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
the greatnesse of our God to maintein his woorkes incredible by nature which are comprehended in his woord in our Faith and also to confute all suche as woulde deny any of them as impossible to be done by any manner what so euer And bicause Caluin and Beza with their Ministers raise them selues against the power and greatnesse of our Lorde and openly deny him to be able to commit the body bloude of Iesus Christ vnder the formes of Breade and Wine and bicause also that in the Religion pretended reformed to resist the efficacy of the woorde This is my Body this is my Bloude they teach not a more great reason nor more familiare to al those that are out of the way than the impossibilitie of God to be able to make a body to be in twoo or many places that is to say in the Sacrament and in Heauen wée obiecte with good righte to the Ministers that in their Doctrine they derogate the firste Article of Faithe which is of the Almightinesse of god And also we knowe that the anciente manner of the Christians disputing againste the aduersaries of Faith was oftentimes to beginne to aske whether that whereon they doubted were possible to God or not or whether onely he woulde not doo it in which sorte and order Tertullian and others propone the pointes wherein they enter into contention againste the Heretikes In like sort afore we passe further into the matter of the holy SacrameÌ„t we would in preamble wise fele of the Ministers whether they iudged it to be in Goddes power to make a body occupy many places or whether only he would not c. wherein wée are enforced to aduertise al Christians of one manner of dealing common to al the Ministers of the pretended reformed Religion which is when they are asked if God can establish the body of Iesus Christ in the Sacrament or not they aunswere that there is no question of the power of God but of his Will onely And when wée produce matter which declares the will of God then of the contrary they deny that his wil is suche bicause it is impossible to him Alleaging here their contradictions according to the nature of the body And bicause they thinke this to be impossible in action they depraue and interprete the woorde of the Supper otherwayes than either it beares or is written Here is also to be noted that wherin an Almaine called Heshusius reprocheth Caluin that he his felowe Ministers are goodly noble amplifiers of the power of God but when it comes to the déede and pushe as the saying runnes they neither giue or graunte him any more than they thinke méete to introduce their errours and fansies resembling as the saide Almaine compares them a good Traitor who most dooth cherishe and magnifie a man when he is most ready to betray him as Iudas did our Lorde wherin wée are constrained to say of the Ministers touching Goddes Almightinesse as Tertullian saith of the Heretikes Credendo non credunt which is in beleuing the Omnipotencie they beleue it not for when they haue saide that there muste be no exception they hold againe an other way that it must not stretch to euery thing that mannes sprite can conceiue and so they will not apply it but to what they thinke good couering themselues with the nature wisedome eternal wil of God which are no lesse vnknowne and incomprehensible to them than his Omnipotencie in which respecte wee aduise euery one not to be abused with the speach of Caluin nor his ministers but to consider the woorkes which they deny to be in the power of god Wée haue produced to them these foure questions Whether God may make a body to be in twoo places and of the contrary twoo bodyes in one place Whether he can lodge one body in one space lesse than his greatnesse and whether he can make it inuisible which haue bene specially culled and chosen for that vpon them are founded the principal arguments of the pretended reformed Religion againste the true presence of the Bodye and Bloude of Iesus Christ in the Holy Sacrament Wée beleue simply as al other things that the foure questions are possible to God and haue proued it by the infinitie of his power both by the scriptures who giue vnto him al vertue ouer creatures without any exception and also by Examples and straunge myracles don vpon bodyes against their natures which are writteÌ„ as Tertullian holdeth in his Booke of the Resurrection to the ende wée beleue that our God is more mighty than al Lawe and nature of al bodyes whereunto he addes that such knowe God very euill who thinke that he hath not in his power things which thei cannot comprehende in their fansie From whence it comes as S. Cyril saith that such wicked sprites reiecte and condemne al things as impossible bicause they vnderstand them not Besides wée thinke wée haue sufficiently shewed no lesse by expresse scripture than by the Exposition of the same taken of the Ancient Christians that it was not only in Gods power to make twoo bodyes to be in one place and one body without place equall to his greatenesse but also that he had already truely done it in the byrth of the body of our Lorde Iesus Christe in the Resurrection of the same â—â—is entry throughe the doores shutte and in his Ascension aboue al the Heauens like as also wee haue deduced that there was equall and like repugnancy in those deedes as in the other of one body in twoo places whiche by the scripture is no more excepted from the power nor will of God than the others as to iudge it impossible to be done neither hath there bene any Christian afore our time which durst affirme the same to be impossible and out of the power of God notwithstanding the occasion was often offered if they had any waye estéemed it impossible as the Ministers of the supposed refourmed Religion pretende Of the contrary the most parte of the auncient Authours of the Primitiue Churche haue holden expressely that it was in Goddes power to bestowe a creature in many places according to S. Ieromes opinion againste the Heretike Vigilantius that the soules of the Sainctes maye assiste in many places with the immaculate Lambe our Sauiour Iesus Christe Yea there was question Whether the saide soules and sprites of the Holy ones did assiste at any time the Churches where their Graues and Monumentes were the same resembling with S. Augustine in his Booke whiche he wrote of the care to be had of the Dead Chapter 16. wher he saithe that by the power of theire nature the soules cannot be here belowe and in Heauen or in many places but that the same may be done by the power of God and he will not resolue whether they vnderstande our affayres by suche assistaunce in many places or by reuelation of the Aungels or other meane of the power and grace of God. Morouer it is
his iustice life and other fruites of his sacrifice but also they receiue and possesse euen himself and are made one with him no lesse truely and stricktly then the members be conioyned to one head we say further that this coniunction is the fountaine and meane of all the benefites which discende vnto vs by him through Goddes grace But we say with all that this receiuing oughte to be attributed in all and by all to the free woorking of the holy Ghoste who makes vs fitte and capable to knowe our Lord Iesus Christe with all his vertues and propreties and in knowing him to put oure truste in him and in reapposing our truste in him to possesse and enioy him wholly To Aunswere the .vij. question we say that we reiecte and reproue the terme of concomitance togither with the thing it signifieth as being the occasion that the common people haue bene barde and secluded from one of the essential partes of the sacramēt which is the participation of the cup and we say it is an attempt against the diuine maiestie to seeke to seperate that which the sonne of God hathe conioyned denie to any of his membres that which he hath willed and commaūded to be common to all Like as also the reason of the sacrament requires it the same being instituted for our spirituall nouriture the which as doth the corporal consists in eating and drinking To the end therfore that there be a certain correspondencie betwéene bothe it must be that as we are filled with the crucified flesh of Iesus Christ that euen so also we be licoured with his bloud shed for the remission of sinnes To be short seeing the supper was principally instituted to declare the deathe of our Lord that in his death his bloude was deuided from his body it is very conuenient the bread wine be there administred to represent both the one and other more clearly to propound to vs the whole misterie of the death of Christ To the .viij. Question we acknowledge no other cause or meane for remission of sinnes than the grace of God the bloud of Iesus Christ faith by the which the effect of gods grace the frute of the death of Iesus Christ are applied vnto vs. Our Aunswer to the .ix. question is that the faithful comming to the Supper come not to receiue there a newe Iesus Christ with whom they haue not bene conioyned before nether a new iustice which hath not bene cōmunicate to them But we say that if any man present him self there without faith by want wherof he was not vnited incorpored knit in Iesus Christe to participate with his iustice his life other his gifts and blessings in this case the holy supper is vnprofitable to him as meat to a dead man But if liuing by the meanes aforesaid by gods grace the bloud of Iesus Christ and faith he present himself there in such estate that then gods graces are multiplied cōfirmed and increased in him more more as the Circumcision brought not to Abraham a new iustice but sealed and ratified that which had bene communicate to him before by the promisse the which being knowne to the faithfull in what degrée of vertue so euer they be ought not to mistake the holy supper nor in any sorte abstaine from it when they haue the occasion and meanes to assist it considering that they cānot be so farre aduaunced in the knowledge and feare of God and in the faithe of his promisses but that they may further profite and encrease therin in what estate so euer they be by the meanes which God hath lefte and ordained for this effecte in his Churche neither is it possible that a man hauing a true faith in his heart do otherwayes hauing the commoditie of it Bicause the nature of faithe is not to comprehend only the promisses of God but also to engender and bring foorthe in the hearts of the Faithfull a wil to obey him with obseruation of his commaundements and ordinances To Aunswere the first Articles proponed by the Doctors touching their Masse we say they blaspheme openly Iesus Christe as to authorise vnder his name and by his example such an abhomination and that also they make a scoffe of the church and the world to preach and wryte such impieties To the second Article of the Masse we Aunswere that there is no other sacrifice in the church by which men are reconciled to God and which makes him mercifull and fauourable to them in appeasing his wrath than only that which Iesus Christe hathe once offred to his father vppon the crosse the vertue of the which being eternal to sāctifie all the beleeuing and obtaine remission of their sinnes for euer there is no néede of any others nor that that which he hath once offered be euer repeated For Answer to the third Article we say that suche as approue the Masse and other sacrificature than that of Iesus Christ and seeke to establish for remission of sinnes an other Sacrifice than that which he himselfe offered in his bodie of the Crosse are Antichristes and deface in so muche as in them is all the vertue and frute of the deathe and sacrifice of the Sonne of God. To Aunswere the fourthe we alleage that which S. Paule wryteth that where is remission there is no more Oblation for the sinne And if it be so that by the death of Iesus Christ remission hathe bene obtained for vs it foloweth that there is no more Oblation for sinne neither in the Masse nor oute of the Masse And if there be none for the liuing there is lesse for them that be dead For Aunswere to the fifthe we maintaine that the Communion is of the essence of the supper according to S. Paule in the first to the Corinthians Chap. 10. and .11 and as the Canon and other partes of the Masse importes For Aunswere to the sixthe we alleage thrée things First that the Masse of the Papists is no Sacrament and then that the bodie of Iesus Christe is not there and conclude thereupon that there can not be worshipped therein but the breade and wine which rest there which being creatures can not be woorshipped but that suche as doe woorship them are Idolatrers To Aunswere the seuenth and last Article we say contrary to the Doctors that there is nothing in the Masse which either directly or indirectly is not contrary to Gods woorde And for Conclusion we aduise and praie the Doctoures not to excéede or forsake the limites of the matter proponed this day to dispute vpon as they haue done héeretofore to the ende that these two pointes which stande at this day in debate betwéene them may be perfectly and wholly decided to the contentment and edifying of suche as shal read the Actes of this conference Tuesday the .30 of Iulie the yeare aforesaid A summary Replie of the Doctours against the laste Aunswere of the Ministers sente to them by the Duke Nyuernois the
appeares first by this that it belongs not to al persons to cōsecrate the bread and the wine in the supper but only to such as are lawfully ordained by the imposition of the handes of the Pastors and Bishoppes according to the succession since the Apostles till our time And it is moste certaine that the most parte of the ministers of the supposed reformed church are not ordained by the authoritie of the handes of the Pastors who haue power by succession of one to an other since the Apostles So that we must conclude that suche ministers vsurping the office that pertaines not to them can not make any consecration and by consequence they giue but common bread and wine of which Article shall be spoken when we handle the sacrifice and priesthoode Secondly to make consecration of bread and wine it suffiseth not that the person be fit to consecrate the matter but it is also necessary that by a certaine meane the lawfull minister make the consecration which is by Benediction and pronuntiation of certaine woordes vpon the matters proposed as Iesus Christe did firste obserue wherein bicause the ministers albeit they were lawfully ordained and had authoritie and power to consecrate do not vse Benediction and pronuntiation of certaine woordes vppon the Breade and Wine impugning first that which Iesus Christe did and after left it to the Apostles and their successoures to doe so they can not pretende any consecration of the Breade and Wine nor that in them doe come any mutation whereof it foloweth that as they differre not from other Breade and Wine so that banket and feast is but common and that it is blasphemie to attribute to it the name of Christian Supper And this is a partie cause why we said the ministers supper was a banket prophane and polluted We haue required the ministers to Aunswere pertinently and fully to our Demaundes which bicause they haue not done to the ende to intercept all vaine trauaile we thinke it not good for the present to impugne their Aunsweres only we summon them eftsoones to Aunswere that which is proponed to them without shifting of the conference which they pretend to holde in so deare regarde The first Demaund was general for all the Sacraments to wéete if the ministers beléeued that two things were essentiall and necessary to the confection of the Sacramente which are the matter or element and the woorde the Ministers Answere that the Sacrament considered in his perfection consists in thrée things c. they speake in determinately so that it can not be iudged if their spéeche vnderstand the Sacrament only which they call of the Supper or generally of all as they were asked albeit in respecte they alleage Ireneus it may be easily gessed that they meane not but the Sacrament of the Supper we haue also to note the woordes of their Addition considered in his perfection as alwayes to haue a hole to créepe out when we speake of the essence of the Sacrament We demaunde that they Answere to the Question proponed in general of all the Sacramentes séeing there is like reason touching the essence of the Sacraments in generall and that also they declare openly what things are essentiall and necessary in the Sacrament to be made a Sacramente without speaking for the present of the perfection of one Sacrament containing the essence and spirituall frutes which are not of the essence of the Sacrament Touching the seconde Demaund the Ministers Answere no more pertinently than to the firste And specially where we made a Demaunde that certaine woordes muste be vsed for the confection of the Sacramente and what was necessary for the Sacramente of the Supper the ministers haue sayde that the base and secrete speeche of certaine woordes addressed to the Elementes was not a necessary speeche to the confection of the sacrament We did not Demaund whether that spéeche should be pronounced high or lowe But the Question was if there be any necessary spéeches to make the sacrament which ought to be pronounced vpon the matter or in administring the matter and what might be those woordes for the supper wherin it is not inoughe to say that the word by the which the ordinance of Iesus Christ is declared is the woorde of the sacrament But they muste Answere in what woordes that speeche consistes and when it ought to be pronounced Touching the sixthe Demaunde which is the principall the ministers care not to Answere pertinently and clearely only they exhibite a captious Answer by which it can not be perceiued what is their opinion of the presence and participation of the body of Iesus Christe in the supper And so doe they temper their spéeche that there is neither Zuinglian nor Almanist which confesseth not as muche or more than they that is to say that they are conioyned to our Lord Iesus Christe and that they possesse him ii vertue of their Faithe and by the operation of the holy Ghoste as to be made fleshe of his fleshe and bones of his bones c. But it is farre from the question which was if in the sacrament of the supper the Faithfull receiue in their soules besides all the spirituall graces amongst the which is communication with our Lord Iesus Christe the true bodie and the true bloude of him Really truely and touching the substance And if in the supper the Ministers make not distinction of the substance contained and perceiued in the Sacrament from the frutes and effects which procéede therof And to be short we aske if the Ministers receiue and allowe that which Caluine in his Catechisme Institution other Bokes hathe written of the Supper and that whiche is receiued therein Touching the seuenth Demaund the Ministers haue not vnderstand what was proponed to them touching the concomitance for they haue taken it as if the Demaund ran whether it was lawful to receiue the sacrament vnder one kind or not which was not ment nor put in question onely this was the difficultie that was proponed to them whether in their supper when the bread is receiued and afore the wine be receiued they participate really with the true body of Iesus Christe and not participate with his bloud till they haue taken the wine or whether in eating the bread the bodie be receiued afore the cuppe be taken To which Demaundes to the ende Paper be not spente and moiled for nothing we admonishe the ministers to Answere without swaruing or varietie and yelde open Confession of their Faithe And that we may knowe what Doctrine we may impugne or approue Touching the Articles of the Masse we reserue them to their propre places which is of the Sacrifice of the body and bloud of Iesus Christe after it be knowne and proued that they are present in the supper and holy sacrament Sunday the fourthe of August the yeare aforesaide An Answere of the Ministers to the vvryting of the Doctours sent vnto them by the Duke of Nyuernois the Wedensday morning the seuenth
conference to the ende it dissolue afore this matter be cleared In which respect to conclude and resolue in all the conference we are determined with Gods grace to set downe in writing no lesse briefly than as clearly as we can all that which God hath taught vs and we learned by his word of these matters as wel to satisfie our duty to God and his honor our obedience to the Lorde of Neuers and the Lady of Buyllon as also to content in the end and edifye the church A conclusion and resolution of the pointes aswell of the supper as of the Masse contayning that which the Ministers beleue and teach therof in their churches by the woord of God. THe ende soueraigne felicitie of men is to be knit with God dwel in him for that it is the onely meane by which their desires may be contented and satisfied and their harts and mindes fully deliuered from the hard and cruell seruitude of sinne and al other passions lustes feares distrusts which oppresse thē the same being the occasion that S. Paule placed perfect blessednesse and euerlasting rest of the happy in that the God is in them all things But bicause mē are naturally corrupt and vicious and of the contrary God is pure and holy in all perfection the difficulty is how to chuse the meane by which they may approche vnto him seing there is no societie betwene light and darknes nor any cōmunion betwene iustice and iniquity This meane cannot be found in them bicause that of them selues they are altogether inable and incapable to be raysed from the miserie and malediction whereunto they are falne headlong in such sorte as being blynde of vnderstanding they cannot knowe what is good for them and muche lesse séeke for it being frowarde and of hardened heartes And therfore it is necessary to forsake and come out of themselues and searche the meane aforesaid in Iesus Christ who was giuen vnto them of the father to be their iustice wysedome sanctification redemption way lyfe and truth Onely there restes now to know how they may be vnited and conioyned with him The Apostle teacheth vs it is done by faith by which Iesus Christ dwelleth in our heartes and restes in vs so that he and we are made all one as he is one wyth his father There be two principall causes of this fayth the one is outward and the other inwarde The inwarde is the holy spirite which is called a spirite of faith bicause he is the author thereof and hath created and produced it in the hearts of men inclining and disposing them to receiue in all obedience the worde and promise of God preached vnto them by the faithfull Executors and Ministers of the same whiche word is the externall cause of faith And as this faith increaseth and riseth by degrées so doth also the vnitie wée haue with Iesus Christ and by this meane with God vntyll as S. Paule saith that we concurre and méete all together in the vnitie of the faith and knowledge of the sonne of God in perfect man in the maner of a perfect stature of Christ This encrease of faith comes by the operation and vertue of the holy spirite which was the originall and first author of it And then after by the continuance of the worde purely preached and pronounced And lastly by the lawfull vse of the Sacramentes prouided as seales for the certaintye and confirmation of the fayth and assurance which we haue of the sayde coniunction with God by Iesus Christ together with participation of all the benefites grauntes giftes graces and blessinges which are purchased for vs by his fauour as remission of synnes our regeneration and mortification of the flesh with his concupiscence For the better signification of which thinges and to assure vs of the exhibition and vse of the same Baptisme was ordayned of God to the ende that in the water sprinkled vpon our bodies and in the promise of God added therewith we may behold as wyth our eyes the inuisible grace which God doth to vs to wash vs and make vs cleane of our spirituall ordures and so to sanctifie vs and make vs new creatures as also to assure vs continuallye of the eternall lyfe and make vs encrease in the hope we haue by our participatiō of the flesh of Iesus Christ crucified for our redemption and of his bloud shed for the remission of our synnes The bread and wyne are distributed to vs in the supper by the ordinance of Iesus Christ But as we acknowledge an vnitie and sacramentall coniunction betwene the exterior signe and the thing signified by it so we saye of the other side that betwene them both there is such a distinction that the one ought not to be confused with the other neither the spirituall thing so tyed to the corporall which representes it that either the one without the other cannot be receiued or by necessity they both bée alwayes indeuidablye knyt together Whereof it followeth that such are in errour who hold that in the supper the bread is transnatured into the substāce of the body of Iesus Christ And likewise those that say it is there knit and vnited corporally so that who soeuer receiues takes those signes be he faithfull or infidel takes and receiues immediately the thing signified by them Which errour wyth the moste part of others crept in vpon this matter hath proceeded in that men haue not well comprehended what it is to eate the body and drinke the bloud of Iesus Christ which ought not to be vnderstand as a maner that corporal meates are taken eaten but onely of a spirituall fashion as is declared in the sixt of S. Iohn which consistes in that that Iesus Christ dwelles in vs and we in him the same being done by the faith we haue in him As S. Augustine teacheth in his .25 treatise vpon S. Iohn saying why doest thou prepare thy belly and thy teeth beleue and thou hast eaten it Likewise in his third booke of Christian doctrine chap. 16. as followeth whē Iesus Christ saith if you eate not the flesh of the sonne of man and drinke his bloud you shall not haue lyfe in you It seemes he commaundes to commit a great crime so that it is a figure by the which we ought not vnderstand other thing but that we must communicate with the passion of the Lord and kepe in memorie that his flesh was crucified and wounded for vs. Then the eating of the flesh and body of Iesus Christ is no other thyng than a straight coniunction and vnitie wée haue with hym which is wrought by the fayth we repose in his promises euen as by the mutuall promises made and receiued betwene a man and his wyfe the mariage concludes and is established betwene them wherein albeit being so knit they happen by any occasion to be seperate and farre of one from the other touching their bodies yet are they
the bread more briefly and darkely which is also proued by S. Paule The breade which we breake saithe he is not the Communion of the body of Christe which is a manner of figuratiue spéeche bicause that to speake and vnderstaÌ„d properly the bread which is a corporall and materiall thing is not the Communion which we haue in the body of Iesus Christe which is a thing spiritual and inuisible and yet it is so called as being a signe thereof to represent it to vs and assure vs of it euen as we call commonly the letter signed and sealed which containes the declaration of the last will of a man his Testament albeit it is not his testameÌ„t which is properly the declaration which he hath made verballie of his said will but it is so called bicause it is the instrument and testimonie thereof And euen as the Scripture and the Auncients as well to recommende and raise the dignitie of the signes and cutte of by that meane the mistaking of them as also for the conformitie and likenesse that is betwéene the signes the things signified haue attributed sometimes the names of the same things signified to the signes which they represent and speaking of the signes haue vsed figuratiue speeche So they haue spoken of them sundry other times properly to take away all occasion of abuse and preuent that in taking without distinction the signes of the thing signified by them there shuld be attributed to them the effectes which appertaine not but to the matters only which they signifie of these two sundry reasons and manner of spéeche there be examples as well in the scriptures as in the Auncient fathers Of the firste we haue an example in the Circumcision when it is called by figure aliance Gene. 17. vers 13. And of the seconde there is also an example in the same Chapter vers 11. where the Circumcision is properly called signe of the aliance in Exo. 12. ver 11. there is also an other example of the firste manner of figuratiue spéeche where the Lambe is called the Passeouer of the Lorde and touching the seconde man which is propre an example also in the same place vers 3. where the bloude of the Lambe is called a signe In like manner and order when is mention in the scripture of the supper the woordes run somtimes of the bread by figure as when it is called the bodye of Iesus Christe or the Communion of the body as hathe bene said before and sometimes also it is spoken of properly as when it is saide who so euer shall eate of this breade also euery one then proues himselfe and eates so of this breade Like diuersitie in bothe the manners of spéeche is founde oftentimes in the Auncient fathers touching the matter of the supper For sometimes they speake of the breade by figure calling it the body of Iesus Christe as S. Cyprian when he sayeth the body of the Lorde is taken with foule handes and his bloude dronke with a prophane and defiled mouthe and in an other place that we sucke his bloude and fasten oure tongs in the woundes of our Redéemer Likewise S. Ierome when he saithe that Exuperius Bishop of Tholoze caryed the bodie of our Lorde in a little pannier of Willowes and his bloude in a glasse S. Chrysostome also when he wrytes that Iesus suffreth himselfe not onely to be seene but also to be touched and eaten and that teethe are fixed in his fleshe and touched with tong Lastly S. Augustine With what care do we take heede when the bodie of Iesus Christe is administred to vs that nothing of the same fall from our handes to the earthe All which senteÌ„ces with their likes are figuratiue wherin is no doubt that in the right and directe interpretation of them ought not to be taught to the readers but that in them the name of the thing signified is applied to the signes which signifie it which may be easily gathered of other sentences and textes of the saide Auncients where speaking properly of the breade and wine which are distributed in the supper they cal them signes and figures As Tertullian Iesus Christ saith he tooke breade and distributed it to his Disciples and makes it his body when he saith this is my body which is to say a figure of my body And Cyprian by the wine shewes the bloude of Christe Also in a Sermone which he made of the supper of oure Lorde As often as we do this we whette not our teethe to bite but breake and distribute the holy breade in true Faithe by the which we distinguishe the matter diuine and humaine Also in a Sermon he made De Câ—â—â—â—â—le the Lord gaue with his proper handes bread and wine in the Table wherein he performed his laste repaste with his Disciples but on the Crosse he deliuered into the hands of the armed men his body to be wounded to the ende he might imprinâ—e so muche the more deepely the truthe into his disciples and they to declare to the people how the bread and wine were his body and bloud and howe the sacrament agréed with the thing for the which it was instituted and also howe one sacrament is made of two things and therefore is named with two names and one selfe name is giuen to that which signifieth and to that which is signified S. â—asile propones to vs figures and patrones of the sacred bodie and bloud of Iesus Christe And likewise S. Augustine the Lord had no horror to say this is my body when he gaue the signe of his body The Lord receiued Iudas to his supper wherin he recommended and gaue to his Disciples the figure of his bodie S. Ierome After he had eaten the Pascall Lambe with his disciples he tooke bread to strengthen the hart of man and past to the true sacrament of the passage to the end that as Aâ—lchisedech had done before in his figure he mighte also there represent his true bodie S. Ambrose this sacrifice is a figure of the body and bloud of our Lord Iesus Christe Chrysostome he hath dressed this Table to the ende he may shew vs daily the breade and wine in mysterie and similitude of the body and bloude of Christ And it happeneth sometimes that a Doctor in this matter expoundes the other as may be perceiued in the conference of the two places the one of S. Augustine alreadie alleaged and the other of Tertullian in the Booke of the crowning of a Knighte where he sayth we hardly suffer that any thing of oure breade and wine fall on the earthe In place of that which S. Augustine to the same matter saythe as hathe bene recited heere before we take diligent heede that nothing of the body of oure Lorde fail on the earthe And euen as in diuers places the Auncientes as hathe bene declared haue vsed the two manners of speeche aforesaide speaking of the supper sometimes by figure somtimes simple and properly so it is oftentimes
founde that in one selfe place the two manners of speeche haue bene vsurped in their wrytings as in a Canon of the Councel of Nace wher is saide it hathe bene thus concluded of the Table of the Lorde and of the mysterie vppon the same meaning of the woorthie bodie and bloude of Iesus Christe At the Table of the Lorde we ought not to reâ—â— fixed basely vppon the bread and wine there seâ—te oute but to raise our hartes on highe by Faithe with persuasion that vppon the holy Table is exhibited the Lambe of God which takes vpon him the sinnes of the worlde which is sacrificed of the Priestes and not killed And communicating truely with his bodie precious bloud we oughte to beléeue that those things are signes of our Resurrection By which may be séene howe in one place the fathers haue spoken properly calling breade and wine the signes and elementes which are presented in the supper and by figure also naming the same signes the Lambe of God which takes vpon him the sinnes of the worlde Suche therefore as reade the scriptures and Aunciente Fathers are warned by the discourse of the two manners of spéeche aforesaide to vse diligent héede that for not distinguishing the places where the saide spéeches are vsurped they confounde them not taking that which oughte to be vnderstande by figure as if it were properly spoken and proper spéeche as if it were vnderstande by Figure wherein must be alwayes remembred in the reading of the scripture as also the Auncientes the opinion of S. Augustine in his Booke of Christian Doctrine we muste beware saythe he that we take not a Figuratiue spéeche for the letter whereunto may be referred the saying of the Apostle the letter killeth and the spirite reuiues So that to vnderstande that which is sayde by figure as if it were spoken properly is a fleshly wisdome Vppon the ende of the Chapter he remembreth one worthy sentence that it is a miserable seruitude of the soule to take the signes for the thing signified and not to be able to raise the eye of the spirite aboue the corporall creature to drawe the eternall lighte To come to the thirde parte of the supper being the spirituall and celestiall thing which is there represented and exhibited vnto vs as well in the elements as in the action we say that it is Iesus Christe crucified offred on the Crosse to God his father for the expiation perfect satisfaction of all the sinnes of the world And to make vs enioy the fruite of this sacrifice and to applie to vs iustice remission of sinnes life grace of God with all the other fauors and blissings which by the same sacrifice haue bene purchased obtained for vs The word and the Sacramentes haue bene left and ordayned for vs and specially that of the Supper wherin as vpon a table we behold Iesus Christ sufferyng for vs all the dollours and anguishes of death paying our debts and cancelling the bonde that was against vs carying vppon him selfe our malediction to discharge vs of it and by his obedience reconciling vs to God his father and appeasing his wrath towardes vs All which thinges are represented and assured to vs in the Supper when with a true fayth we come thither to celebrate it Then the Supper was not ordayned to be a sacrifice propiciatorie as the Doctors teache and the Romish churche falsly beleueth but to be a Sacrament to kéepe fresh and preserue alwayes the memorie which wée ought to hold constantlye of the death and sacrifice of Iesus Christ There is great difference betwene sacrament and sacrifice bicause in sacrifice we present to God our oblatioÌ„s and in the sacrament God of the contrarie doth offer and communicate with vs hys graces and giftes Also in the sacrifice for synne there is death and effusion of bloude of the host and oblation and not in the sacrament but onely the application of the fruites and effectes of the sacrifice So that in the Supper Iesus Christ is not eftsoones sacrificed but the fruites of his obedience and of the merite of hys sacrifice are there distributed and receiued by the faythfull By the reasons aforesayde we conclude that it is a blasphemie and sacriledge to call the bread of the Masse of a romish Priest an host saluatorie And if to proue it the auncientes be alledged in whose writinges it is found that sometime the Supper was called oblation and sacrifice we answer that first that belonges nothyng to the Masse of the Priestes betwene the which and the Supper there is no affinitie And then that which the auncientes haue sayde that they neuer vnderstoode it a Sacrifice propiciatorie by the which remission of synnes is gotten and obtayned Neither haue they beleued or thought that there was an other sacrifice to appease Gods wrath and purchase a reconcilement betwene him men than the onely sacrifice of Iesus Christ made by him onely once vpon the crosse We say then in effect thrée thinges first that there neither is nor can be other sacrificator of the newe Testament than Iesus Christ The reasons are bicause there is none but he of whom it hath bene said thou art priest eternally according to the order of Melchisedeck Also ther is none but he to whom may be applyed the conditions and essentiall qualities of the sacrificator and of the sacrificature which be that the sacrificator be holy innocent without spot seperated from sinners exalted aboue the heauens who hath not neede euery day to offer sacrifices first for his own sinnes and then for the sins of the people Also there is none but he which either is or may be mediator betwene God and men that is able to satisfie the deuine iustice capable to beare endure the wrath of God that can tame and ouercome death that by his death and proper bloude is able to procure the ratification of the new testament and who lastly is able in fauour and contemplation of hys merites and dignities to obtayne of God the remission of synne with other graces which are necessarie to such as seeke him and trust in him Secondly we saye there is no other sacrifice for synne but that of Iesus Christe who is the onelye Lambe that beares the synne of the world that there is but his bloud by the which our abominations are washed made cleane To be short that God takes no pleasure in other sacrifice or oblation and that he requires no other Holocaustes nor offering for synne and that for this reason Iesus Christ as is written of him in the roule of the law is come to do and accomplish the wyll of God his father Thirdly we say of the sacrifice of Iesus Christ that it is onely and once offered by himâ—elfe without néede euer after to repeate or reitterate it considering his perfection and vertue by the which synne is abolished and perfect and eternall sanctification obtained to all the choseÌ„ as appeareth in the. 9 10. to
he penetrate the grosse walles or great barre of woode that was betwene bothe It is moste true he entred without fiction or deceite Lette thy reason folowe and consider his Entrie and thy vnderstanding enter into the shutte house with him Thou seest that all is sounde and faste at the Locke and yet he was in the middest of his Disciples but that is bicause all things are open to him by his Omnipotencie Thou blamest things inuisible I aske thée againe the reason of that thing visible From the Walles or Gates firme nothing recules or giues place And yet I see of the contrarie the woode and stones by their nature cannot receiue suche entrie The Lordes Body was not vnmade to be made againe of nothing then from whence comes it that he was in the middest withoute opening the doore The sense and the woorde faile in this and the truthe of the acte is aboue mannes reason so that as wee are abused of the byrthe of the Sonne of God so doo wée also lye of that Entrie wée saie the facte is false and that it did not so happen bicause we are not able to vnderstande the reason and bicause our sense and iudgemente faile wée saie there was no suche facte but the Faithe beliefe of the facte conuinceth our dreame the Lorde was amidde his Apostles the house being shutte and the Sonne of God was borne of his Father doo not denie that he entred thus bicause by the infirmitie of the spirite thou arte not able to comprehende this manner of entrie I coulde amplifie like factes in all his creatures but the Lord hath wel forséene in him selfe to haue vs conteined in necessitie and modestie by the nature of our bodyes wée declare sufficiently that we woulde be an other God if wee had the power and bicause we cannot by the audacitie of our wicked will reuerse the nature of truthe at the leaste wée gainesaie it and raise warre with the woordes of God. S. Ambrose in his seconde Booke vppon S Luke the 24. Chapter saithe Throughe the doores S Chrysostome vppon S. Iohn proues by suche entrie that Iesus Christe was so borne of the Virgyn that shée remained a Virgyn in her deliuery and after without any breaking concluding that bothe the one and the other facte procéede of the omnipotencie of god The same Chrysostome in his seconde Homilie vpon the Symbol of the Apostles vseth these woordes how is it that Christe entred the gates being shutte c. bicause suche things are aboue vs and we cannot yeelde a reason of this miracle we holde it by Faithe S Ierome in his firste Booke against Iouinian and in his Epistle to Pammachius against the errours of Iohn Ierosolymitan who saide that Iesus had not a true Bodye after his resurrectiō bicause it was impossible a true body shoulde passe throughe the doores and that he was in the same place with an other body answeres that the same letted not that the nature of the body did not remaine bicause the acte procéeded of the almightinesse of God He vseth also these speaches tell me thou subtil disputer whiche is the greatest either to hang all the weighte and greatnesse of the earthe vppon nothing ballaunce it aboue the freighte of the waters or that God passe by a doore shutte and the Creature obeye his Creatour That whiche is the greatest thou wilt agrée vnto easily and whiche is the leaste thou reprochest S. Augustie in his thirtéenth Epistle for an example of Goddes Omnipotencie recites also this facte as in declaration aswell that our Lorde was borne by the Virgyn withoute any breaking of her Bodye as also that Goddes Almightinesse is greater than wée can comprehende S. Augustine also recites the same Facte in his Booke de Agone Christiano againste the Valentinians and others that denyed the true Substaunce of the Bodye of Iesus Christe bicause contrarie to the nature of Bodyes he did so passe and enter Amphilochius and Theodoret in the seconde Dialogue disputing of this deede againste Eutyches who helde also that after the Resurrection Christes Humanitie was transnatured into his Diuinitie bicause that against the nature of bodyes he passed in that order through the doores being shutte aunswere with the others that suche an effecte importes not contradiction to the nature of the bodye as procéeding of the Omnipotencie of God and not of the nature of the bodye Cyri◠in the 12. Booke vppon S. Iohn rebukes also suche as séeke to compasse the myracles and dooings of God according to their iudgements and propertie of creatures against whom he vseth sharpe speache S. Augustine recites in his firste Booke againste Iulian Chap. 2. that Iouinian was an Heretike in that he saide the Virgyns wombe was disclosed in her deliuery whiche he saide so for feare to fall into the Heresie of the Manicheans whose opinion was that Iesus had not a true body bicause he was borne without breaking of his mother so that to eschue this Heresie he did rather denie that the Virgyn remained a Virgyn This kinde of Heresie was also laide vppon Origen like as also some alleage that the Ancientes as Tertullian was of this opinion By these testimonies the Doctoures conclude that twoo bodyes to be penetrated and be in one selfe place by the Diuine vertue implies no contradiction whiche places if they were wel considered men would receiue no newe interpretation againste the expresse woorde of God seeing the texte beares simply that Christe came to his Disciples the doores being shutte It maye be séene easily howe Caluin in his Institution hathe depraued the sense of this place of S. Iohn with other like saying what so euer the worlde alleageth againe that Christe issued out of the Graue not opened it entred to his disciples the Chamber doore being shut is nothing woorth any more to mainteine theire erroure For as the water serued to Iesus Christe as a firme pauemente to walke vpon the Lake so we ought not thinke it strange if the hardenesse of the stone became softe to giue him place Beza also in his seconde Dialogue againste Hesshusius saithe The Stone became nothing to the ende the Lorde mighte passe to his Resurrection and then after God refashioned it It foloweth also in the texte of Caluin that to enter into a Chamber the doores being shutte is not to saie he pierced the woode but onely he made opening by his Diuine vertue in sorte that in a woonderfull manner he was in the middest of his Disciples notwithstanding the doores were shutte He saithe further whiche they bring in of S. Luke that he vanished suddainely from his Disciples whiche wente to Emaus it serues them for nothing and applies to our advauntage For to take awaye the sighte of his Body he is not made inuisible but onely is vanished as also the saide Euangeliste dothe witnesse when he walked he was not transfigured nor disguised as to be inuisible but he gouerned and helde their eies These friuolous and vaine expositions
Ministers affirme that he doth it not and can not doe it bicause he vvill not for that according to Tertullian the power of God is his will. Touching the Doctoures reason of Philosophie to proue that a body in respecte it is a body forbeares not to be in diuers places the Ministers say that they suppose a false which is that the quantitie is accidentall and not essentiall to the body For that a body is measured limitted and circumscript is so of his essence that without it it is no more a bodie according to S. Augustines opinyon speaking euen of the bodie of Iesus Christe glorified that if they take from a bodie his space he hathe no more place where he can be and by Consequence being no where he is no more The reason of their Philosophie touching the firste Heauen not to be in any place the Ministers denie it seeing to vse the speache of the Scripture we must confesse that euen aboue the Heauens there is place As Christe saide to his Disciples I go to prepare you a place and in the very place in the house of my Father be many dwellings And in an other place There where I am taking the Present for the Future there shal be my seruaunte in whiche sentence wée muste obserue that there be Aduerbes of Place S. Augustine writing to Dardanus holdes expresse opinion that the Body of Iesus Christe must necessarily be in some place in Heauen bicause it is a true Body Besides in the number of the erroures heretofore condemned by the facultie of Paris it is said expressely that the Heauen called by them Empyreum is the place of Angelles of happy Soules and Humaine bodyes glorified Touching that whiche the Doctours pretende that by the Ministers Doctrine mainteining that a Bodye cannot be without place nor in many places at one instante maye be inferred that they blaspheme the power of god The Ministers of the contrary saie that the Doctoures blaspheme his Maiestie whiche they diminishe as giuing to the Creature that which belongs to him alone that is to be incircumscript as appeareth by Dydimus in his Booke of the Holy Ghoste where he proues that the Holy Sprite is God and not a Creature bicause it is circumscripte and all creatures necessarily are circumscripte and lymited The same resembling also the opinions of S. Basile Vigilius and the Maister of Sentences in the firste Booke Where they confesse that the Ancientes happy Sprites are circumscript albeit they are not corporal Bodyes they reason directely againste themselues and properly to proue our opinion heretofore of Bodyes whiche is that it cannot be but in what place so euer they are they are circumscripte For by an argumente of the Lesse to the More if the Aungelles whiche haue no Dimension nor measure be by their confession necessarily circumscripte as being creatures by greater reason the bodyes of men which be Creatures and measured muste be so And where they alleage that the Auncientes haue not saide that a Body by the power of God cannot be in diuers places that impugnes S. Augustine in his 30. Treatise vpon S. Iohn which is recited de Consec Distinct a. C. Prima quidem where speaking of the body of Christe he saith precisely that the Bodye of our Lorde wherewith he rose againe muste be in one place teaching thereby that at one time it cannot be in diuerse places And touching their reason taken of the Sacramente to enforce and proue their saying the Ministers aunswere that the Angelles neuer vnderstood nor saide that the body of Iesus Christe was in Heauen and in the Sacramente in one self sort maner nor that he was in the Sacrament otherwayes than sacramentally And where they pretend to proue in their resolution that the Angels may in one instant be in diuerse places whē we vnderstande their reasons they shal be aunswered Their speache deliuereth absurditie to saie that a Bodye being dispoiled of his Dimensions forbeares not for all that to be a Body For if it happened that a substance Corporall were wholy dispoiled of his dimēsions it should be no more a Body but a substance not Corporal of like nature to the Aungelles and Sprites And albeit God by his power may separate the Dimensions of a substance withoute corrupting it yet it cannot be but they muste be separated from a Bodye without corrupting the same bicause the Qualitie and Dimensions be Accidentes of the Substance but not of the Body which cannot subsiste without them bicause they are of his proper Essence And where the Doctours inferre after in their obiection that the weight in a body is a thing essential the Ministers denie it and by this reason if it were of the Essence of the Bodye the Bodye failing it muste also cease to be And yet we sée that the Body of Iesus Christ glorified to the which the bodyes of all the Electe shal be conformed after the Resurrection dothe not forbeare to be and subsiste albeit at this daye it be exempt from al weightinesse Touching theire moste strong and mighty Argumente that if twoo Bodyes maye be together in one place one body may also be in diuers places at one instant the Ministers withoute graunting their Antecedente saie theire Consequence vnder correction is not good as the Argumente it selfe is moste weake Adding this further that the Doctoures neither haue proued nor euer can proue by Scripture nor any Authoritie of the Auncientes no nor any sufficiente Reason that either the matter of theire Antecedente or the Consequence they inferre vppon it are true Where the Doctoures to proue that twoo bodyes may be together in one place alleage scripture that Christe entred the house where his disciples were the doores being shutte the Ministers aunswere that it is not written that he entred by the doores shutte but onely the doores being shutte whiche the Aunciente Interpreter hath giuen well to vnderstande expounding in one of the places of S. Iohn where standes mention of the matter afore recited Cum Fores essent clausae When the doores were shutte came Iesus c. Yet the Ministers saie they beleue and are assured of the cleare opinion of the Scripture that the doores being shutte he came and stoode in the middest of his Disciples But that it cannot be defined nor determined whiche waye he entred whether throughe the Walles or by the Gates of Woode whiche S. Hilarie him selfe puttes in doubte in his place alleaged by the Doctours what soeuer it be the Ministers say that in entring he made his way myraculously the one body whether it were the wood or the wal made place to the body of Iesus Christ entring or that an opening was made to him by the Aungel who opened shut the doores againe in a moment as hath bene said before But in what fashion so euer it was done two bodyes were neuer founde together in one selfe place Touching that they alleage of S. Augustine in his Booke de Agone Christiano
For conclusion of this Article we would willingly aske the Ministers if they holde as an Article of Faithe the virginitie of the mother after hir deliuerie and if they can proue it by expresse and inreprocheable woorde of God written bicause Beza calles in doubte these two poyntes at his pleasure and the Religion pretended reformed amongste other Articles of Faith of their diuers confessions imprinted recites sometime the Virginitie of the mother of God after hir deliuerie and sometimes it is omitted And in some Confessions is brought in no more but that Iesus was borne of the virgine Marie and only issued of the séede of Dauid The Doctoures applie for the Resurrection and issuing of Christes bodye thorowe the stone of the Sepulchre the moste parte of the Authorities alleaged by them vppon the doores shut as the absolute reading of the saide Authorities will make Faithe togither with Gregorius Nazianzene in his tragedie of the Passion of our Lord who ioynes as many other Auncients these thrée miracles hapned in the body of our Lord aboue nature the birth without breaking the virgine the resurrection thorowe the stone and his entrie thorowe the doores shutte We say also that Caluine and Beza make conscience to ioyne with the Ministers that oure Lorde rose not againe the Sepulchre being closed and shut yea they had rather fall into the friuolous absurdities and vaine Expositions héere afore alleaged than discende into the opinion of the Ministers bicause there is more Testimonie in the texte of the Gospell that Iesus was risen afore the stone was rolled away by the Aungell as the most parte of the Aunciente Christians doe consent which meane also giues occasion to beléeue more easily the Resurrection of our Sauioure than if the stone had bene taken away before his Resurrection for so it mighte haue bene more easily sayde that the bodie was transported and not raised or risen neither doothe the Texte beare that the Aungell rolled away the stone afore the Resurrection or when Iesus did rise or rather after as is greate likelihoode in Scripture in reason and all Antiquitie Pope Leo is euill alleaged by the Ministers as concealing that is wrytten in his Epistle touching the shutte dores as also producing euill the matter of the Resurrection for it is not sayde that our Lorde did rise after the stone of the monumente was rolled awaye But it is sayde agaynste the fantastike sorte that the substance putte on the Crosse and that which rested in the Sepulchre and likewyse that whiche rose agayne the thirde day the stone of the Monumente being rolled awaye is the true Fleshe of Iesus Christe By whiche speaches the Pope meanes not to saye that oure Lorde did not rise afore the stone was reuersed but only declares that the body of Iesus Christ risen was a true body and not fantasticall whose Resurrection appeared by the opening of the monument And this is the common interpretation of the Auncient authors touching the reuersement of the stone For ende of these Auncient testimonies we maruel that the ministers séeing them so manifest and as conuinced not only that God can bring to passe that two bodies be in one place but also that he hath done it dare reprochefully depraue the vnderstanding of the same and yet they say that the reasons taken of suche and so euidente testimonies are impertinent Like as by like licence common with the Heritikes they feare not without any texte of the scripture nor any place of the Ancients to enterprete two bodies penetrating to be no other thing than one body to giue place to an other of which false and licentious interpretacion euen the common vse of spéeche amongste the Philosophers dothe condemne them Like as also their fine example touching such as walke thorowe the aire which moues them and the birdes when they flie is farre to subtill And where they vaunt in the sayde Article that in denying two bodies to be able to be in one place by the omnipotencie of God or one body in two places they yet aduaunce and magnifie the power of God the same is as true as when in all other their erroures by whiche they oppugne Gods truthe and blaspheeme it yet they bragge alwayes to aduaunce Gods glory seeming héereby that they haue néed to couer their filthinesse and deformitie with some cloke of spéeche the better to blinde the simple and ignorant The ministers haue also good reason not to seeke to excuse the interpretacions of Caluine and Beza as too friuolous and yet they preferre their owne much more vaine before their Maisters by which may be séene the agréement betwéene the Maisters and Disciples vsing all the foundacion of their religion which is to beleeue and preferre afore all others their particulare and priuate interpretacion and inspiration where the Ministers say that the body of oure Lord was not inuisible to the disciples of whome is spoken in S. Luke 24. but only the hauing a swift body was sodainly withdrawne we Obiect that the sodaine departing which S. Ambrose and de Lyra speakes of makes not that the body was inuisible according to the Gréeke woorde aphantos not signifying sodaine departure but incapacitie to be séene and knowne and so the text of the Scripture is apparantly for the Doctoures as also that as often as bothe the auncient and present Diuines giue example that Christ made himselfe inuisible they alleage ordinarily this place The ministers who vaunte to rest onely vppon the pure woord of God for the exposition of the scripture bring forthe their dreames grounded vppon their owne persuasion as hath béene séene touching the doores being shutte vsing the like licence to expounde the texte of S. Paule which mainetaines expressely that our Lorde pierced the Heauens and they say that it is a likely truthe that the Heauens deuided and were open And if they be asked from whence they fetch this interpretacion their Aunswere is from Goddes woorde grounded of their inwarde inspiration by the which they accommodate the saying of S. Mathevve that the Heauens were open when the Piller discended vppon oure Lorde as thoughe all the Heauens were deuided and that the spirite could not descend without the same were opened being not aduised that the scripture in many places takes the Heauen for the aire And where they alleage that S. Stephen sawe the Heauens open when he was stoned it were more conuenient to the ministers to interprete such visions to be done in spirite as there is great likelihoode Otherwayes two miracles must be confessed the one in the Diuision of the Heauens and the other in that the sight of S. Stephen pierced not only into the Heauens but also euen aboue where the ministers confesse the body of Iesus Christe is vpon the righte hand of his Father which S. Stephen saw the same being against the order of God established in the world by which it is necessary that there be a certaine difference betwéene the eie séeing and the
thing which is séene Neither is it lesse harde that suche a thing be done than that two bodyes be penetrate We must not forgette that oftentimes the scripture in the appearings and spirituall visions vseth this language that the Heauens were open and yet in suche cases there was but spirituall vision and likewise but spirituall appearing And as the Ministers séeke to take the rigoure of the woorde opening of the Heauens euen so they must not note it straunge if we wrest in like rigoure the penetration of the Heauens specially in the Article of the Ascention where is Question of the body of Iesus Christe which had already pierced bodyes more impenetrable than the Heauen which pointe of penetration of the Heauen we referre to be more amplie handled an other time as nowe to auoide tediousnesse Touching the eight and twentieth Article where the ministers againste expresse scripture defend obstinately that God of his power can not bring to passe that a Camell or Cable enter the eye of a néedle we can not a little maruell bothe at their blindnesse séeming to sée nothing in the midde day and at their frowarde obstinacie By which as we can not iudge that they vnderstand not wel their fault but sinne euen against their conscience oppugning the truthe by them well knowne so it séemes God suffereth this to happen to them in this text and place of the scripture so manifest to the ende that by this Article the world may vnderstande howe farre more hardie they are to giue false vnderstandings of scriptures more obscure than this yea in the matter of the Auncient Christians which are against them But to the ende the world vnderstand their great wrong to denie that our Lorde can bring to passe that a Camel or cable passe thorowe the hole of a néedle we obiecte that it were impossible to God to saue a riche man vsing this Argument taken of the texts of the Gospell it is more impossible or harde that God saue a riche man than to bring to passe that a Camel or cable passe thorow the hole of an Néedle God can not bring to passe of his omnipotencie as the Ministers say that a Camell enter the hole of a néedle then he can not of his almightinesse make that a riche man be saued and enter into the kingdome of Heauen The Maior is of the Scripture the Minor is confessed by the Ministers and the consequence is necessary and according to all Philosophie he that can not doe the moste easiest can not doe the moste hardest The Auncientes also haue expounded withoute gaine saying the present Scripture as Origen in his Homilie vppon this place saying it is possible that a Camell enter the eie of a néedle not for all that that it be possible as in respecte of men but to God like as the manner by which suche things may be done is knowne to God and his Sonne Iesus Christe and to him to whome it is reuealed S. Augustine likewise in his Booke de spiritu littera Cap. 1. and 5. writes in this sorte to Marcellinus it séemes to thée an absurde thing when I tell thée that a man may be withoute sinne albeit there is none suche founde except Iesus Christe thoughte it to seeme absurde to thée that a thyng may be done whereof no Example can be shewed séeing as I beléeue thou doubtest not at all that it was neuer done that a Camell entred the eye of a néedle and yet it is said that suche a thing is possible to God. By their Aunswere to the nine and twentie Article it may easily be knowne that they beguile and abuse their Disiples making them beléeue by faire woordes and writings that Really in the Supper they receiue the bodie of Iesus Christe euen he that issued out of the wombe of the virgine and was putte vppon the Crosse for the restauration of mankinde And they séeke to make to vnderstande that these which put not to the Sacrament which they call of the Supper wyth the Breade and Wine but some Spirituall effecte onely as redemption iustice sanctification eternall life and other giftes and benefites which Iesus Christe brings to hys chosen diminish the excellencie dignitie of the same Sacrament and that they be Zuinglians yea and that ouer and aboue suche spirituall effectes it muste be beléeued that the body of Iesus Christe is truely receiued in the Supper and yet they feede an other opinion in their braine For when they are pressed to Argue not being able to sustaine that fantasticall presence confessed in their writings they make themselues Zuinglians and returne to the spirituall presence of Iesus Christe in the Supper the same being as muche to say that bisides the Breade and Wine they receiue some spirituall effecte and not Really the body as the Ministers holde in the presente Aunswere which as they make manifest by that they recite of the Apostle S. Paule so by the same may be gathered what is their opinion touching the supper which is that the body of our Lord Iesus Christ is not Really but onely by spirituall effecte in the heartes of the Faithfull For the Galathians by the hearing of the preaching of S. Paule did not receiue Really the body of Iesus Christe crucified but onely had an imagination of the Crosse and Passion of Iesus Christe and receiued onely the frute of their Faithe That is by that meanes they were iustified and sanctified before God. The Allegation also which the Ministers make of S. Cyprian tendes to this ende to shewe that in the Supper is receiued onely certaine effectes spirituall which notwithstanding Allegorically are signified by these woordes to embrace the Crosse of Iesus Christe to sucke his bloude c. wherein they denie albeit againste the intente of S. Cyprian in his Sermon of the Supper the Reall presence of the body of Iesus Christe The Doctoures confesse that the Argumente which they haue made tendes to the Caluinistes and not to the Zuinglians neither did they thinke that the ministers woulde otherwayes iudge of this Sacrament than Caluine Beza and the other ministers who vaunte them selues to be ministers of the churche of the Caluinistes which they call reformed But those which exhibited to the Bishops being at Poissi the Cōfession touching this Sacrament vsed an other maner of spéech They without difficultie confessed Really the Bodye of Iesus Christ to be present in the Supper which at this daie the Ministers denie with the Doctoures conferentes And as farre as the Doctoures can iudge the Ministers be come of Caluinistes Allemanistes which suche wil not wel disgest as mainteine the Doctrine of the Churche whiche they call Reformed séeing their principal supposts faile them at néed as vnable to aunswere one Argumente obiected by the Doctours as affirming in their aunswere to be so farre illumined with the Holy Sprite which makes them vnderstande and knowe al things Touching the Article folowing they reueale openly their present opinion touching
to him and yet notwithstanding he may be incircumscript For if it be necessary that the dimensions wherof he is composed be terminable it folowes then necessarily that he is termined limited and circumscript Afterwardes where they say that our reasons takeÌ„ of the Creede alleaged to proue that the body of Iesus Christe is in heauen in place certaine are friuolous we Answere that therein they shewe the reuerence they beare to the woorde of God and his holy spirite which hath reuealed it vnto vs and to his Apostles who haue pronounced it to vs. To iustifie Gratian and the Canon which we alleage of S. Augustine as prouing therby that the body of Iesus Christe muste necessarilye be in a certaine place Wée alleage againe for more ample confirmation the Maister of sentences Lib. 4. Distinct 10. who reciting the selfe same texte of S. Augustine vseth this verbe Oportet and not Potest Where the Doctours alleage Iustine to proue that the myracles which were done when Christ appeared in the middest of his Disciples the doores being shutte and when he walked vppon the waters were done in his person Wée maruell muche that the Doctours doo yet repeate that seeing the same Iustine as hathe bene already aunswered them saithe in expresse termes that at the time when the saide myracles were done there happened no chaunge in the body of Iesus Christ which as it had bin necessary if the myracles had bin done in his person so wée confesse stil as many times wée haue done that the cause of the saide myracles and the Diuine vertue of which they procéeded rested in Iesus Christ as when he healed the sicke that touched him with other myracles recited in the Histories of the Gospelles which were done by him but not in him but in the person of those that were healed There is greate difference betweene those myracles and them of his Transfiguration and Resurrection which were done by his onely vertue and in his proper person Vppon the importunate repetition whiche the Doctoures make aswel touching the meane of the byrth of our Lord Iesus Christe as of the terme Aphantos The Ministers no lesse to auoide the losse of time than to gréeue or trouble the Readers sende them to their former aunsweres Wée maruell also that the Doctoures to proue their penetration pretended of twoo bodyes and theire dimensions will grounde their proofe and principell Argumente vpon the proper signification of the woord to Penetrate For be it that by the French terme they woulde interprete the Gréeke woorde Pâ—eâ—cliestai or the Latine woorde Penetrare yet it shoulde be alwayes impossible to them to proue that which they pretend And to shew it is so in the Actes of the Apostles chapter 1â— 10. it is saide of the Aungel and S. Peter that they passed the firste seconde warde And in S. Luke 4 3â— but he passed through the middes of them and wente his way And in S. Iohn 4.4 He must passe by Samaria in al which places the Doctoures cannot finde that the terme Diercherstai alleaged in the said places may be any wayes applied to their penetration of dimensions neither can they proue any more that the terme Penetrare which the Auncient Translatour hathe vsed in 2. Timoth. 3. may be referred to their said penetration Wée say further that the Doctoures oughte not to finde it more strange that Iesus Christ mounting into heauen with a body termined and limited made himselfe opening to enter therin than wheÌ„ he discendes betwene the hands of Priests singing their masses for then as S. Gregorie saith the heauens are opened to make him passage albeit that according to their imagination his body be then separated from his measures dimensions The Doctors ought to haue conteÌ„ted themselues with the answer which we made them vpon the similitude parable of the Camel. For first they could no way proue that the saying of Iesus Christ vpon the end of the speach ought to be referred otherwaies than to the next member of the same where is spoken of the conuersion sauing of the Rich séeing the Pronoune Demonstratiue Hoc shewes it clearly After notwithstanding the proposition generall whiche is vpon the end coÌ„clusion of the said speach that al things are possible to God stretcheth aswel to the Camel as to the rich men as the doctors hold yet to accomodate the two parts of the comparison thei must confesse that as changing is necessary to the rich man to be saued so is it also to the body of the Camel to make him passe through the hole of a néedle but what so euer it be in what manner so euer that may be done the doctors shal neuer proue or conclude by that that two bodies may penetrate one an other Bicause the doctors by their most mighty and strong Argumentes coulde not conclude any their said absurdities nor enforce vs by force of their reasons to coÌ„fesse them they doo nothing but crye blasphemie blasphemie the same being the last shift of al men that despite and whet their téeth against the Truthe and mainteiners thereof when they can not ouercome them If wée woulde subscribe to their errours and abuses wée should be good and Catholike men but bicause wée resist and reproue them wée are in their opinion Heretikes Seducers Blasphemours and Atheistes Yea they haue in vs such horrour that it is maruel they rent not as did Caiphas their hoodes and hattes in spite of Gods woorde proponed defended by vs and condemned by them as Blasphemy The doctours haue dissembled our place of scripture alleaged to proue that faith is a worke of God that it produceth in the hart of the faithful when he wil regenerate him speaking by chaunge of Frée wil and Merite of Woorkes wherein wée are determined to answere and mainteine the truthe of these twoo pointes with Gods grace againste the enimies of his glorye when they shal be proponed to be debated vppon And touching the ioy that they say they haue receiued for that wée haue confessed to haue read in no ancient Authour or expresse termes that God cannot bring to passe that one body in one instant be in diuers places they haue no great cause to reioice at it séeing that albeit the said ancients haue not spokeÌ„ it in expresse speach yet haue they both said and written it in termes equiualent and that in infinite places A shorte resolution of al the discourse and aunsweres whiche the Ministers haue made vppon the matter of Goddes Omnipotencie in the conference which they haue had with the Doctoures THe craft art of Sathan hath bene alwaies from the beginning of the world to traÌ„sfigure him self into an Angel of light search some fine preteÌ„ce to colour distinguish him self as vnder such colour to insinuate into the church of God there to sette abroach his Lyes trumperies like as we sée that vnder the colour to honor God he hath established al the Idolatry
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
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
the former And albeit the Prophetes and Apostles had not written at al the church notwithstanding had bene grounded vpon their foundation as it was in the time of Abraham and afore there were any Scripture which if it had bene necessary to saluation it had bene put among the Articles of Faithe Aunsvvere The Ministers holde this Replie muche more impertinent and touching the reason that is added that Faithe was in the time of Abraham albeit there was no woorde written they accorde to it But this is euil inferred there is no woorde written then there is no woorde at all And it is a fallax in argument which the Dialecticians name a Dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter from a saying modified to that is simplie saide The fourth day of disputation being Friday the tvvelfth of Julie THe Ministers aduouche to cleane alwaies to their former request obseruing the Protestations aforesaide made by the Doctoures who haue twise declared that they assembled not but to satisfie the Lord of Montpensier and the Ladie Buillon according also to whose request publikely made in the company to be instructed vpon the point of the Supper and not in other matters wherein shée accompts her selfe sufficiently taught and hath no neede of more ample instruction and therefore the saide Ministers require as afore that the first pointe which they should conferre vpon might be the supper and the masse the rather for that they vnderstoode by people woorthy of faith and credite that the Doctoures meant nothing lesse than to enter disputation vpon that grounde Héereupon the Doctoures say they are ashamed to heare so often Protestacions and that the Ministers séeme to féede with suche fashions of purpose to eschue conference in the Articles of their Confession which notwithstanding they haue oftentimes offered to be examined And where they alleage that the Ladie of Buillon for whose instruction the companie is assembled hathe openly required to be instructed vppon the Article of the Masse and not otherwayes They Aunswere that shée put out a motion to procure conference of the Masse but they neuer heard that shée helde hir selfe sufficiently instructed touching the other Articles If the Duchesse will confesse that shee beléeues all the other Articles proponed by the Ministers and their likes against the doctrine of the Catholike church to be erronious they are ready from the present to enter into conference of the Masse But of the contrary if shee be imbrued with the erroures impugning the doctrine of the Catholike church in respect to vse order appertaining to instructoures and to lay the foundations of the Masse the Doctours are determined according to the good and holy desire of the Lorde of Montpensier to Catechise and teache the Lady his Daughter euery Article and by order They say further that the Ministers are infected with the custome of those of their Church which is that to eschue alwayes conference with the Catholikes afore the decision of the poynt proponed they thrust an other into disputation according to the example of Beza and other ministers that were with him at Poyssi who séeing the matter of the Supper was argued against them in the Priours chamber at Poissi in the presence of the Quéene Princes of the bloud and other Lordes of the Councell made Request many times to let fall that point indecided and enter vppon others more euident and manifest againste the Catholikes as of Images and other like And of the contrary the Ministers this day to auoide the great erroures in their interpretation of the Créede will foiste in the pointe of the Supper onely the Doctoures beséeche as before that confusion auoided Religion may be examined by order And leaste it be thought that the Doctoures refuse to enter conference of the Masse and Supper according to their constante meaning as in déede vnder generall correction they neuer denied to dispute of them the better to instructe the Duchesse and with more spéede they are readie to dispute with open voice and euident Declaration by the expresse woorde of God that Iesus Christe hath instituted and saide the Masse and his Apostles also They offer also that what so euer shall be deliuered by voice and spéeche touching this matter to be sette downe in wryting the next dayes after and put in order as the instruction of the Duchesse requires it Referring themselues for the day to the oportunitie of the Ladie Héere the Ministers made Aunswere that all these offers were superfluous and vnprofitable because suche conferences are but debates and alterations offending and slaundering more than they edifie Resolution of the Doctoures THe Doctors according to the order already begon and their charge which is to conferre with the Ministers and then yéelde Resolution for the instruction of the Duchesse of Buillon Touching the two pointes proponed yesterday whether the Apostles be Authoures of the Créede and why we ought to giue Faithe thereunto say it ought not to be estéemed a thing indifferent to knowe if the Apostles made and erected the Créede no more than to know if the Apostles be the Authors of their wrytings For as their Authoritie is farre greater in the assuraunce that they procéede certainely from the Apostles euen so of the contrary it should be lesse by many degrées ▪ if we either doubted of it or vsed it as indifferent They say further it is no sufficient reason to cal this Créede Apostolicall and to Christen it by the name of the Apostles in respecte of the conformitie it hath with their writings seeing that by the same reason other Simbols as that of Niceus Athanasius suche other like writings may beare also the name of the apostles Creede as containing a doctrine agréeing with the writings of the Apostles and therfore the Doctors say we must beleeue that the Apostles haue made deliuered to Christians this Créede and applie faith to it as being a wryting composed by the Apostles for proofe whereof they haue the aucthoritie of all times since the Apostles till now that this Creede hath bene proponed in Baptisme and Catechisme as appeareth by the Authors which haue bene from the Apostles til our time neither can we name or note any Author or Councell which hathe made this Créede that afore the same Author or Councel euen vntill we come immediatly to the Apostles this Simboll hath not bene proponed in Baptisme and Catechisme and called amongste Christians the rule of Faithe which our such argument S Augustine in many places against the Donatistes estéemes inuincible to proue that something there is of the Apostles Omitting willingly for wearinesse sake other Auncientes who acknowledged this Créede to be made and receyued namely of the saide Apostles as S. Ambrose S. Ierome and others Touching the second pointe the Doctoures say that the bonde and necessitie to beléeue this Simboll dependes not of the knowledge of the Apostolicall or Propheticall wrytings nor of the knowledge of their conformitie with them for it was
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
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
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
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
pretend any right to exalt the power glorye of God by such a confusion and hotchpotche of all matters together Moreouer we let the Ministers vnderstande that wyth better reason we could returne vppon them the conclusion they pretende to inferre of the subtiltye and art of Sathan the same being as they write that vnder a godlye pretence of pietie Sathan in the maner of a Serpent slides into the Church of God to the ende to plant their disorder and at last to set vpon euen God himselfe Let euerye one sée and consider in himselfe if this be not the true enterprise of the Ministers both by their deductions and generallye the principall poyntes of their doctrine For vnder a farie pretence to roote vp certayne abuses and errours whiche falsely they séeke to persuade the world to be in the catholike Church against Gods word and vnder colour of preaching that they searche to exalt the name of the Lord they go about to dispoyle God of hys properties and perfections notwithstanding they declare it not no more than Sathan opened his intent to the first man. The Ministers besides deface the merite and efficacye of the blood of Iesus Christ and by their doctrine open the gate to all vices and synne For proofe wherof albeit we should spare to repeate what they haue holden of the power of God yet their writinges stand as their accusers onelye in good resolution although they vtter faire spéeche God can doe no more as they holde than it pleaseth them to receiue of hys wysedome and wyll which they disguise after their sense when it is founde declared in the scripture Agaynst the bountye of God they hold that he is author and worker of euyll and synne Against his mercy they teache that he neyther doth nor wyll pardon a man that hath impugned by malice the knowledge of the truth or resisted it Against the merite of the blood of Iesus Christ and passion of the crosse they haue written in proper tearmes that if Iesus Christ had dyed onelye by the anguishes of corporall death and the effusion of all his bloud he had done nor profited nothing for our redemption If being vpon the crosse and afore hys death he had not endured the payne of the damned in his soule with other horrible blasphemies contayned in the article of his discention in to hell They instruct also their adherentes that manslaughter adultery robbery theft sacriledge and all other crime what soeuer are but veniall synnes to the predestinate whom they say are neuer out of Gods grace whatsoeuer they do Assuring their faythfull and such as stand in their Church to beleue constantly that they be in grace and predestinate which in playne spéeche though they would otherwyse excuse it is to giue full licence to do all euyll With sundry other articles whiche we intende to verifie as the matter requires But if they denye these poyntes to bée wrytten and published in their secte the places in Calums bookes which we haue noted in the Margent are to giue witnesse In effect that is the glorye of God and hys Sonne Iesus Christ whereunto the Ministers incline and tende by the extirping of the pretended impieties mencioned in manye articles of their last resolution To aunswer the which in short spéeche we saye that some are spitefullye and falselye layed vppon the catholyke Churche by the Ministers others be expresselye written in holye Scripture and others drawne out of the same and confirmed by the tradition of the Apostles and vniuersall consent of the first Christian churche except the slaunderous impositions which in euery article the Ministers doo adde And so in tyme and place we wyll declare and proue by péecemeale if the pacience of the Ministers wyll consent to handle euerye difficultie in hys place But if they continue to cauell withall to put confusion in the doctrine we protest to aunswer them with scoffes For the rest they bable much of Gods power in general alledging that we ought to take certaine knowledge of it by the Scriptures whiche wée haue alwayes aduowed vnto them They say also that it is infinite and incomprehensible but when we offer particularities to knowe wherein omnipotencie consistes then they forget the holye scriptures and without them measure it according to the wisdome and eternall wyll of God and the order established in the world yea and as if they were without all remembraunce that that almightynesse were infinite they wrest it to a condition propertie and naturall order of creatures as if to do anye thing against or aboue the order condition and naturall propertye of the sayd creatures were a thing repugnaunt to the wysedome nature and wyll of god This is the short resolution which we may gather of their opinion touching the omnipotencie of God the same appearing in their papers and answers giuen to vs wherin touching S. Augustine produced by them we haue sufficiently aunswered before Where the Ministers lay vpon vs to hold as a sufficient argument that a case being done of God declares that hée could do it we referre our selues to our writinges whereof our resolution and obiections containe all the contrarye We are also slaundered by the Ministers to affirme that faith contrarieth nature euery way onely we sayd that ordinarily the contradiction done to fayth founded vppon the worde procéedes of the consideration of thinges naturall against the power of God. Touching Abraham the scripture of Genesis wytnesseth alwayes that hée and hys wyse made a certaine difficultye touching the promise of God and considered corpus suum emortuum et mortuam vuluam Sarâ—ae vntyll he hearde the assurance of the omnipotencie as also S. Paule speakes ynough of Abraham since his first vocation till after that assurance without putting distinction in the historye of that which was afore or after suche assuraunce according to the saying of the Apostle that he did not consider corpus suum emortuum resting vpon the assurance of the power and promise which had bene made to him We say we haue better concluded touching the fayth we ought to haue of the power of God to make one body in diuers places than the Ministers who haue no woord of God to assure their faith and beliefe that God cannot do it or that it impugnes his wisedome prouidence and eternall vertue or the humanitie of Iesus Christ yea onely the nature of a simple body But touching all this the Ministers truste in their presumption and particular reuelation without one onely place of the scripture whereupon they maye settle or rest their opinion Where of the contrary we haue grounded our faith not onely touching the power of God to bring to passe that a body be in diuers places but also to beleue the fact and that God would it so vpon the holye Scripture as appeares in our resolution together with the places of the auncientes alledged for that purpose the same being so manifest that as the Ministers are not able to gainsay them so
for all that one flesh and one body by meane of the societie and matrimoniall acquaintaunce betwene them In like sort be it that Iesus Christ with whom we are knyt and vnited by faith and trust we haue in him and in his promises be as in respect of his body resident in heauen and we remaine here on earth so that there is a great distance betwene him and vs touching his bodye yet that doth not hinder vs to be flesh of his flesh and bones of his bones and that he is not our head and we his mēbers he our husband and we his spouse that we are not of one self body tyed with him that we are not cloathed of him and that we dwell not in him as the braunches in the vine Neither is there distance of time or place what soeuer it be nor difference of seasons which may hinder that coniunction that the faithfull eate truly his flesh and blood For as the auncient Fathers notwithstandyng they were two or three thousande yeares afore Christ dyed yet forbare not to communicate in his flesh crucified and eate the same meate spirituallye which we eate and drinke the same drink spiritually which we drinke so the faythfull also whiche are comen twelue or fiftene hundreth yeares after forbeare not in what place soeuer they be to participate as the Fathers with the same meate and drinke which they did Neither is there anye other difference betwene the eating of the Fathers that were before the comming of Iesus Christ and suche as haue followed hym but the reason of the more or of the lesse whiche is that in the one there is more ample and expresse declaration of Gods good wyll towardes vs than in the other By which we ought to conclude that from the beginning of the world vntyl the ende there was neuer nor euer shall be other coniunction betwene our Lord Iesus Christ and his Churche than spirituall that is purchased by the spirite of god For euen as there is but one fayth in the Fathers and in vs which considereth alwayes on the one and other syde our Lorde Iesus Christe euen so are not wée conioyned with him in other sorte than they were So that as the Fathers had no other societie or communication then spirituall euen so it followeth also that we neither are nor can be otherwise vnited with him than spiritually And yet do we not say that we and the Fathers are not fleshe of hys flesh and bones of his bones that altogether we participate not as wel with his humanitie as with his diuinitie But all our saying and opinion stretcheth to this that this participation which we haue there is by the operation and vertue of the holy spirite Which Iesus Christ in S. Iohn speaking of this coniunction teacheth clearelye in these fewe wordes the thinges whereof I speake to you are the spirite and life as also S. Paule our Fathers sayth he haue eaten the same spirituall meate and dronke the same spirituall drinke Wherein when we speake of thys spirituall eating both in vs and in our Fathers it must not be thought therefore that we would reiect the holye Supper of the Lord or once thinke that in the same the vse of breade and wyne is superfluous no more then the vse of the water in the Baptisme For our Lorde knowing the hardnesse of our vnderstanding together wyth the infirmitie and weakenesse of oure hearts and by a pitie compassion he hath of vs seekyng to remedye the same was not onely content to leaue vnto vs the ministerie of hys word to assure vs of the participation which we haue in hys flesh and bloud and all the benefites lykewyse depending thereupon But he hath also added thereunto the signes of breade and wyne which he hath annexed to his word as seales to seale in our heartes by the vse of the same the fayth which wée haue of the sayd coniunction by his woord Like as it dyd not suffise him to haue contracted the alliance with Abraham by the word and promise he made him but he added further the signe of Circumcision as a seale to confirme and assure more amply the sayd alliance To the ende then that euery one vnderstande what is the supper of the Lord and also what we beleue and teach of it ther must be considered and acknowledged in the same three thinges First the ordinaunce of the Lord contayned in hys woorde and declared by his Minister according to his commaundement By the which word this holy ceremony was ordained and established in the Churche to edifie and entertayne the members of the same which must be diligentlye obserued as to haue it in such honour and reuerence as appertaineth and not to put it on the beadroll or sorte of other ceremonies who haue no other ground or reason of authoritie than the onely wil and traditions of men yet there must be héede taken that by the institution and ordinance whereof we speake ther is vnderstanded a certaine pronunciation of words or any vertue which is hid in them as do the prests of the Romish church who by ignorance and their superstitious opinion thinke to haue consecrated and transubstanciated the bread and wyne which is in their Masse by the vertue of fiue wordes Hoc est enim corpus meum breathed and pronounced vpon the elementes Wherein they are no lesse deceiued than abused bicause the woord which is the formall cause of the sacrament is not a word sayd and spoken simply but a declaration of the institution and ordinance of God don by the Minister according to his cōmaundement and a predication of the death of Iesus Christ wyth the fruite of the same by the which the heartes of the hearers are raysed into contemplation and meditation of his benefites and theyr faith kyndled and enflamed in his loue And where this is not done as is sayd we must not thynke that the elementes are sacramentes as S. Augustine teacheth vppon S. Iohn 80. Treatise in these termes from whence comes this vertue to the water that in touching the bodie it washeth the heart but that it is done by the woord not bicause it is pronounced but by reason it is beléeued this woorde is the woorde of faith which we preache sayeth the Apostle which is if we confesse with our mouthe that Christe is the Lord and beleeue in our heart that God hath raised him from the deade we shal be saued wherin continuing his matter he addes in the end these woordes this woorde of faithe which we preache is the same without doubt by which baptisme is consecrated to the end it may clense and washe The ministers inferre héere before two things the one that the woorde of Consecration is not as is saide a simple pronunciation but a publike and manifest declaration of the institution and ordinance with all the misterie of the deathe of Iesus Christe The other that the signes and Elementes consecrated are not chaunged in
respecte of their nature and substance but onely touching the vse and signification and that only during the Action in which they serue For to consecrate the signes as the water in Baptisme and the breade and wine in the supper is no other thing than to assigne and make them serue to a holy and sacred vse by the publike declaration of the ordinance of God made to that ende and not to chaunge them touching their nature and substance the which vanishing and being made nothing there shoulde be no more signe nor by consequence any sacrament So that euen as the water in the Baptisme after the Consecration remaines water without that his nature or substance be in any thing chaunged or altered so the bread and wine in the supper touching their substance remaine after the consecration suche as they were afore for there should be no Analogie nor correspondencie betwéene the signe and the thing signified For what comparison conformitie is there betwene the accidents of the bread and the truthe of the body of Iesus Christe séeing that the accidents of the breade as the whitenesse and roundnesse destitute of their substance as the Sophisters doe falsly imagine coulde not nourishe or sustaine the bodie and by that meane should not be proper to signifie that the fleshe and bloude of Iesus Christe nourishe and sustaine oure soules So that we must hold this for resolute that the bread and wine remaine in their substance the same being clearely verified by Iesus Christe who speaking of that which he gaue to his Disciples to drinke in the Supper calles it specially the fruite of the Vine Which can not be referred to the accidentes but is necessarily to be vnderstanded of the wine in his proper substance As also by that which S. Paule saythe calling the Elementes of the Supper Breade and Wine thrée seuerall times yea after they were Consecrated Like as also he wrytes elsewher we that are many are one bread and one body bicause we participate all of one lofe wherein he teacheth vs there by his comparison of the lofe that euen as it is made of many graines so wrought and mingled togsther that they can not be distinguished or seperated one from an other euē so also ought the faithful in the Church to be so knit and vnited togither in one selfe body as they may séeme to be membres one of another This comparison wold be altogither foolishe out of purpose if the bread which we eate in the supper were not true bread Gelasius Bishop of Rome wryting against Eutichus saithe that the sacramente which we take is a thing Diuine and yet forbeares not to be a substance and nature of breade and wine Theodoret also in his first Dialogue vseth these propre termes the Lorde hath honored with the name of his bodie and of his bloud the visible signes which represente them without chaunging their nature but adding only grace to the nature The same Author in his second Dialogue speaking also of the breade and wine distributed in the supper saythe that after the sanctification these misticall signes forsake not their nature for they remaine in their proper substance kinde and figure by meane whereof they are seene and handled after the Consecration neither more or lesse then afore S. Iohn Chrysostome wryting to the Monke Cesarius saythe in the Supper we call breade that which is there present afore it be sanctified And after the sanctification by Gods grace and meane of the minister it hath no more the name of breade but of the body of our Lord yet the nature of bread remaines there By the places aforesaide as well of the holy scripture as Auncient Doctors and others which mighte be yet alleaged for this matter it appeares that the breade and wine in the supper remaine alwayes as hath bene said in their proper nature and substance after the Consecration as well as before wherein it néede not to be doubted that the Faith of the auncient Churche hath not alwayes bene so and that Transubstantitiaon was neither established nor holdē for an Article of Faithe in the Romishe Church vntil the time of Innocent the thirde To withstande and reiecte all that hathe bene sayde touching the nature and substance of the signes which remaine after the Consecration suche as be aduersaries to this Doctrine alleage ordinarily the woordes of Iesus Christe speaking of the breade in the institution of his supper take eate this is my bodie And staying vpon the proper and natural signification of the termes they defend obstinately that the substance of bread is vanished in the Consecration and that there remaines no other substance except that of the bodie of Iesus Christe The reason of this is that they obserue not the Figures and manner of spéeches which are ordinarily vsed in the holy Scripture when and as often as there is Question of the matter of the sacramentes For then the name of the things signified is ordinarily attributed to the signes which represent and signifie them as the name of the alliance is attributed to the Circumcision bicause it was assigned to signifie and ratifie it The Lambe by like reason is called the passage and Baptisme washing of regeneration and that not bicause they be things like to the signes and mysteries signified by them But for the conformitie that is betweene them The signes as S. Augustine him selfe dooth say take oftentymes the name of the things which they represent So that the error procéedes in that they take and vnderstand the manners of spéeches figured as if they were propre and naturall That this spéeche take and eate this my body is figuratiue it appeares by that which our Lord Iesus Christe addes after of the cuppe saying this cuppe is the newe Testament in my bloud which is shed for you Héere he calles the cuppe Testament and new aliance in his bloude wherin we must necessarily confesse that there is figure and that with oute it the saide place could not be wel vnderstand nor aptly interpreted For it is a thing manifest that an aliance which is a contrary couenant betwéene parties made and cōceiued vnder a certaine promisse and woorde is not the wine and yet it is so called by figure bicause the wine which is distributed in the supper is as the seale by the which the saide aliance is sealed and the faithe of the same confirmed By suche or like manner must we also vnderstand and expoūd this sentence this is my body the same being as much to say as this is the newe Testament in my bodie which is deliuered for you For as by the effusion of his blud the new Testament was ratified so was it also by the death of his body we néede not searche better interpretation of the words of Iesus Christe than Iesus Christe himselfe For it is certaine that that which he saide of the cuppe is as a glose and cleare and familiare exposition of that which he sayd of
one Body to be in diuerse places the Ministers vsed no other reason to withstande it than that al this was contrary to the Order established in the worlde touching the nature of the Bodye which as it cannot be vnderstande but of the common order wée sée in nature so the Doctoures haue therefore broughte in againste them that God cannot doo a myracle contrary to the order established in the worlde taking it as the Ministers haue declared in their former answeres against the order of nature as knowing for our partes that the Ancients obserued not this difference aboue nature or contrary to nature which appeareth by Tertullian heretofore alleaged where is saide that God can bring to passe contrary to nature that a man flée aswell as a byrde But wee wil not stay vppon rigour of woordes but apply to the Ministers with whom wée conferre who cal a woorke against the order established in the world a body to be in diuers places bicause it impugnes the common disposition and property of bodyes by which reason the Doctours holde that al other myracles ought also to be accompted contrary to the order established in the worlde bicause they are against the common disposition and property of nature And folowing stil the vnderstanding which the Ministers now giue of the order established in the world for the estate and disposition which God hath appointed conserues enterteines al things by his eternal prouidence and immoueable wil to guide al things directly and prouide that no confusion happen in his woorkes Here the Ministers committe eftsoones a new blasphemy against Gods Omnipotency for he may wholy chaunge alter destroy such order as he hath established in the world albeit he wil neuer doo it and raise a new world more perfecte than this And if it were so that he could doo nothing contrary to this order his power were terminable and limited for he coulde not doo but certaine effectes according to the order which he had established in the worlde which should happen not by the repugnancy of the Creatures but bicause God shoulde binde euen his owne handes And so contrary to the Scripture his hande should be shortened and his power restrained and lymited from which blasphemy flowe infinite others as shal be well declared by vs vpon occasion and due oportunitie Touching the seconde and thirde Blasphemies noted by the Doctours the Ministers say they haue satisfied in one woorde by a newe interpretation of the order of the world whiche fals oute nothing to pourpose to dissolue the Arguments produced by the Doctours And the Ministers passe ouer the places of Scripture alleaged which open the Blasphemy and dissemble the contradiction of the Doctrine with Caluines opnion touching Gods prouidence in the order established in the world like as also they spare to answere our obiection that from the third Blasphemy many others doo flowe fearing least in confessing them they heape not blasphemy vpon blasphemy by that meane make their Doctrine hateful to al the world To aunswere the fourth Blasphemy the Ministers vse a distinction of the Will of God whiche may be considered in twoo sortes the first is called Wil knowne by signes and the other a will of his good pleasure According to the firste they confesse that God can doo more than he wil and not according to the seconde which is as they say equall with the power of God and hid and vnknowne to men which distinction if it ought to haue place we say that the fundation vpon which they fixe the truth pretended of this proposition God cannot bring to passe that one body be in diuerse places is wholy reuersed For they will haue Goddes power measured according to his wil not according to the seconde which is hid from men so that it must néedes be according to the firste by which they confesse that God can doo more than he wil. By whiche it foloweth that their Rule which they haue giuen to measure the power of God is false for it cannot be measured by his wil séeing he can doo more than he will. The Doctours saye further that the Ministers ought not require them to proue that God would that one body were in twoo places to shewe that he could doo it for the Doctours would obiecte to them that to teache that God can doo any thing we muste not proue that afore he woulde doo it séeing that according to their confession God can doo more than he wil. Wée say further that séeing the wil of God appeares not to vs but by signes woords effectes and that the order established of God in the worlde according to his prouidence which the Ministers agrée withall is hid to men that the Ministers cannot affirme and shewe that God hath established such an order in the world that one body cannot be in diuers places for it behoued them to teache and instructe of such ordinaunce of God and declaration of his will. Many times they haue bene required to preferre onely one place of Scripture where such wil of God is manifest or where it is saide that he cannot bring to passe that one body be in diuerse places Touching the place of Tertullian wee leaue to euery directe iudgemente the vnderstanding of the same And as for Theodorete we finde him euil alleaged by the Ministers as woorking more against them than he aides them For wher he writes that we muste not say indeterminately that God can doo al things comprehending therein both good and euil in this he makes no restraint of Goddes Almightinesse but of the contrary he amplyfieth it bicause that not to be able to doo euil things is a vertue power as hath bene heretofore amply recited Where the Ministers require vs to shewe that God would that one Bodye be in diuerse places wée aunswere that they are twoo different questions if God can doo it and if he would doo it And séeing it maye be confessed of all Christians as in déede it ought to be that the power is in God it may be easie to proue the Will by the woorde of the Supper and the Ascension which they of the Religion pretended refourmed haue in custome to depraue and wreste by the impossibilitie which they faine to be in God to put one body in twoo places The Doctors leaue also to the iudgement of the Readers whether the ministers haue alleaged S. Augustine to pourpose or not like as concerning the quantitie whether it is essentiall to be a bodye or not wée neuer called it in doubte that it was not essentiall speaking of a bodye as the Philosophers doo In predicamento quantitati◠〈…〉 is to knowe if it be 〈…〉 certaine place 〈…〉 it is not 〈…〉 â—dy w◠〈…〉 d◠〈…〉 as that which they alleage to confirme that our Lorde is in a place aboue the Heauens is too friuolous séeing that by the same reason they might conclude that the Diuinitie shoulde be circumscripte And there be Aduerbes signifying place when
in the scripture it is spoken of the Diuinitie aswel as when there is speach of the Humanitie of Iesus Christ Where the Ministers say wée confesse our Canons to be false it is a manifeste slaunder For wée acknowledge no Canons if they deriue not from the Councelles and other Authentike Bookes and not as they are gathered by any particulare man as is the Compilation of Gratian to whom there is no further faith giuen than he deserues that is recited by him For Resolution of the eighth Article wée sende the Ministers to the Phisophers Schole to learne that there is in the Predicament of substaunce a Body whiche is Species of Substance and in the predicament of Quantitie an other body which is Species of quantitie and also to learne that the body which is of quantitie is Accidental and not essentiall to the body of the predicament of substance Besides the Ministers erre againste all Philosophie to call a Substance materiall incorpored But the Doctours wil not stande vpon those things and are sory they haue not to doo with men better principled in Philosophy who would 〈…〉 â—son than the Ministers doo 〈…〉 Consequence of twoo Bo◠〈…〉 be in twoo pla◠〈…〉 â—nd like in◠〈…〉 â—e if the 〈…〉 the 〈…〉 passion they woulde examine the testimonies of the Auncientes and reasons drawne from the same But by this wée proue that when there is any thing that presseth the Ministers it is then they sette a good countenaunce and make shewe to haue good righte Besides the Doctoures maruell muche howe the Ministers dare affirme that Iustine and all the Auncientes haue not put the myracle of the doores in the body of Iesus Christ séeing Iustine makes this expresse question howe it is possible that a body grosse be not let to passe throughe the doores shutte in the answere of which question they conclude it that bicause that myracle was done in the nature of the Bodye of Iesus Christe the Apostles iudged it was not a true Body but a Sprite As if the Body had bene transnatured into a sprite which Iustine saith did not happen but that withoute any chaunge of nature suche operation to passe throughe the doores shutte was giuen to the Bodye of Iesus Christs by the Omnipotencie of God as also Iustine saithe not that anye myracle was done in the Sea when Iesus walked thereuppon but that by the Almightinesse that was in him he made it portable without chaunge of the nature of his Bodye or of the Sea notwithstanding the myracle was in his Bodye whiche contrary to his nature did so walke It is not inoughe to alleage S. Hylarie that the power of God made place to the Bodye of our Lorde for he doothe not onely auouche that but addes the manner of the facte whiche is that the Bodye passed withoute chaunge or diminishing his nature or withoute any opening And yet notwithstanding he passed by the operation of the Omnipotencie whiche wroughte in his Bodye piercing the close and shutte places Nihil inquit cessit ex solido Parictum with other like speache whiche he vseth by which cannot be vnderstand any other thing than a penetration of many Bodyes S. Chrysostome disputes expressely that contrary to his nature he passed through the doores shutte aswell as out of the belly of the Virgyn without breaking neither dothe he saie simply that he is ignorante wherein consisted the facts séeing he discribes it but he amplifieth the vertue of the facte and saith that the reason and greatnesse cannot be comprehended bicause it procéeded of the power of God incomprehensible Touching al which pointes the Doctours referre themselues to the reading of the Bookes without any further debate against the Ministers who thinke alwayes to abuse the ignorance of suche as beleue them to denie or affirme what they thinke good And as we gréeue and are weary to reiterate the reasons herebefore so familiarely and clearely deduced so by the euasions of the Ministers so often repeted we are enforced eftsoones to intrude that which by common consent of the Ancients they oughte to beleue touching the Articles We much maruel of the manner of Answeres of the ministers who without regard to the matter obiected to them say what they thinke good of the pointes proponed and not answere to the Argumentes as in the Article that toucheth the byrth of Iesus Christe in the deduction whereof wée haue brought foorth many testimonies of the Auncients holding that our Lord came myraculously from the belly of his mother as he was also conceiued Wherin as the said Ancientes affirme that that Natiuitie was done withoute any breaking to the body of the Virgyn so they condemned in Heresie al such as helde the contrary whiche the Ministers séeke yet to mainteine and for al their aunswere affirme it staying as they say vppon the Scripture and dare not openly say that they reiect the iudgementes of the Aunciente and Primitiue Churche to repose vpon theire owne sense which notwithstanding appeares clearely inough in theire Answere vpon this Article wherein they falsely apply the Scripture as thoughe it conteined that in the Byrth of our Lorde A perta fuerit vulua Virginis And where thei say that that disclesing impugnes not her Corporal Virginitie by which the question is mente they bely the Resolution of the Auncientes who haue determined vppon this matter In the Article of the resurrection whether there be other matters than coniectures the reading of the Obiection of the Doctors shall witnesse the same being to be séene of suche as desire to know the truthe And where vppon the ende of the Article of the Resurrection the ministers complaine that we lay wrongs and scoffes vppon them we doubte not but they take in displeasure that their suttleties and maners of doing are discouered which if they were well knowne the world woulde not be so simplie beguiled as héeretofore they haue bene The Resolution pretended by the ministers as being not written aphantos autois but apauton is not pertinent For be it in what sort so euer our Lord was inuisible to his Disciples whether it was by sodaine vanishing away or otherwayes the which vanishing in a body present at the eie not troubled can not be done but that the body is made inuisible to them And how so euer it be the Gréeke text beares inuisible and vnseene Touching the Article for the opening of the heauens the ministers according to their custome aunswer not directly For it is not saide that the Heauens were deuided or open when he mounted thither as in the baptisme of Iesus Christ and the vision of S. Stephen but the scripture saith expressely that Christe pierced the heauens and not that the heauens disclosed to him Neither can the ministers forbeare to reproche vs in deprauing the vnderstanding of our writings the same being witnessed in this present Aunswere wherin they faine to vnderstand that in that text of the scripture importing that Christ pierced the heauens we would signifie