a finall Resolution that if they wold pray they shoulde haue a house appoynted for that purpose only the Lord of Montpensier wold not suffer them to make his house their place of Prayer nor that any of his houshold partake with their Prayers whereunto the Ministers Answered that in this their request was rather restrained than satisfied and therefore they coulde Answere them no otherwayes than afore Héere Doctor Ruze ministred particular spéeche to Spyna to whom in scoffing manner he told that he saw two causes why he was of so hard a desire to be drawn into disputation and that héeretofore he had bene of their secte and companie but now he was cut of Spyna Answered that if he had ment to eschue the conference he wold not haue taken the trauaile of .viij. leagues in so great distemper of heat and muche lesse left his Churche more deare to him than any other thing to come to them in their owne houses Touching his departing from their societie he estéemed it one of the greatest benefits that euer happened to him for the which he had cause to yeld continual thankes to god And bicause neither he nor his felowship should dout indirectly of his readinesse to dispute he laide afore him a meane by which bothe parties might be satisfied as to trauerse the disputation by writing the same being moste conuenient to intercepte all contentions that the Arguments and Answers may be the better handled and vnderstand that the people shuld be the better edified And lastly that in this manner there was no daunger of alterations either by additions or detractions Ruze Answered that nothing could be wrytten which hath not earst bene wrytten euen so sayth Spyna we can pronounce nothing which heretofore hath not bene spoken This was the Resolute end of all their spéeches by which may be gathered the will and disposition of the doctors to enter the conference with the Ministers to whome euen in the beginning to preuent their further procéeding they offered a condition which they knewe would not be accepted as to enter into a publike conference of the scripture and yet barde to pray publikely in the place and assistance where they shuld dispute Besides their intente is easily iudged by the order they established touching the conference For in place to prouide conueniently for the ease and quiette of the Ministers come with no smal paines to them they had procured at least a hundred persons of all qualities to enuiron the saide Ministers and so to amaze them either with inreuerente scoffes violent iniuries or inciuile threates that had not the three Gentlemen of the Duke of Buyllon kept a precise care ouer them they had bene in daunger of violent hurt By their dealings also may be discerned their regarde of duetie to God and holy Prayer seeing they could not admit Prayer in their presence And lastly what vnderstanding can they haue of the scripture with what Faith can they handle Gods Mysteries yea with what integritie and facultie can they preach and pronounce seeing they disdaine in their presence Prayer to God to obtaine all things as though theyr sufficiencie were in aide of them selues and not to proceede from God the Author of all lighte ¶ The first disputation of Tuesday the ninth of Iuly 1566. IT did not suffice the Doctors by their inciuill meanes remembred in the Preface to offer to reuerse the conference appointed betwéene them the twoo Ministers but also the rather to intercept the iust perswasion of the world in the matter of their intowardnesse to enter so holy an exercise they suborned a brute against the Ministers that being no lesse priuie to the weaknesse of their cause than their doctrine euill assured they refuse to dispute The same spreading to the eares of the king and Quéene also the Lord Admiral who foreseing the daungerous slaunder that might discende to the reformed Churches if the cause were not wisely and spéedily gouerned and construing withall this corrupt imputation to be layde vpon the Ministers the rather to deface their innocencie stoode in their excuse afore their Maiesties whom he assured of a prompt readynesse in the Ministers to common with the Doctors in the defence of their Church and confession and that by infallible Scripture where and afore what reuerend testimonie they should be brought so that their libertie
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
of heauens whē Christ moūted thither the Ministers answer that it is likely they did diuide were open as at the baptisme of our Sauiour Christ the piller discended vpon him also when S. Stephen was stoned Touching that they reprehend in the first answere of the Ministers that in the 12. chap. of the Actes there is no mention made of the opening of the prison the Ministers referre them to reade the text of the said place diligently where thei find that after he had passed the first second watch the last gate of the prison which was of yron opened of it selfe to the Angel and S. Peter to make them place Where the doctors reply vpon the Ministers answere to the argument of the Camel inferred in their first answere the Ministers auouch the integritie of their said answere as to conteine nothing against Gods woorde but say that they are beguiled as referring that to the Camel which ought not to be vnderstande but of the saluation conuersion of Riche men only wherof was mention made before for our Lorde Iesus Christ in saying that that which is impossible to men is possible to God pretends no other thing thā to answer to the question proposed by his disciples which is who might be saued whereunto he answered that that truely was impossible to men who of them selues are inclined to truste in theire Riches but it was possible to God as to be able to drawe theire hartes from that vaine confidence Touching the argumente which they would ground vppon the presence of Iesus Christe in the Supper which thei would inferre to be in diuerse places the Ministers confesse the Antecedent and denie the Consequence For they haue no doubte but by faithe our Lorde Iesus Christe is spiritually present in the Supper to all the Faithful by which wée must not inferre that he is there Locally Diffinitiuely or Corporally which where they say it is not imaginable the Ministers auowe it as in regarde of suche as are not taught and lightened by the Sprite of God and haue no other imagination than that which their natural facultie giues them But to such as being lighted by Gods grace haue a true and liuely faith in their hartes it is no more impossible to represent vnto them Iesus Christe crucified in the Supper than it was to the Galatheans to represent and repose him vnto them as present and visible in the preaching of S. Paule and to those likewise of whom S. Cyprian makes mention in his Sermon of the Supper that in celebrating it they embrace the Crosse of Iesus Christe sucke his Bloud and fixe their tongue within his woundes all which things are done by liuely contemplation and apprehension of Faithe which is no other thing than a subsistaunce of things hoped for and a demonstration of suche as are inuisible as S. Paule defines it Touching the truth of the thing conioined with his signes and Sacramentes the Ministers confesse that outwarde signes are neuer withoute their effecte on the behalfe of the Faithful who cannot participate with the Bread and Wine distributed in the Supper but foorthwith they participate with the Fleshe of Iesus Christe crucified for their sinnes and with his Bloud shedde to ratifie the newe Allyaunce which God hath made with his people But if the Doctours would inferre thereupon a Corporal Presence in the Supper the Ministers would denie it and that by this reason that such presence was not required of the ancient Fathers who notwithstanding did not forbeare to eate one selfe same foode with al the faithful of this day as with the helpe of God shall be more amplie declared when it pleaseth the Lord of Neuers to commaund conference of that matter Where the Doctours reproching the Ministers say that they attribute to themselues humaine power more than to the power of God as saying that by Faithe they make present things that are absent seeing God according to the doctrine of the ministers can not bring to passe that one body be in diuers places at one instant The sayd Ministers Aunswere that suche Antithesis are foolish and not to purpose and that there is farre greater likelihoode that the Doctors presume more of their power and the other Bishops of the Romishe churche than of the power of God For God hath not created by his woorde but heauen earthe and the other creatures contained therein and they in their creation attribute to themselues the power to Create their Creator as appeareth in their Breuiarie where the Priest sayth qui creauit me creatur mediante me The Ministers also do greatly maruell that the Doctors cal the vertue of Faith humaine power séeing the great and wonderful effectes of the same reuealed to vs in so many Examples of the Scriptures specially in the eleuenth to the Hebrues where S. Paule saythe that the holy ones by Faithe haue vanquished kingdomes c. All which things doe not surmount the vertue only but also the capacitie of humaine vnderstanding The Doctors replie that foloweth this Article containes but numbers of vnprofitable and superfluous woordes and but little or nothing of necessary matter And that the ministers haue more particularely Aunswered to euery pointe which they repeate they sende them eftsoones to the former aunsweres with this request not to serue them hence forewarde with one messe twice Touching the sacrament of the Altare as they call it the ministers neither receiue nor approue in any sort that their Masse which they pretend to be a sacrament is a sacrament and muche lesse a sacrifice by the which remission of sinnes may be any way obtained yea they say that both the sacrificature and sacrifice by them pretended with all things depending theruppon be blasphemies and impieties by which God is dishonored all the benefites of Iesus Christe buried and Christes church seduced and abused as shall clearely appeare by the pursute of the conference Neither doe the Ministers corrupt in any sort either the sense or woords which Iesus Christ vsed in the Institution of the holy supper The Replie or Obiection of the Doctoures against the Aunsvvere of the Ministers touching the Article of Gods omnipotencie being on Saterday the xx of Julie THe Doctoures say that this consequence God can not bring to passe of his omnipotencie that one body be in two places at one instante and therfore he is not almightie is so good strong that the Ministers can not any way denie it without falling more and more into execrable blasphemies to the great gréefe and horroure of the said Doctoures wherin besides the two blasphemies which they maintaine in their former Answeres that it is impossible to God to make a body be in two places as also impossible to him to will to doe it in this first Article of their last Answer they bring forthe foure or fiue other blasphemies wheron do hang also diuers others bisides the absurdities falshoodes imputations which they haue heaped vpon the Doctors in 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
vocation is necessary to suche effecte But not that this vocation is the imposition which they pretend assuring our selues that our vocation is more lawfull and better grounded than that of the Doctors Where the Doctors in the Article folowing alleage that we haue not Answered them to their sufficient liking touching the partes of the sacrament and the woord required for the consecration of the matter in the same we Aunswer that in our wrytings is no ambiguitie no darke sense nor any inuolution but suche as the Doctors list to finde there wherin as we lay our selues vppon the iudgement of the vpright hearers So also it becomes no more straunge to vs that the doctors chalenge vs of darke wryting than it was to S. Paul that his gospell was hid and couered to those that perished whose vnderstandings the God of this world had blinded Touching the presence of Iesus Christe in the supper wherin they would vrge vs to declare more amplie than in our former Aunswer we say we haue Aunswered sufficient clearly notwithstanding the doctors rest not satisfied wherof we make no greate maruell as knowing that they haue seldome in custome to be contented onlesse we consent both to their demaundes and desires which we are not nowe setled to do and much lesse that our Aunswer excéede the limits and bounds of the scripture neither in this Article of the supper nor in others but onely to folow the phrases and manners of spéeche of the same as neere as we can possibly By meane wherof for a full and resolute Aunswer we acknowledge no other eating of the flesh and bloud of Iesus Christe whether in or out of the supper than that which Iesus Christ declares in the sixth Chapter of S. Iohn who eateth my fleshe and drinketh my bloud he hath life euerlasting also he that eateth my fleshe and drinketh my bloude he dwelles in me and I in him as the liuing Father hath sent me so I goe thither bicause of my father and he that shall eate me shall liue also bicause of me Vppon the last Article which is of the concomitance we Aunswer that the Doctors demaunde was not so harde that we conceiued it not only we dissembled it as not to lose time to speake and write of such dreames wherin also we iudged the Doctors of sufficient suttletie to vnderstande that in denying them Transubstantiation was not to approue their concomitance And nowe to satisfie them we make this addition not to seke to know more than that which Iesus Christ teacheth in his woord that in the supper to participate in his flesh crucified and blud shed for remission of sinnes we must take and eat the bread and drinke the wine which are administred and not deuide or separate them in any sort the same being also defended by the Canons De confecr dist 2. Cum omne crimen Wedensday the fourtenth of August the yeare aforesaide This wryting being dispatched and sent away the Ministers not long after went to the Lord of Neuers with declaration that for their parts they had at large handled this coÌ„ference as finding the doctors by their impertinent and vain questions hitherto to séeke only to winne time without any aduauncement at al of the solution of the supper the Masse And albeit they disguised their demaundes as necessarily to tend to a prepratiue for this disputation yet they contained no other purpose than not at all to enter the conference but rather to kéepe things in suspence vntil they grew weary by which meanes this holy purpose mighte altogither dissolue breake in the ends they besoughte him humbly to aduise the Doctors without vaine varietie or change of matter to auoide the difference and refute that which the Ministers had maintained of the supper and defend that which they had coÌ„demned of the Masse wherein they obtained his promisse which gaue them a hope of profitable matter héereafter and such as might serue to edifie the readers and purge the greatest abuse and error that then occupied the Romishe Church All this notwithstanding there ran immediately a brute thorow the towne that Vigor was falne into a dangerous sicknesse without likelihoode of spéedy recouery the same giuing a feare to the Ministers to be intercepted in their laste hope which they doubted so muche the more as at the instant they were told that Doctor Sainctes was also gone out of Paris to the Cardinal of Loraine by which they could not otherwayes presume than that they should be enforced to a long abode in Paris without any sette exercise to occupie the time as being come thither but by chance for Spyna but made it in his way to passe into Aufon and for the other being Minister to the Church of Orleans it was not long since he was taken out of prison whether he was led in Iune afore vpon a false imputation by the enimies of Gods Churche charging him to be Author of a most pernitious wicked Boke written against the obedience to Kings and Princes by which he founde it very inconuenient for him to tarie so long in the Towne whether he came not at the first willingly For these respects they resolued eftsones to returne to the Lord of Neuers and also to tel him that séeing doctor Sainctes who might haue taried and drawne to him in Vigors place some other at his plesure was departed without any aduertisement of his returne there was also no reason of their abode stil as wel in respect of the incertaintie of their businesse as also that their Churches had neede of them for the exercise of their charge as they desired notwithstaÌ„ding in the end they yelded to their propre incommoditie as to remaine there vntil the Lord of Neuers parted from Paris which shuld be vpon the ende of August being minded then to go to a Lordship of his called Conlomiers for then hauing neither the presence of the Lord of Neuers nor the company of the Doctors the Ministers were at a gaze as hauing nothing to doe nor any man to dispute withall Vpon these declarations the Lorde of Neuers deliuered them their pasport in wryting signed Lodouico de Gonzague with promisse to send vnto them the Answer of the Doctors that by the meane of the Lord de Buci S. Georg who vndertoke the charge of the businesse The Ministers for their parts promised also to be ready to returne to Paris either els to Answer from the place where they should remaine as often as the Doctors would wryte This businesse being thus setled the Ministers departed immediatly with expectation of some spéedie newes froÌ„ the Doctors from whom as yet they haue hard neither argumeÌ„t nor effect only they haue hard that thorow the citie of Paris there hathe bene publike sale of certaine wrytings within whose titles is included this woord of conference as to make séeme to the worlde that they contained matter touching the former disputations this policie was not without great profite to the Printers so vehemente was the desire of men to knowe the truthe for whose satisfying and contentment we thought good to spred abrode the matter as it passed in déede reseruing till an other time to publish that which the doctors would wryte against it if they will wryte at all and also the Ministers Answeres which shall neuer faile In the meane while let euery one make his profite of the present Contentes with prayer to the Father of all lighte to poure more and more the cleare lighte of his spirite vpon his Church in the true vnderstanding of his holy woorde for the restoring and aduauncement of the spirituall kingdom of Iesus Christe his Sonne our Lorde FINIS 2. Tim. 3. 2 Pet. Rom. 15. Iames 1. Luke 16. Luke 2. Sorbonae a College of Papists in Paris Cap. 7.18 Rom. 12.6 Cap 59. 21. Deut. 28. Rom. 8.9 Chap. 2.20.27 1. Tim 3 15 Psal. 30. Chap. 13. Hebrues 13. Rom. 10. Hebr. 11. Rom. 10. Iohn 24. Luk. 24. Hebr 12. Iohn 8. 1. Timo. 2 Hebr. 6. Actor 12. Actor 5. Luke 24 Lib. 4. Cap. 17. Sect. 29. Hebr. 4.14 Iohan. 12. Act. 7. King. 1.11 Iohn 6. Ephe. 2. Psal. 7.5.2.8 1. Cor. 15. 2. Cor. 6. 1. Cor. 1. Iohn 14 Ephe. 3. Iohn 17. 1. Cor. 4.13 Rom. 10. Iohn 6. 1. Cor. 10. Math. 26. 1. Cor. 11. Gene. 17. Exod. 12. Tit. 3. epist. â—3 â— Corrin 1. Cor. 1. In a Sermon of the supper Chap. 16. Hom. 17. epist. 29. Agaynst Faustine 1. Cor. 11. Sermo 3. ad Ephesi
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
our laste Obiections so for oure partes we maruell not much if they be deceiued in the nature of the almightinesse séeing they erre in the grounde as not knowing wherein it consists and why God is called almightie For they say they haue learned of the Scripture that God is omnipotent bicause he can doe all that he will and nothing can resist him the same being as a signe of the power of God but vnder correction it is not the matter wherein it consistes and therefore to knowe it it must be considered according to his Obiect that is according to things possible to doe so that there is nothing possible which God can not do All thing without exception is estéemed possible where is not founde contradiction to be and not to be and that comes not by the fault of the power of God who can doe al things but by the repugnācie of the thing that can not be which the Ministers in the beginning had perhappes put in some Aunswer were it not that bicause vpō certain interrogatories they Answered that Gods almightinesse must be measured according to his will and thinking to saue this error they are slipped into diuers others which they can not shift of without falling into an infinite absurditie as not to confesse to haue failed Wherin their offence is more in that they goe about to limite bound the power of God not suffer it to stretch to al things generally that the sprite of mā may conceiue imagine séeing of the contrary it is not to be douted that Gods power is great aboue the conceit and imaginations of mannes spirite yea it is infinite and incomprehensible as S Paule saith God can doe more than we eisher demaunde or vnderstande And where the ministers say that God can doe onely all things which are not contrary to his iustice his wisdome his bountie and truth and therfore he can not doe all things generally it hath bene already told them that to be able to do things contrary to the iustice bountie wisdome and truthe of God was not power but impower And by that also as S Augustine saithe in a place alleaged by vs in our former Obiection that he can not doe suche things it is an argument of his almightinesse and no restraint of the same And where the ministers inferre that bicause God cannot doe such things by consequence he cānot do any thing which is contrary to his wisdome and eternall will which is and shal be for euer to doe all things well and wisely with number poise and measure yea without that there be or shall be any iniquitie and contradiction in all that he dothe it may here be séene how the ministers disguise that which is in cōtrouersie concealing the matter of their former writing touching the order established in the worlde againste the which they said God could do nothing with other matters of blasphemie which as we did argue so they durste not reuiue them in their last answere as in respecte their conscience vrged them and kindled a knowledge that as such affirmatiōs could not be sustained so they could not auoide them but in denying to haue written them and so accuse vs of slaūder as to haue altered chaunged their matters by additions or retractions for our purgation wherin we send them to our last obiection where as the words are produced in the first Article so the said blasphemies are drawn out of the propre words of the first article of the ministers And we refer our selues to the collation of our said last writing with that of the ministers only it is as also most certainely it will be found the we haue faithfully recited the propre woordes of the ministers which as they wold not aduow in themselues so it wil be knowne at the laste that til now they haue mainteined propositions of blasphemie that therin wée haue done them no wrong as pardoning their persons and being content to speake our simple aduise of their Doctrine The Ministers to shewe their iuste cause to accuse vs of slaunder say in the first place that wée haue cut of their proposition whiche was suche that the almightinesse of God ought not to be measured but by the things which onely are conformable to his will and doo not derogate his wisedome his truthe his nature nor the order whiche he hath established in the worlde and that of this the laste parte onely is taken by the Doctors who for their purgation say that they haue alwaies considered what was put in cōtrouersi which is if God can bring to passe that one body be in twoo places And to examine the truth of this Question afore they committed it to writing they laid the whole with euery part of the Ministers proposition and haue thus argued that God can doo al things which are conformable to his wil the same neing knowne whē there is nothing that derogates either his wisedome his truthe his nature or the order whiche he hath established in the worlde as the Ministers holde one bodye to be in twoo places derogates not the wisedome of God séeing for all that God cannot be but wise it dothe not derogate his truth for he hath neuer said that he coulde not doo it neither yet his nature for if he shoulde he shoulde forbeare to be God th if there be any repugnancy it should be in this that it would derogate the order which God hath established in the world the same being the cause that they rest not but vpon the last Article And wée thinke sure the Ministers woulde not say that to be able to make a body to be in diuerse places were a thing repugnant either to the wisedome truthe or nature of God sauing in that they iudge it repugnes the order which God hath established in the worlde Besides the Ministers hauing laid the said proposition as a Rule to knowe what God can doo when they woulde accomodate this Rule to the matter in contention they oughte afterwardes to say so to what things repugne that whiche the Doctours preferre that one Body in one instant maye be in diuerse places but they saye and write onely what thing that is to saie Order c. whiche Relatiue cannot accorde but with his former Antecedent by which may clearly appeare that the Ministers incurre the crime of slaunder which falsely they obiecte to vs. And where they say wée take not the terme of the Order established in the worlde in the sense they meane it wée aunswere that wée haue construed the terme according to the vnderstanding whiche the Ministers haue giuen of it according to our iudgemente of their speaches and phrases thereof For when was question to bring in any myracle done by Iesus Christe contrary or aboue the nature of things created the Ministers had alwayes their recourse to the common order of nature as when speache was vttered of the doores shutte the comming foorth of the Graue the Virgyns wombe and of