Creede vppon the knowledge and conformitie of scriptures but vppon the doctrine receiued and approued of the people of God as the Auncient churche yea afore the wrytings of the newe Testament were written had a custome to propone to great and small the beléefe of the Créede afore they would commende to them the holy scriptures as appeareth by christian Antiquities And therfore the beleefe of a Christian dependes not of the woorde written by the Créede but of the woorde reuealed to the people and church of God. Aunswere Touching the firste Article it is moste necessary in teaching the Apostles Creede to a childe or other ignorante persone that therewith also he be instructed in the Doctrine of the Prophetes and Apostles seeing the Créede containes none other matter than this selfe same Doctrine and that they are things not onely conioyned but also like if not in termes at least in sense and substance For the second Article they denie that that which is alleaged before is any way contrary to the order established in the churche of Geneua or other church well directed wherin touching the reason taken of the fourme of Baptisme vsed in the saide churches it foloweth not by the woordes and speeches which haue bene alleaged that Caluine woulde shut oute the Créede and seperate it from the writings and Doctrine of the Prophets and Apostles a thing impossible but sheweth euidently that he ment to comprehende it therein when he added this woorde and generally which the Doctoures haue put in their Allegation to comprehende what mighte be ouer and aboue the holy Scriptures after the deduction which he made of the points of the Doctrine comprehended particularely in the saide Créede Touching the other reason that afore there were any Booke of the newe Testament written the Creede was proponed to such as were Catechised it is agréed vnto But it folowes not for al that that it is not founded vppon the woorde and Doctrine which the Apostles preached albeit at that time it was not set downe in wryting and likewise vppon the wrytings of the Prophetes vppon which the Doctrine of the Apostles is grounded For Conclusion the Ministers putte no difference betwéene Goddes woorde preached and written touching the sense Obiection It séemes the Ministers haue not well vnderstande the meaning of the Doctoures For there is no Question to knowe whether the Créede carie conformitie of hymselfe with the Apostolike writings but whether firste we muste vnderstande and beléeue that the Apostles and Prophetes haue set downe by wryting a Doctrine wherewith the sayd Créede dothe conforme and that other wayes a man can not beléeue the saide Créede But to vnfolde it more easily the Question is if it be not possible that a childe being come to the age of discretion or any other may by instructions of the Parentes or others beléeue the Articles contained in the Créede and be not firste instructed by them that there be certaine Apostolike writings whereunto the Articles of the Créede may be conformed And if it be necessary to moue him to beléeue it to knowe this conformitie And to these let the Ministers Aunswer absolutely Aunsvvere Faithe is by hearing and hearing by the woorde of God according to the consent of Iesus Christe who putting the hearing of the woorde afore the Faithe of the same saythe Who heares my woord and beléeues him that hath sent me c. Like as also he commaunded the Apostles to preache first the Gospell to the ende the hearers by the preaching might be disposed and led to Faithe By these reasones to knowe whether the Doctrine that is taughte be the woorde of God it is necessary to beléeue without the which also it is impossible that a man may either haue Faithe or beléeue in God onlesse he be assured that that which is taught him is Gods woorde And for the Question touching the instruction of children at the age of discretion or others whether it be necessary they knowe the woorde afore they beléeue the Aunswere is that it is néedefull And Thomas sayeth that the Faithe of the Articles of the Créede ought to be explicated that is declared which can not be done without knowledge of the woorde Obiection This Aunswere containes frothe of speache withoute any touche of the pointe proponed For there is no doubte that children and others muste not be Catechised and the Articles of the Faithe vnfolded to them by the woorde of God But the Question is to knowe if it be necessary they vnderstande that thys Woorde be wrytten in the Bookes of the Prophetes and Apostles so as wythoute the knowledge of the sayde wrytings they can not knowe nor beléeue the Articles of Faithe contained in the sayde Créede Whereunto the Doctoures pray the Ministers to Aunswere directly either yea or no. And after the aunswere to adde suche reason as they will which if they will not doe the Doctoures are of minde to procéede to an Article after they haue tolde them notwithstanding for conclusion of all that if this knowledge of the scriptures were necessary to the vnderstanding of the Articles of the Créede examining them according to the conformitie of the same Scriptures that it behoueth séeing the foundation is so necessary amōgst the Articles of the Créede to put this I beléeue there be holy scriptures and it is to note that in the said Simbole there is no mention made that there is holy Scripture so that a mā may be a true christian afore he vnderstand there is any christian Doctrine or woorde of God written therefore not necessary for the beléefe and vnderstanding of the Créede to know the woorde of God to be written in which respect the Doctors protest to speake no more of this Article Aunsvvere By collation and view of the Demaundes and Answers it is easie to iudge who offende moste in circumstaunce of woordes either the proponentes or respondentes Touching the second Article the Answere is as before that the knowledge of Gods woord is necessary to beléeue and to be a christian whether it be written or reuealed Touching the declaration that was made the Ministers Answere in their owne respecte not to approue in any sort that any thing be added to the pure woorde of God And they beléeue the Simbol of the Apostles to be no other thing than the pure woord of God which is proposed to vs by his spirite and therefore it should be a contrauention againste his commaundement to adde newe Articles to it mainteining also that if there had bene others necessary to saluation the spirite of God had not bene forgetful For cōclusion albeit there is no expresse mention of holy Scripture made in the Créede yet couertly it is vnderstande therein bicause the churche which can not subsist that it is not founded and builded vpon the grounds of the Prophets and Apostles is proponed there as an Article to beléeue Replie This Answere the Doctors say is impertinent and no more to purpose than
that Christe entred by the doores wée denie not but that he entred not by the doores but onely that two bodyes haue bene euer together in one selfe place that if Iesus Christe entred by the doores the doores at his entrie gaue him place as is saide Where the Doctours alleage touching the suspitiō of the Apostles that it was a Vision it apperteines nothing to the present matter nor also that they maruelled of the manner of his entry whiche was myraculous as hath bene alwayes confessed to them And where they adde after in the opinion that the ancient Heretikes had of the Body of Iesus Christe that it was not true and that he did things aboue nature the Ministers tell them that thei somewhat suppose what occasion and ground of their errour the auncient Fathers had presented to them if they had confessed that which the Doctours doo prefer and defende obstinately of the Bodye of Iesus Christe that he doth things not onely aboue nature but also against nature and against the wil and ordinaunce of god And there is no doubte but such an opinion was a greate proofe to Marcion and other Heretikes that haue denied the true Humanitie of Iesus Christe if by the examples of the Doctours it were confessed that the Body of Iesus Christe against the truth nature and essence of a Body may be at one time in diuerse places or in one place together with an other body To that which they alleage of Iustinus Martyr the Ministers aunswere that the Booke they haue alleaged is falsely attributed to him for it handles a mention of Origen 82. Question and yet Origen was more than an hūdred yeeres after him And touching the opinion of the Graue mentioned in the place they haue produced it is aunswered that the Euangelist doth clearely expresse that there was greate trembling of the earthe when he rose againe and that the Angel rolled away the stone that closed the Graue with the whiche consents Leo the first Bishop of Rome writing to the Bishops of Palestina where he saithe that Iesus rose the stone that couered the Sepulchre being rolled awaye Touching the place of S. Hilarie alleaged by the Doctors there is one woorde whiche maye suffice for their aunswere and expressely spoken by the saide holy Doctour that Iesus Christe to whom all things are open as the Doctours haue expounded the said sentence or according to the exposition of the Ministers who makes way through al by his Diuine vertue entred the doores being shut by which he giues sufficiently to vnderstand that to enter into the house where his disciples were he made himself way opening neither can we conclude otherwaies by that which he hath written but that his entry was myraculous Touching S. Ambrose vpon S Luke alleaged by the Doctors there can be no more inferred than S. Hilary hath said neither can there be other conclusion either of the one or other but that Iesus entred into the House by a Diuine and woonderful vertue Where they alleage of S. Iohn Chrysostome touching the Virgyn the Christ came out of her wombe yet her virginity integrity was no way corrupted or defiled yea shee remained a Virgyn before after her deliuery the Ministers beleue it confesse it teache it yeelding their reason by the scripture bicause shée neuer knewe man. But if thereupon they wil inferre that in the birth of Iesus Christ Nulla intercesserit apertio vteri the Ministers say that such conclusion should be against the expresse text of the scripture also the opinion of S. Luke in suche behalfe Omne masculinū adaperiens vuluam c. besides the authority of many ancient Authours approuing no lesse as Origen vpon S. Luke Tertullian de Carne Christi S. Ierome in his first tome ad Eustochium whose expresse speach is that Christe came out of the wombe of the Virgyn Cruentus by which appeares that the Virgyn was a true Virgyn also a true mother To the authority which they alleage of S Ierome the Ministers for aunswere retourne onely his owne saying that when Iesus came where his Disciples were the Creature obeied his Creatour The allegation whiche the Doctoures drawe out of Cyrill serues nothing to confirme their matter Touching the Heresie whiche S. Augustine iustely comprehendes in Iouinian who to eschue the errour of the Manicheans fell into an other as saying the Virgyn remained not a Virgyn in the deliuery The Ministers aunswere it was not necessary that Iouinian to escape the errour of the Manicheans should cal to doubte the Virginitie of Mary bicause the ground of that standes vpon this that she was neuer knowne of man. Touching the Conclusion whiche the Doctours woulde drawe of the saide Authorities and accommodate them to their pourpose that one bodye maye be in twoo places at one instante or that twoo bodyes maye be together in one place the Ministers saie that is altogether impertinente and that thei cannot any wayes inferre it of the place which they haue alleged nor others which they can gather neither that it can be found in any good Authour By meane wherof they conclude against the Doctours that as their ground is nothing so they goe about falsely to authorize their errour by the name titles of the Ancients as not vnderstanding taking rightly the phrase to penetrate which certaine authors haue vsed which signifieth not a confusion or medling of diuers bodies occupying one self place but only the yéelding the one makes to an other to giue him place as we sée proue in experience that the ayre giues place to a man that walkes to byrdes that fly For cōclusion the Ministes say that that which they propose mainteine for their aunswere doth not derogate or diminish in any thing the greatnesse glory power of God but establisheth aduanceth it much more than such prodigious absurdities as the Doctors prefer séeke to persuade without any reason or meane probable for thei cōfesse that all that happened both in Christes entry into the house where his disciples were the going out of the same as also the womb of his mother the graue was a wonderful Diuine vertue of god But they denye for all that that any thing happened which was impossible conteined any contradiction The matters which they alleage of Caluin Beza are things friuolous and proponed rather to reproch and impugne than to search and cleare the truth And where they saie that all Antiquitie in one accorde hath vnderstande by the terme Aphantos apanton that Iesus Christ made himself inuisible to his disciples remaining in their presence the Ministers to aunswere them alleage one authoritie of S. Ambrose vpon S. Luke who preferring these woordes saithe he withdrewe himselfe from them and an other of Nicholas de Lyra whose opinion vppon this place is that it was done by the agilitie of his glorious body which might sodainely vanishe Touching that which they alleage of the penetration
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 Question For the Doctours demaunde seeing it is essentiall and naturall to a body earthly and heauie in respecte of his waight and heauinesse to tende downeward to know if God by his only vertue against the natural propertie of a body heauie and waighty can not hold and suspend it on highe And touching the euasion which the Ministers make of a most strong and mightie argument againste their Doctrine that two bodies may be in one place according to the proofe taken of the scripture not only to iustifie that God can bring to passe that two bodies may be in one place but also that he hath done it serues for nothing to couer their erroure as to say that in S. Iohn it is not written that our Lord did not enter by the gates shutte but that he was in the midst of them and stoode where the saide Ministers helde their peace and omitted this Verbe venit reasting onely vppon this Verbe stetit For the expresse Texte of S. Iohn Chapter .21 verse .19 saythe that the doores being shut Iesus came into the place where the Disciples were assembled and was there in the middest of them And therefore we nowe aske them séeing the Scripture sayeth he came thither the Doores being shutte and was in the middest of them Whether he was in the middest of them and in the saide place wythoute entring Or if he dyd enter seeing the Texte beares that the Doores were shutte when hee came how will they proue by the Scripture that he entred there but by the shutte doores the same séeming a greater miracle to be in the middest of his Disciples without entring into the place where they were This refuge is too light to saie it is not written that he entred For S. Augustine in his Booke de Agone Christiano Chap. 24. vseth these woords Nec nos moueat quòd clausis ostijs subito euâ—n apparnisse Discipulis scriptum est vt propterea negemus illud fuisse humanuÌ„ quia contra naturam huius Corporis videmus illud per clausa ostia intrare omnia enim possibilia sunt Deo. Nam ambulare super aquas contra naturam huius Corporis esse manifestum est tamen non solum ipse Dominus ante Passionem ambulauit sed etiam Petrum ambulare fecit Wherein appeares that S. Augustine holdes openly that our Lord entred by the shutte doores referring the whole to the almightinesse of God. Besides the Texte of S. Luke ioined with the authoritie of S. Iohn declares that he entred throughe the doores for the Apostles had not had reasonable occasion to thinke it was a Sprite and not a Body seeing him in the semblance of a man before them but that he entred otherwayes than a true Body and a true man can doo meaning that he entred by the shutte doores whiche a true man and true body coulde no waye doo Neither coulde it serue to any pourpose to saie that the doores were open and then shutte by myracle or otherwayes For so mighte a true body a true man enter the same taking away al occasion to thinke that it was a Sprite or Vision Moreouer the Doctours saie that all the Auncient Heretikes and Christians were of this common accorde that Iesus Christe passed through but their difference was suche as at this daye is betwene the Doctours and the Ministers The Aunciente Heretikes helde that Christe after his Resurrection had not a true bodye bicause he did woorkes contrary to the nature of a body the same implying contradictioÌ„ in the naturall body that in one instante he was in one selfe place with an other bodye as when he had passed throughe the doores The Ancient Christian Catholikes aunswered that truely the nature of the Body bare that he coulde not passe throughe the doores issue out of the bodye of the Virgyn in his byrthe without breaking it nor come throughe the stone of the Sepulcher in his Resurrection but yet that it did not imply contradiction that two bodies shoulde be together by the Omnipotencie of God bicause it was so happened in the three cases done and recited The firste that speakes of it is Iustinus Martyr in the 117. Question againste the Gentiles wherein he makes this Demaunde If a bodye grosse or thicke saith he be lette to be able to passe throughe the doores howe did our Lorde enter the doores being shutte after his ResurrectioÌ„ And if it be so why was the stone rolled by the Angel from the mouthe of the graue to the ende his body might rise againe he aunsweres euen as our Lorde withoute chaunging his Bodye into a Sprite walked vppon the sea making in deede by his Diuine power the sea harde to walke vpon it and not onely to beare his body but S. Peters also euen so by his diuine power came he out of his graue the stone lying vppon it and entred to his Disciples the doores being shutte by whiche as we haue to vnderstande that things procéeding of diuerse vertues oughte to haue a like Faithe euen so wée oughte to know that suche things as passe nature when they are done in the same by power diuine ought not be measured according to the reason and propertie of nature in whiche respecte our Lorde séeing his Disciples troubled with his entrie offered them to touch the partes of his body the markes skarres of his woundes to the end they might sée he did not enter by changing his bodye into a sprite but in his proper body composed of his conuenient dimensions thicknesse and that by his Diuine almightinesse which did al things excéeding the force of nature S. Hilarie in his third Booke of the Trinitie euen of thée saith he which wilt search things iuscrutable be iudge of Gods secrets his power I aske couÌ„sel that thou giue me reason and solution only of this deede yea to me that am ignorant beleue simply in God touching al things as he hath saide and pronounced them I meane that as the Lord hath oftentimes presented himselfe after his Resurrection to be séene and knowne of those who beleued it not So the same Lorde applying him selfe to the imbecilitie of our vnderstanding and to satisfie the doubtes of the vnfaithefull shewes a secrete an acte of his Omnipotencie Therefore expounde to me who euer thou arte that wilte be a searcher of the Omnipotencie of God the reason of this facte The Disciples were enclosed together and drawne into a secrete place the Lorde reuealed him selfe to Thomas to confirme his Faithe according to the condition he desired that is to touche his body and proue his woundes For whiche reason and cause it muste needes be that he bare euen that true body wherein he had receiued those woundes I aske then séeing he was Corporall by what parte of the house did he thruste or intrude him selfe within For I see the Euangelistes opnion is plaine that Iesus came the doores being shutte and was amidde his Disciples Did
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 shut doores by the Omnipotencie of God. S. Ierome in the place noted by the Doctors writes manifestly that the body pierced the shut doores euen as the Poetes persuade that the sight of Lynceus pierced the wals without opening to sée through The said S. Ierome at that time did argue vpon the nature of the body which the Bishop of Ierusalem infected with the Heresie of Origen helde was not true in Iesus Christ after his Resurrection bicause he had passed through the shut doores coÌ„trary to the nature of a body to whoÌ„ S. Ierome as also other ancients persuades that that actâ— nothing derogates the nature of the body as procéeding of a supernaturall vertue affirming no lesse in his first Booke against Iouinian in this phrase Iesus entred the doores being shut quod humanoruÌ„ corporum natura non patitur And so with others he puttes the myracle in the body of Iesus Christ It is moste true that S. Augustine in thrée Bookes at the leaste vseth expresse opinion that this bodye passed throughe the shut doores and that as the same was wrought by Gods power aboue the nature of Bodyes so the Heretikes for all that ought not to denie the true Body of Iesus Christe this he speakes in his Booke de Câ—uitate Dei besides his place de Agone Christiano and the Epistle ad Volusianum already alleaged Epiphanius in his first Booke in the Heresie 20. and in the second Booke 64. againste the Origenistes declares that it is but a spirituall bodye meaning that he loseth nothing of his corporall substance but changeth and draweth to him newe qualities and spiritual perfections conuenient to Sprites as to passe throughe the walles without opening giuing example of the bodye of Iesus Christe after his Resurrection who pearced and passed throughe the doores being shutte And so iudgeth with others that the myracle was done in the body of Iesus Christe as pearcing the shutte doores as a Sprite albeit he was a true Body Cyrillus Alexandrinus determines also with others that this myracle happened in the body of our Lorde who by the same woonder marched aboue the waters contrary to the nature of a body by the power of God reprehending al such as stoode in any ielous suspition that Christes body was not Naturall By al these authorities the foure fundations afore proponed are true and therefore it is too greate an impudencie to séeke to corrupt the intente and faithe of so many Aunciente and Learned Christians to introduce a confusion of new interpretations For besides the diuersitie of Caluin and Beza the Ministers auouche twoo others as firste that the Angell opened the doore as if Iesus had not had the power to open it himselfe or had needed other opening The other is that he made his opening where he woulde by which diuersities the Ministers giue open declaration that they knowe not whereupon to reste And whiche woorse is they coulde not alleage one onely Aunciente as Authoure of their fiction or that is contrary to all the other since the Primitiue Church it serues them to nothing to alleage that the iron doore in the Actes of the Apostles opened to S. Peter of himselfe for the Doctors did neuer denie it only we said that the Scripture spake not of the doore of the prisone And if at the entrie of Iesus Christe the doores had bene so opened the Euangelist had as easily graunted it as he said they were shutte and as S. Luke said that this doore of iron opened of himselfe There is no difficultie that the firste that doubted of the body of Iesus Christ in this world did not agrée of the place touching the doores with the other Christians And all be it they thoughte to serue and aide themselues with it in the mainteining of their heristes as with all the other miracles hapned in the body of Christe aboue nature yet the Auncients neuer denied this facte nor the other like to it for feare to giue occasion of erroure to the Heretikes but they declared and distinguished what was the nature of the said body and that which hapned to him by the omnipotencie of God The Christians for any herisie did neuer abandon truthe albeit the Heritikes haue sometimes abused it But now seeing Christes body passed thorowe the doores without opening it is certaine that two bodies haue bene in one place and that they may be so by which we haue well proued our proposition which without either scripture or auncient testimonie the Ministers denie Touching the birth of Iesus Christe without breaking of the Virgine we say that a great part of the Auncientes produced for the place of the doores holde that this miracle also was done in the body of our Lord and not in the body of the Virgine sauing in that shée remained in hir integritie without breaking or opening And for their reason the Auncients haue alleaged the scripture Ecce virgo concipiet pariet and Ezechiel porta haec clausa erit as also S. Ambrose recites in his Epistle .80 wherin is contained a councel which S. Ambrose did assist determining againste Iouinian and other heritikes that virginitie and integritie remained in the mother of God in hir deliuerie S. Augustine repeating the same in the place alleaged by the Doctoures in his first Booke against Iulian Chap. 2. And where the ministers say that the virgin should not haue loste hir virginitie though our Lord had issued out as other men doe in this they are condemned of heresie by the Auncients who note Iouinian to derogate the virginitie as holding opinion with the ministers to whom the Doctors make this question what miracle they would acknowledge in the birthe of our Lord as touching his body and the virginitie of his mother if he came from hir as other men do from their mothers as the Ministers write And touching that which they alleage of Tertullian Origen S. Ambrose S. Ierome the Doctors say that Tertullian and Origen held suche heresie and many others which were reproued afore Iouinian of this they haue bin coÌ„demned with him his consorts But for the respecte of S. Ambrose it is apparant that he beléeued the contrary as wel by the Councel which he assisted as by that which he writes in his Booke de institutione Virginis wherin we haue to interprete his woordes that Christus vuluam aperuerit not that it was by breaking but by effecte of generation and production of his true body out of the bellie of his mother by miracle and vertue supernaturall in suche sorte that euen as his Conception was miraculous so also was his birthe And aperire vuluam is a phrase and manner of spéeche in the Scripture as to say and name the firste borne in what sort he might haue bene borne And touching S. Ierome he saithe nothing of the breaking but only that the body came out bloudie as he was in the wombe of his mother to be bloudy is not required breaking of the mother
For conclusion of this Article we would willingly aske the Ministers if they holde as an Article of Faithe the virginitie of the mother after hir deliuerie and if they can proue it by expresse and inreprocheable woorde of God written bicause Beza calles in doubte these two poyntes at his pleasure and the Religion pretended reformed amongste other Articles of Faith of their diuers confessions imprinted recites sometime the Virginitie of the mother of God after hir deliuerie and sometimes it is omitted And in some Confessions is brought in no more but that Iesus was borne of the virgine Marie and only issued of the séede of Dauid The Doctoures applie for the Resurrection and issuing of Christes bodye thorowe the stone of the Sepulchre the moste parte of the Authorities alleaged by them vppon the doores shut as the absolute reading of the saide Authorities will make Faithe togither with Gregorius Nazianzene in his tragedie of the Passion of our Lord who ioynes as many other Auncients these thrée miracles hapned in the body of our Lord aboue nature the birth without breaking the virgine the resurrection thorowe the stone and his entrie thorowe the doores shutte We say also that Caluine and Beza make conscience to ioyne with the Ministers that oure Lorde rose not againe the Sepulchre being closed and shut yea they had rather fall into the friuolous absurdities and vaine Expositions héere afore alleaged than discende into the opinion of the Ministers bicause there is more Testimonie in the texte of the Gospell that Iesus was risen afore the stone was rolled away by the Aungell as the most parte of the Aunciente Christians doe consent which meane also giues occasion to beléeue more easily the Resurrection of our Sauioure than if the stone had bene taken away before his Resurrection for so it mighte haue bene more easily sayde that the bodie was transported and not raised or risen neither doothe the Texte beare that the Aungell rolled away the stone afore the Resurrection or when Iesus did rise or rather after as is greate likelihoode in Scripture in reason and all Antiquitie Pope Leo is euill alleaged by the Ministers as concealing that is wrytten in his Epistle touching the shutte dores as also producing euill the matter of the Resurrection for it is not sayde that our Lorde did rise after the stone of the monumente was rolled awaye But it is sayde agaynste the fantastike sorte that the substance putte on the Crosse and that which rested in the Sepulchre and likewyse that whiche rose agayne the thirde day the stone of the Monumente being rolled awaye is the true Fleshe of Iesus Christe By whiche speaches the Pope meanes not to saye that oure Lorde did not rise afore the stone was reuersed but only declares that the body of Iesus Christ risen was a true body and not fantasticall whose Resurrection appeared by the opening of the monument And this is the common interpretation of the Auncient authors touching the reuersement of the stone For ende of these Auncient testimonies we maruel that the ministers séeing them so manifest and as conuinced not only that God can bring to passe that two bodies be in one place but also that he hath done it dare reprochefully depraue the vnderstanding of the same and yet they say that the reasons taken of suche and so euidente testimonies are impertinent Like as by like licence common with the Heritikes they feare not without any texte of the scripture nor any place of the Ancients to enterprete two bodies penetrating to be no other thing than one body to giue place to an other of which false and licentious interpretacion euen the common vse of spéeche amongste the Philosophers dothe condemne them Like as also their fine example touching such as walke thorowe the aire which moues them and the birdes when they flie is farre to subtill And where they vaunt in the sayde Article that in denying two bodies to be able to be in one place by the omnipotencie of God or one body in two places they yet aduaunce and magnifie the power of God the same is as true as when in all other their erroures by whiche they oppugne Gods truthe and blaspheeme it yet they bragge alwayes to aduaunce Gods glory seeming héereby that they haue néed to couer their filthinesse and deformitie with some cloke of spéeche the better to blinde the simple and ignorant The ministers haue also good reason not to seeke to excuse the interpretacions of Caluine and Beza as too friuolous and yet they preferre their owne much more vaine before their Maisters by which may be séene the agréement betwéene the Maisters and Disciples vsing all the foundacion of their religion which is to beleeue and preferre afore all others their particulare and priuate interpretacion and inspiration where the Ministers say that the body of oure Lord was not inuisible to the disciples of whome is spoken in S. Luke 24. but only the hauing a swift body was sodainly withdrawne we Obiect that the sodaine departing which S. Ambrose and de Lyra speakes of makes not that the body was inuisible according to the Gréeke woorde aphantos not signifying sodaine departure but incapacitie to be séene and knowne and so the text of the Scripture is apparantly for the Doctoures as also that as often as bothe the auncient and present Diuines giue example that Christ made himselfe inuisible they alleage ordinarily this place The ministers who vaunte to rest onely vppon the pure woord of God for the exposition of the scripture bring forthe their dreames grounded vppon their owne persuasion as hath béene séene touching the doores being shutte vsing the like licence to expounde the texte of S. Paule which mainetaines expressely that our Lorde pierced the Heauens and they say that it is a likely truthe that the Heauens deuided and were open And if they be asked from whence they fetch this interpretacion their Aunswere is from Goddes woorde grounded of their inwarde inspiration by the which they accommodate the saying of S. Mathevve that the Heauens were open when the Piller discended vppon oure Lorde as thoughe all the Heauens were deuided and that the spirite could not descend without the same were opened being not aduised that the scripture in many places takes the Heauen for the aire And where they alleage that S. Stephen sawe the Heauens open when he was stoned it were more conuenient to the ministers to interprete such visions to be done in spirite as there is great likelihoode Otherwayes two miracles must be confessed the one in the Diuision of the Heauens and the other in that the sight of S. Stephen pierced not only into the Heauens but also euen aboue where the ministers confesse the body of Iesus Christe is vpon the righte hand of his Father which S. Stephen saw the same being against the order of God established in the world by which it is necessary that there be a certaine difference betwéene the eie séeing and the
thing which is séene Neither is it lesse harde that suche a thing be done than that two bodyes be penetrate We must not forgette that oftentimes the scripture in the appearings and spirituall visions vseth this language that the Heauens were open and yet in suche cases there was but spirituall vision and likewise but spirituall appearing And as the Ministers séeke to take the rigoure of the woorde opening of the Heauens euen so they must not note it straunge if we wrest in like rigoure the penetration of the Heauens specially in the Article of the Ascention where is Question of the body of Iesus Christe which had already pierced bodyes more impenetrable than the Heauen which pointe of penetration of the Heauen we referre to be more amplie handled an other time as nowe to auoide tediousnesse Touching the eight and twentieth Article where the ministers againste expresse scripture defend obstinately that God of his power can not bring to passe that a Camell or Cable enter the eye of a néedle we can not a little maruell bothe at their blindnesse séeming to sée nothing in the midde day and at their frowarde obstinacie By which as we can not iudge that they vnderstand not wel their fault but sinne euen against their conscience oppugning the truthe by them well knowne so it séemes God suffereth this to happen to them in this text and place of the scripture so manifest to the ende that by this Article the world may vnderstande howe farre more hardie they are to giue false vnderstandings of scriptures more obscure than this yea in the matter of the Auncient Christians which are against them But to the ende the world vnderstand their great wrong to denie that our Lorde can bring to passe that a Camel or cable passe thorowe the hole of a néedle we obiecte that it were impossible to God to saue a riche man vsing this Argument taken of the texts of the Gospell it is more impossible or harde that God saue a riche man than to bring to passe that a Camel or cable passe thorow the hole of an Néedle God can not bring to passe of his omnipotencie as the Ministers say that a Camell enter the hole of a néedle then he can not of his almightinesse make that a riche man be saued and enter into the kingdome of Heauen The Maior is of the Scripture the Minor is confessed by the Ministers and the consequence is necessary and according to all Philosophie he that can not doe the moste easiest can not doe the moste hardest The Auncientes also haue expounded withoute gaine saying the present Scripture as Origen in his Homilie vppon this place saying it is possible that a Camell enter the eie of a néedle not for all that that it be possible as in respecte of men but to God like as the manner by which suche things may be done is knowne to God and his Sonne Iesus Christe and to him to whome it is reuealed S. Augustine likewise in his Booke de spiritu littera Cap. 1. and 5. writes in this sorte to Marcellinus it séemes to thée an absurde thing when I tell thée that a man may be withoute sinne albeit there is none suche founde except Iesus Christe thoughte it to seeme absurde to thée that a thyng may be done whereof no Example can be shewed séeing as I beléeue thou doubtest not at all that it was neuer done that a Camell entred the eye of a néedle and yet it is said that suche a thing is possible to God. By their Aunswere to the nine and twentie Article it may easily be knowne that they beguile and abuse their Disiples making them beléeue by faire woordes and writings that Really in the Supper they receiue the bodie of Iesus Christe euen he that issued out of the wombe of the virgine and was putte vppon the Crosse for the restauration of mankinde And they séeke to make to vnderstande that these which put not to the Sacrament which they call of the Supper wyth the Breade and Wine but some Spirituall effecte onely as redemption iustice sanctification eternall life and other giftes and benefites which Iesus Christe brings to hys chosen diminish the excellencie dignitie of the same Sacrament and that they be Zuinglians yea and that ouer and aboue suche spirituall effectes it muste be beléeued that the body of Iesus Christe is truely receiued in the Supper and yet they feede an other opinion in their braine For when they are pressed to Argue not being able to sustaine that fantasticall presence confessed in their writings they make themselues Zuinglians and returne to the spirituall presence of Iesus Christe in the Supper the same being as muche to say that bisides the Breade and Wine they receiue some spirituall effecte and not Really the body as the Ministers holde in the presente Aunswere which as they make manifest by that they recite of the Apostle S. Paule so by the same may be gathered what is their opinion touching the supper which is that the body of our Lord Iesus Christ is not Really but onely by spirituall effecte in the heartes of the Faithfull For the Galathians by the hearing of the preaching of S. Paule did not receiue Really the body of Iesus Christe crucified but onely had an imagination of the Crosse and Passion of Iesus Christe and receiued onely the frute of their Faithe That is by that meanes they were iustified and sanctified before God. The Allegation also which the Ministers make of S. Cyprian tendes to this ende to shewe that in the Supper is receiued onely certaine effectes spirituall which notwithstanding Allegorically are signified by these woordes to embrace the Crosse of Iesus Christe to sucke his bloude c. wherein they denie albeit againste the intente of S. Cyprian in his Sermon of the Supper the Reall presence of the body of Iesus Christe The Doctoures confesse that the Argumente which they haue made tendes to the Caluinistes and not to the Zuinglians neither did they thinke that the ministers woulde otherwayes iudge of this Sacrament than Caluine Beza and the other ministers who vaunte them selues to be ministers of the churche of the Caluinistes which they call reformed But those which exhibited to the Bishops being at Poissi the Cōfession touching this Sacrament vsed an other maner of spéech They without difficultie confessed Really the Bodye of Iesus Christ to be present in the Supper which at this daie the Ministers denie with the Doctoures conferentes And as farre as the Doctoures can iudge the Ministers be come of Caluinistes Allemanistes which suche wil not wel disgest as mainteine the Doctrine of the Churche whiche they call Reformed séeing their principal supposts faile them at néed as vnable to aunswere one Argumente obiected by the Doctours as affirming in their aunswere to be so farre illumined with the Holy Sprite which makes them vnderstande and knowe al things Touching the Article folowing they reueale openly their present opinion touching
the presence of Christes Body in the Sacramente bicause they saie that the faitheful receiue no more in the time of the Gospel than the Ancientes before the Lawe and vnder the Lawe And it is certaine the Ancients receiued not Really the body of Iesus Christ which was not then formed so that we muste conclude that vnder the Gospell is not receiued Really the Body of Iesus Christe in the Sacrament which the Ministers cal the Sacrament of the Supper To the 31. Article they aunswere not as in déede they coulde neuer answere And necessarily they must confesse that in vertue of theire Faithe they doo that whiche implies contradiction for they mainteine a thing in one instant one place to be present and not present neither doth their spirituall or rather fantasticall presence any thing seeing according to their Doctrine the body cannot be present but with his dimensions Locally Diffinitiuely and Corporally otherwayes it were to take cleane away or corrupte the body And the manner to be there spiritually cannot make that the body be not there otherwayes they saye falsely that it is present in the Supper and abuse the worlde wherefore it is necessary that if the body be there yea spiritually if their Doctrine be true of the nature of a body that the body of Iesus Christe be Corporally Diffinitiuely and Locally in the Supper Besides séeing he is absent according to their confession it folowes that he is not there present And as to conclude the Ministers saie he is there and that he is not there so for an absolute solution without entring into the principall of the argument they thinke to escape with obiecting to vs certaine woordes of briefe which wee haue not yet seene which wée thinke they haue found in certaine Breuiaries of Monkes as that thei remember wheÌ„ they were in the Couent they vsed so to chaunt and say But albeit such things were found in the Breuiaries vsed in the Romish Church yet such manner of speach might be defended in the sense which the Auncients haue giuen when they said the Apostles Conficiunt Corpus Christi Like as also the scripture saith that they baptize they forgiue sinnes saue those whom thei conuert which is vnderstand as Ministers of God who of his authority and as Maister baptiseth forgiueth sinnes and iustifieth the faithful persons Where the Ministers maruel that the Doctors cal faith humaine vertue considering the great woonderfull effects it woorketh the Doctours replie that they haue no great occasion of woonder séeing that all woorke so long as it is in man that it woorkes there with God is reputed humaine as also the scripture cals the Faith of man the woorke of man The Doctours delare to the Ministers that according to their custome resting alwayes vpon smal things they folow not that which is the principal in the mater not vnderstanding or faining not to vnderstand where lies the difficultie of that which is handled as they doo in their aunswer vppon the Argument proponed by the Doctours by which they obiect that the Ministers by their faith whether it may be called Diuine or Humaine may doo more than God can to whiche Obiection the Ministers without entring to the pointe aunswere with songs In the 32 Article thei passe ouer very lightly many obiections made by the doctors wherin whether ther be superfluity or repetition or whether they be impertineÌ„t the iudgment remaines to the Reader notwithstaÌ„ding al the the doctors wil not forbeare once againe to require theÌ„ to bring foorth some place of scripture to ground that God cannot bring to passe that one body be in twoo places séeing this coÌ„sequence is too foolish vaine God cannot lye he cannot then bring to passe that a body be in twoo places for so must thei subsume Wel God hath said ordeined that one body cannot be in two places then he cannot make that it be so but they shall neuer teach the truth of the assumption or Mâ—nor propositioÌ„ the contrary wherof hath bene verified sufficiently by many testimonies of the Scripture We demaund also that the Ministers produce some Ancient yea a man euer reputed Catholike that durst pronouÌ„ce that God could not bring to passe that one body be in twoo places But in all their answeres they coulde not bring foorthe any of that opinion excepte S. Augustine albeit falsely alleaged bothe in respecte of the Letter and for the sense of the Letter neither will wée cease to vrge aswell the Ministers as al others that there is founde neither place of Scripture nor Booke of any Auncient that God cannot bring to passe that one body be in twoo places Touching the laste Article wée are fully determined to shewe by the pure and expresse Woorde of God interpreted by the common consent of all Antiquitie that our Lord hath instituted the Sacramente and Sacrifice of the Aultare And wée wil teache the effecte and vertue of the Masse according to the Institution and Ordinaunce of Iesus Christe making also to vnderstande that the Ministers haue polluted and defiled the Sacramentes instituted by Iesus Christe And lastely that the Supper mainteined by the Ministers is no Sacramente in any sorte but a prophanation of Holy things conteining execrable Blasphemies which al the worlde ought to abhorre Sondaye the xxij of Iuly the yeere aforesaide The Aunswere of the Ministers to the writing of the Doctours sente to them by the Duke de Neuers xxij of Iuly aboute fiue of the clocke in the Euening 1566. THe Ministers afore they enter into particulare Answere to the Obiections and Reproches of the Doctours séeing in all their speaches withoute any occasion they laie vppon them imputation of blasphemie thinke good in their beginning to tel them that albeit thei haue heaped iniuries vpon them yet they holde themselues neuer the more wronged and muche lesse to be guiltie in blasphemie bicause they repute them for such no more than our Lorde Iesus Christe in the iudgemente and opinion of Caiphas the soueraigne Sacrificator and S. Stephen vppon whom the saide crime was vrged by the enimies of truthe and also Naboth notwithstanding he was innocent for it is a custome common to suche as hate the truthe and the light to blaspheme that which they vnderstande not and so yeelde to their proper and naturall furie as S. Peter Iude write that impudently they denie things moste apparante without shame confesse others that are straunge and obscure the same being offered of the Doctoures to the Ministers of whom they will heare nothing with iudgemente nor iudge their Doctrine vprightly but séeme in all the course of this Disputation either to confront them generally without respecte or at least to giue sentence without examination that what so euer they produce is either lyes or matter of blasphemie And albeit the Ministers handling the Omnipotencie of God according as they haue learned by the consent and contentes of the Scriptures agrée alwayes that he is
Doctrine they disdaine they should wel know that this reason is nothing bicause the Angelles and suche as are blessed being alwayes conformed to the wil of God may doe all that they will doe and there is no creature that cā hinder the effect of their wil and yet they are not omnipotent touching the saying of S. Augustine taking it as the ministers do the reason of Gods almightinesse is too weake and false But to haue a true vnderstanding of this sentence we muste consider that there is difference betwéene the will of God actuall and the power of the wil for God may wil many things which he will not nor neuer would and therfore he can will more then he will not actually wherein we ought rather to measure his omnipotencie then according to his actuall will. In this sorte must we interprete the texte of S. Augustine that Goddes omnipotencie stretcheth to all things which he can will and not according as he actually willeth S. Augustine also is recited by the ministers being destitute of testimonie of the scripture albeit in their former Aunswere they vaunt to haue taken that reason of the scriptures In the Article folowing the ministers charge vs falsly to haue curtalled some woords of their last wryting which shall not be found true For our text beares these woords it is vndoubted that aboue all conceite and imagination of mannes spirit Gods power is great infinite and incomprehensible by which may be clearely séene that we speake vniuersally of all conceite and imagination withoute exception of any whether it be of wisdome or of follie therefore it was without néede to expresse the woordes of the ministers séeing the Doctors spake generally the which that which goeth before dothe shewe as the ministers haue recited it where it is said that we reprehended them in that they gaue some restraint and limitation of the omnipotencie of God as not suffering it to stretch generally to all things that mannes wit mighte imagine or conceiue where in these woordes generally and all things they declare that we woulde comprehende according to humaine iudgement euen the foolish fansies and imaginations which men may comprehend And that we would not cutte of anything of the wryting of the ministers who perhappes were of opinion that we would not say that God can doe all that a fonde braine can imagine as fearing that we would inferre against them that God could doe any follie which should not folowe for albeit in the iudgement of men certaine things are estéemed fonde yet séeing they are possible in themselues they may be done of God but wisely notwithstanding the witte of man iudge the contrary Like as in many iudgementes man beguiles himselfe estéeming that for follie which is wisdome with God as S. Paule saith So that we say that all things which are to be imagined by man are to be done with God without excepting any thing sauing suche things as implie contradiction to be and not to be which can not be done in respecte of repugnancie procéeding of their parte and not by faulte of the power of God wherein we pray suche to whome these conferences shall come to note that the ministers are alwayes found slaunderers when they lay that crime vpō vs like as in the former wryting they stande as conuinced therein The Ministers will also be founde slaunderers in the Article folowing where they clippe our sayings and falsly lay vpon vs to haue writtē that God cā do any thing against order in déede we sayd that to holde that God could do nothing against the order which he hath established in the worlde is to blaspheme God in which may be discerned the slaunder of the ministers who mangling the speeche haue taken away these woordes established in the world where they inferre that it is a blasphemie to say that God may do a thing which is not well ordered it is oute of doubte but to doe any thing contrary to the order established in the world importes not any thing disordered but onely mutation and chaunge of order without any disorder which the Ministers confesse in their Article folowing We greatly abhorre the blasphemies cōtained in the next Article whereof the firste is that one body be in diuers places is a thing derogante to the truth of God bicause in God there shoulde be yea and not so that the Ministers hold that God should not be true if he broughte to passe one body to be in diuers places and yet they neither teache nor can teache that God hathe euer sayde that one body coulde not be in diuers places it impugnes the wisdome of God bicause in his woorkes there shoulde be disorder and confusion wherein likewise they confesse that God shuld not be wise if he made one bodie at one instante to be in diuers places The thirde is that suche thing resistes the omnipotencie of God séeing in suche acte there should be suche imperfection that muche lesse according to the opinion of the Ministers that God in doing this shoulde be omnipotent but of the contrarie he should be imperfect and impuissant The fourthe is that if suche a thing were done it shoulde be againste the eternall and immoueable will of God and therefore God should be mutable Oute of which blasphemies is necessarily vomited a manifest Atheisme that God should not be God if he made one body in one instant to be in diuers places For God can not be but true wise almightie and immoueable which blasphemies we are content to coate and marke only with admonishment how many miseries spring of their Doctrine that denie the Reall presence of the body of Iesus Christ in the holy Sacrament and not to stay any more to confute them as being too manifest and hauing regarde with all to the saying of Ireneus that there be heresies whome to discouer is to refute them In the Article folowing they resiste that with so many times they haue saide that God coulde not bring to passe that one bodie be in two places at one instante bicause it impugned the order which he hathe established in the worlde as though God could doe no other wayes than according to the order which he hath already established and in this present Article they confesse that God can chaunge and alter the said order out of which Confession we draw this argument God can chaunge and alter the order which he hath established in the world and that withoute any preiudice to his truthe his wisdome power and immoueable will then he can chaunge the order by the which he hathe established as the Ministers séeme to holde that one bodie should not be but in one place and to bring to passe in the contrarie the order being changed that one bodie shall be in diuers places and yet in that there is no derogation to his truthe wisdome power and will and by consequent that God of his omnipotencie may bring to passe that one body be in diuers places Touching the
caÌ„ change the order which he hath established in nature then he caÌ„ also bring to passe that one bodie at one time be in many places we denie the consequence and by this reason suche a case would not only chaunge the order but also woulde intangle contradiction which euen by the Confession of the Doctors is out of the omnipotencie of God. In the Article folowing they doe the same which they reproche in vs as darkening that which we clearely proponed in our last wryting by meane whereof if they will that we Answere them at large let them vnfolde it better Where the Doctors accuse vs to haue malitiously concealed this woord place in the matter of circumscription of a body measured we say it was not néedeful to vse that woord expresly there bicause there is no man so ignorant who vnderstanding that a body is circumscripte inferreth not immediatly that then he is comprehended in a certaine place Touching the Camell if they suffice not with that hathe bene already saide let him read againe S. Ieromes opinion in his firste Booke againste the Pelagians who expounding the woords of Iesus Christe saithe as foloweth in this the Lord hath not saide that which might be done but hath compared one impossibilitie with an other for as a Camel caÌ„ not enter the hole of a needle so a rich man shal not enter into the kingdome of heauen or if thou shewe me that a rich man entreth there it shall folowe also that a Camell may passe thorowe the hole of a needle doe not alleage to me Abraham and others whom we reade in the olde Testament to be riche and being suche did enter into the kingdome of heauen bicause they vsing their riches well and employing them to good woorkes did cease by that meane to be riche thus it is written in S Ierome So that as it is necessary by his opinion that for the saluation of the riche man there be a chaunge in his heart and that he forbeare to be riche to the ende to enter into the kingdome of heauen so there muste be mutation in the Camell and he to chaunge his proportion to make him passe thorowe the eie of a néedle Touching the Article folowing we say that with gods grace we can discerne the light froÌ„ darknesse dreames froÌ„ mater of truth the same being the occasion that we cannot approue either the argumentes or the conclusions of the Doctours touching one body to be in many places at one instant being most assured by good and certaine testimonies of the Scripture that all that they go about to proue proceedes not from other where than of the spirite of errour and lyes Who by this meanes labours to retayne the impietie and idolatrye which heretofore he hath established in the world to the destruction almost of all Christendome Touching the Verbe Diâ—rchestaâ— the Doctors finde them selues somewhat troubled to saue their penetracion whych they cannot any way ground vpon the proper signification of that tearme neither yet vpon any authority of the scripture as hath bene to them by the places heretofore produced To proue that faith comes partlie of our selues and not wholy of God the Doctors alledge that no man beleues nisi volens which is that no man beleues but willingly we answer that vnder correction of our Maisters that is to euyll purpose bicause suche wyll and consent are of God who workes in the faithfull the wyll and well doyng the same being very well taught by S. Augustine in one of hys Epistels where he saith that when God cals the faithfull to saluation he findes in them no good wil at al but that he makes and creates it in their heartes if he meane to finde it there That which the Doctors alledge of S. Paule that we worke with God serues no way to their purpose For the Apostle speaketh therof the Minister not meaning there other thing than that which he writes more clearely to the Corâ—â—â—â—â—â—s in these wordes we are Embassadours of Christ as if God exhorted by vs And that which they adde that none of the auncient Doctors haue taught that a body cannot bée in diuers places at one time we saye they haue As our former writinges haue proued as being alledged in the textes of S. Augustine ad Dardanum and in the .30 treatise of S. Iohn We aunswer onely to two pointes of the aduertisement of the Doctors The first is that our sermons our writings the discipline obserued in our Churches the censures wee make of the slaunders there committed the care we haue to discouer reprehende and correct them the payne we take to reforme what is there disordered the publike prayers we make in all places to that ende defende vs towardes all honest men and iustifie vs agaynst the slaunders of the Doctors The seconde is that the Doctors abuse their aduertisement in saying that Abraham doubted of the promise the same beyng all together contrarye to the opinion of the Apostle in the fourth to the Romaines where he sayth in proper tearmes he made no doubt of the promise of God by distrust but was strengthened by faith giuing glory to God. To aunswer the last obiection of the Doctors made as they say against our aunswere giuen to their former question vpon the matter of the supper how soeuer they fayne not to haue delayed the conference and disputation of the Supper and the Masse yet they are not able to persuade any of any iudgemeÌ„t that hetherunto they haue not alwaies and yet do not shift off to enter into it For what requestes so euer came from the Lady of Buyllon or at any time made by vs yea notwithstanding the desire wyl many meanes made by the Duke of Nyuernois to drawe them to it yet they haue stand alwaies vnwylling yea and as it were impossible to enter vpon these two pointes The which when wée well perceiued contayning notwithstanding our desire not to depart from them tyll wée had first conferred therein We often protested not to dispute further with them if those two articles were not first decided and resolued To which ende we proponed certaine argumentes as well of the one as the other by order and good Methode to the end they might aduise what they wold oppugne and gaynsay in the sayd argumentes But the doctors dissimuling herein in place to pursue theÌ„ propone other friuolous and vnprofitable questions drawne out of theyr schoole diuinitie And notwithstanding our iust occasion of greefe in that our arguments were omitted by the Doctors yet to cut of all further pretence or colour to defer we haue answered their last questions And now in place to followe our answers reuerse them if thei had meane they propone eftsoones other new questioÌ„s no lesse friuolous than the first the same reuealing sufficiently their fansies dissimulation with discouery to euery man that they disguise their wyl to conferre vpon the sayd pointes seing they do what they can to alter the