Neuers made request that after their Obiections and Aunsweres they would procéede to Resolution on both sides touching the conference the day before According to which motion the Doctors say that to iudge of a Booke whether it be written of the holy scripture or not and likewise to discerne a Canonicall Booke from an Apocriphal or Ecclesiastical we must not rest vpon a priuate or particulare inspiration because a singulare persone can not haue any ordinarie certaintie that it is a true Reuelation of the holy spirite but stay vpon the common consent and accorde of the vniuersal churche And also that God notwithstanding he might haue reuealed to euery one the true knowledge necessary to saluation yet he hathe ordained a certaine meane to attaine to faithe which is a truthe reuealed meaning by the hearing of Gods woord preached by lawfull ministers sent by the pastors of the true churche as appeareth by the â—exte of S. Paule to the Romaines .10 and Ephes 4. So that if they meane to haue faithe and inwarde Reuelation of the knowledge of saluation come by the hearing of Gods woorde lawfully preached by the ministers of the same according to the ordinarie meane of assurance that we haue the inwarde Reuelation it must necessarily be assured that the woorde by which faithe is gotten hath bene preached by the lawfull ministers of the true church so by consequence be assured of the church afore the inward Reuelation obseruing the meane which Iesus Christe folowed They say further that the true and certaine marke of a true inwarde Reuelation is when it is referred to the common consente of the church And that of the contrary euery preteÌ„ded inward inspiration particulare or priuate is a false persuasion if it differ from the common accorde of the churche for Gods spirite is not particulare but common They say also that to take a false Doctrine we must examine it to know whether it be priuate or common like as our Lord in S. Iohn 8. hathe giuen a true marke saying Qui de se loquitur mendatium loquitur he that saith any thing of himselfe and his proper inspiration is a lier In like sorte it is written in Ezechiel Sonne of man Prophecie against the Prophetes of Israel which Prophecie say to suche as Prophecie in their heart heare the woorde of the Lorde So saithe the Lord cursse be vpon the false Prophets who follow their spirite and haue seene nothing And a little after they sée vaine things and a Diuination ful of dreames saying the Lord saythe and the Lord sent them not and yet they haue giuen assuraunce to confirme the woorde of their Prophesie which false Prophets said they had 〈◊〉 inwarde Reuelation and the woorde of God. They woulde also that it be well wayed and considered that the stay of religion grounded and assured vppon an inwarde inspiration is the foundation of many sectes of our time as Anabaptistes and Swinfeldiens who lay their Doctrines vpon priuate â—â—â—elations alleaging proper places to serue them as a grounde of their Doctrine which the ministers inferred yesterday as Ieremie in the .3 Chap. Ioel. 2. and S. Paule 1. Cor. 2. The which being considered by Brentius and Bucer they haue confessed that by the only tradition of the church we were ascertained of the Bookes of the holy scripture according to the Doctrine of the auncientes as S. Ierome who confesseth to haue receiued by tradition of the churche and by the same to haue knowne that there be foure gospels Origen also saithe asmuch who reciting the Canonical Bookes of the newe Testament saith I haue learned by tradition that there be foure gospels neither is there fouÌ„d any auncient catholike that hath stayed his faith to discerne and iudge of Bookes vpon his only priuate and particulare inspiration And S. August lib. confess ca. 25 â—seth these woordes Veritas tua Domine non mea nec illius aut illius sed omnium nostrum quos ad communionem aduocas terribiliter admouensne priuatam veritatem habeamus ne priuemur ca. And touching the Bookes of the olde Testament whiche the Ministers will not receiue as Canonical by the iudgement of their inwarde Reuelation the Doctors auouche that before S. Augustines time or at the least in his time in the vniuersall churche all the Bookes contained in the holy Bible without distinction were holden and receiued as Canonicall according to the testimonie of the Councel of Carthage where S Augustine was present and also the Councell Laodicene the Doctors also saie that if by inwarde inspiration we must iudge of Bookes the Fathers that assisted those Councels had it or at leaste might persuade them selues to haue it with more assurance than many others But where the Ministers saie that by theire inwarde Reuelation they iudge that they are not Canonicall 〈◊〉 Doctors referre to iudgemente who oughte soonest to bâ—â—â—â—eued either the inspiration of the Auncientes receiued by the Churche by so many hundred yeres vntil this time or the priuate and particulare inspiration of the newe Ministers They saie further that they offer to proue that the Aunciente Fathers euen suche as wâ—â—e neare the Apostles time as Irenaeus S. Cyprian Origen S. Ierome S. Augustine and others vse testimonies of Bookes reiected by the Ministers euen in the proofe of the Doctrine against Heretikes yea S. Augustine him selfe in the seconde Booke of Christian Doctrine Chap. 2. puttes all those Bookes amongeste the Canonicalles as also Damascene in the fourthe Booke De Orthodoxa Fide Chap. 18. So that to knowe if a man haue the spirite of God to discerne and iudge of the Bookes of the Scripture it behooues to reste vpon the common consente and accorde of the Churche as being the ordinarie meane of God lefte for that effecte experience also whiche maie be made is a sufficiente Argumente to conuince that the Faithfull by the inwarde inspiration cannot discerne the Canonicall Bookes from the pretended Apocryphall which mighte be easily verefied if there were here at this presente euen somme of the Religion pretended reformed to whom not hauing bene as yet instructed in the diuision of Bookes if those Bookes were presented whiche the Ministers holde for Apocryphal they would not distinguish them in any sort from the other Bookes of the holy Bible And vpon all they conclude that if a man haue Goddes sprite c. vt supra Aunswere Touching the firste Article the Ministers were neuer of opinion as appeares in their former aunsweres that their Religion was grounded vppon theire particulare Reuelations but vpon the woorde of God according as it is sette foorthe in the Writinges of the Prophetes and Apostles the truthe of whiche they saide was moste principally assured by the testimonie and Reuelation of the holy Sprite They saie also that Faithe is not the Truthe in proper speache but the persuasion of the Truthe whiche is taughte vs in the Scripture Like as also this Faithe is not of our owne getting but a pure
place Touching the fourth and fifth Articles to know whether the Ministers haue imposed any vntruth vpon the Doctors they send the Readers to the actes of the former conference as also to learne in what sense and to what ende the Ministers haue alleaged the Ancients which they may more easily perceiue by the reading and diligent obseruation of theire places and sentences there inferred Touching the sixth Article wherin the Doctours had rather confesse their Canons to be false than in deferring the authoritie of the same to auowe the body of Iesus Christ to be true and being true that it is necessary that it be in one certaine place the Ministers answere that by the obseruation of S. Augustines place from whence is taken the saide Canon it is easie to iudge that the terme Oportet is muche more conuenient there than this woorde Potest To the eighth Article the Ministers answere that a substance without quantitie neither is or can be any waie a body whilest it is and remaines so and the reason is bicause they are twoo diuers predicaments that of the substance that of the quantitie vnder the which one selfe thing for one selfe respecte cannot be in any sorte comprehended Besides Christe alleageth no other reason to declare his body was not a sprite but that he had members and partes which bicause of their measures mighte be handled and touched Wherupon it foloweth that without that a substance can not be a body And touching the difference that shuld rest according to the opinion of the Doctors betwéene our soules and bodies exempt from quātitie if the same were possible we say that albeit they were substaunces different bothe in number and species yet they shuld be like touching genus and that bothe the one and other should be contained vnder the kinde of substance not corpored The ministers passe ouer the ninthe Article as a matter but of repeticion of woordes and sufficiently aunswered alreadie Touching the tenth Article we say in the first place that the consequence whereof there is Question can not otherwayes be defended by the Doctoures than by the rule that saithe of one absurditie may be inferred all things we complaine bisides of the time which the Doctoures make vs lose in the reading of so many matters already aunswered and which seeme so often repeated by them for none other ende than to fill paper and persuade the world that they do something For in the first place the Euangelist saithe not as the Doctoures pretend that Christe entred not by the shutte doores but only that he came the doores being shutte so that he speakes not there in any sort of the manner of his entrie nor how the doores were opened nor yet of any other parte of the house by the which he entred And as al the sayings of the doctors cannot be founded neither on the scripture nor any authoritie of the Auncients by them alleaged who stand rather againste than with them So for conclusion they haue no other ground of their opinion than their singulare coniectures and imaginations wyth sinister interpreting the wrytings of the Auncients to whose Faith they would constraine and assubiect the Church to the ende that hauing laid this foundation they may builde afterwardes thereupon all their absurdities and erroures which they meane to deduce And where they presupposed that when Iesus entred the doores shut when he walked vpon the waters and came out of his graue those miracles were done rather in his person than in other things Iustine wrytes the contrary that without any mutation happening in his body nor in the body of S. Peter he brought to passe by his diuine vertue that the Sea againste his nature serued him as a way As also S. Hillarie saith to the same respecte that by his power he did all things passible with whom S. Iohn Chrysostome consents as attributing all that to a power Diuine and confessing frankely that he was ignorant of the manner and fashion thereof By meane wherof the Ministers maruell much of the presumption of the Doctors to offer to determine a thing left indecided by the scripture the Auncients and touching the which according to the wise opinion of S. Hillarie bothe the sense and the woorde do faile and the truthe of the facte excéedes the capacitie of humaine reason How then dare the Doctors say so impudently that Christes body passed thorowe the doores that there was penetration of Dimensions and that two bodies were in one place séeing that of all this there is not one only sillable either in the scripture or witnessed by the Auncientes who confesse as is saide that their vnderstandinge and senses were to weake to comprehend or declare the reason of suche a Misterie Touching the birthe of Iesus Christe the ministers stand vpō the scripture whose cleare opinion is that the virgin was bigge bellied shée broughte foorthe and was deliuered shée gaue sucke and that in the deliuery aperta est vulua And yet dothe none of all this derogate or preiudice the state of hir Virginitie or integritie the same consisting in thys one pointe that shée neither knewe nor was knowne of any man. Wée say moreouer that in beléeuing this we folowe the scripture and by consequence can not erre nor be Heretikes neither likewise any other that assubiecte their sense to Gods woorde as the Auncientes by vs alleaged haue done in this In the Article folowing proponed by the Doctoures touching the manner of Christes Resurrection it containes nothing but coniectures and reproches with superfluous and weary repeticions which we haue already satisfied at the full by our former Aunsweres And what so euer folowes after in the writings of the Doctoures are but wrongs and iniuries in place of reasons and argumentes the same being the laste shifte of contencious wittes who being destitute of reason and not able to yelde to truthe defende themselues with clamoures and sinister impositions The Doctoures had some reason in their interpretation of the woorde Aphantos if there folowed autois but the Euangeliste saithe apantoin shewing clearely that the interpretation of the said place and vnderstanding of S. Ambrose in which the ministers do settle is better than the exposition of the Doctoures Touching the opening of the Heauens we Aunswer that they coulde not faile vsing the phrase of the Scripture who saithe clearely that at the Baptisme of Iesus Christe the Heauens were deuided and open when S. Stephen was stoned And as we take it for an imagination of man to applie to the aire the signification of the Heauen So we thinke it should be to diminishe the maiestie of God and Iesus Christ raised aboue all the Heauens to establishe the throne of his Maiestie so lowe as in the aire Neither is there any resemblaunce or likelihoode in the saying of the Doctoures touching the being of two bodyes in one place and the persuasion of the Ministers of the sighte of S. Stephen which stretched euen to the Heauens
not different of him selfe and abiding in a particular man he shall alwayes acknowledge the Scripture that comes of him and which beares his markes And touching the second demaund we say also that the same spirite being in a third man shal acknowledge that aswell the woorde as the Reuelation are of him by the reasons alledged that is that Gods spirite in diuers persones is alwayes equal and like to himselfe Obiection This dothe not satisfie the firste Question proponed which conteined a demaunde how any man can iudge in him selfe that he hath the holy spirit to discerne and iudge a boke to be of the holy Scripture and an other not to be but Apocryphall and lastly how he can make demonstration to an other that he is possessed with this inspiration of God. Aunswere The spirite of God is called a seale in the Scripture for that the firste effecte he bringes forthe in the heart of him to whom he is communicated is to assure him of his presence And to assure a second of the Reuelation which we haue receiued of Gods spirite it is also easie for that the spirite of God which openeth the mouth of one to speake openeth also the eares of an other to heare his woorde the heart to beléeue him and himselfe to persuade it so that betwéene the maister and disciple the Doctor and the hearer being bothe furnished and lightened by Gods spirite there is also a mutuall concorde to knowe one an other Obiection Suche a certaintie is a great incertaintie neither is there any of what secte so euer he be who doth not assure him selfe to haue the holy spirite and truthe of his side which is a fond presumption howe may a man distinguishe a presumption from a true inspiration Aunswere S. Iohn Chrysostome saith that in vaine doth a man vaūte himselfe to haue the spirite withoute the woorde which is a meane to represse sectes and heresies and to iudge all matters that the heretikes and others would propounde vnder the authoritie and title of Gods spirite For as by this spirite we knowe the true sense of the woord euen so do we discerne mutually by the woord who they be that haue the spirite of God and who not Obiection This is no Aunswere to the Demaunde for there is no Question to examine the doctrine by the woord but to know that it be the woorde of God by whiche we wil examine the doctrine and approue it and how a man shall iudge assuredly that he hath a Reuelation of the Lord and that it be Gods woorde Aunsvvere If he be one of the faithfull he may iudge by Gods spirite that is in him as in him that telles it him And if he be of the vnfaithfull it is as impossible that he iudge as a blinde man to discerne coloures laid afore him bicause as S Paule saith it is by the spirite of God by whom we knowe and iudge the things that are of God. Obiection This Aunswere is yet insufficient to the Question produced wherof let the iudgement rest among the hearers and Readers But now wée put foorth an other demaund whether wee are certaine by Gods woorde that the Lord assistes his Churche and will assiste it vntill the consummation of the worlde And whether there be not more assurance to staie vpon the consentes and iudgement of the Church touching the determination of the Canonical Bookes of the holy Scripture and the distinction of the same from the Apocryphall than to rest vpon singular iudgement esteeming it to be an inwarde inspiration of the whiche there can be no proofe made but only by opinion that wee haue the holy sprite Aunswere The Doctors confuse the opinions of the fantastical sort with the testimonies and Reuelations of the Holy Sprite notwithstanding there is asmuch distinction betwene them two as from heauen to earth And touching the consente of the Churche supposed to procéede of the Sprite of God it is infallible and of no lesse certaintie than the particulare Reuelations of Esay and other Prophetes And because both the one and the other procéede of one Authour whiche is the Sprite of Truth the certeintie of the Reuelations of Gods Sprite made to al the Church in generall to euery particular member of the same conteine one self poyse weight Obiection The Ministers cannot conceale from the Catholikes or others but that they are fantastike as making no proofe of the Reuelation of the Holy Sprite made to them no more than other sectes doo And touching that pointe supposed that it proceedes of Gods sprit they seeme to dout of the assistance of the Holy sprite in Gods Church which as S Paule saith Est columna firmamentum Veritatis Wherein is to be wel considered that they hold them more certaine of the assistaunce of the Lorde in particulare than in the vniuersall Church by which the conclusion may folowe that aswel the particular faithful can neuer straie as also that he is a piller of truth no lesse than the vniuersal Churche besides in laying the particular Reuelations in equal ballaunce weight with the iudgement of the Church they doo openly impugne their confession of faith in the fourth Article wher it is thus written Wée know these Bookes to be Canonical a most certaine rule of our faith not so much by the common accord consent of the Church as the testimonies and inward persuasion of the holy sprite who makes vs discerne them from the other ecclesiastical Bookes By the said Article it is seene howe muche they doo attribute to them selues more than to the whole vniuersal Church which Article they doo now resist giuing asmuch to the one as to the other yea in the confession of faithe lastly printed the saide Article was taken awaye as appeareth by that whiche this daye Spyna hathe broughte hither printed at Geneua 1564. by whiche may be séene that they retracte them selues as confessing that it behooues more te staie vpon the common consents of the church than vpon particulare the same being reasonable séeing the holy sprite is promised to the vniuersal Churche and not to euery particulars man. Aunswere If the Ministers may be thoughte fantasticke notwithstanding they haue Gods woorde with better proofe the Doctors maie be holden such in matters which they mainteine and defende both without against Gods woorde touching the seconde pointe reprouing the Ministers that they dout of the assistaunce of the sprite of God to the Church your aunswere is that the dout is not there but to know which is the true Church For the third point where the Doctors allege that it maie be inferred that particular menne cannot erre the consequence is nothing woorthe bicause the Sprite of God maye sommetime departe from menne in whiche case they maye faile and erre as Dauid confesseth did happen to him To the fourthe pointe the Ministers aunswere that they impugne not in any sorte the Article alleaged of their confession bicause the Aunswere
shoulde remaine a Virgine and that a thing done shuld not be done that being vnderstand as the Theologians say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 u câ—â—posito which is the things being suche and so done it is true and the reason is that otherwise it woulde implie contradiction But in the Question proposed there is nothing like which only Demaundes if God by his power can alter and chaunge the Nature and qualitie of things created as if he could bring to passe that a heauie thing abiding in his qualitie of heauinesse waighte which naturally weighes downewarde shoulde remaine by the onely vertue of God hanging on high as we reade in the holy Scripture that the fire which naturally ascendes and stretches on heigthe discendes downewarde by the vertue of God and also that fire of his proper nature ardente and burning makes cold his owne qualitie that is the heat reasting in the substance as also that two bodyes may be in one place as appeareth when our Lord entred where the Apostles were the doores being shut or that a great and large bodie remaining in his grosenesse and bignesse passeth thorow a place inequall to his greatnesse and largenesse as the Camell thorow the eie of a needell All which Examples as they are taken of the scripture so if it muste be that God can not bring to passe that one body be in two places he can no more doe the things aforesaide by the reasons which shall be deduced héereafter to that ende And as it wil neuer be found to enter into the brain of an interpreter to denie such power so the first that hath denied it openly was Peter Martyr and after him Beza The Doctoures say further that the fourme of arguing which the Ministers vse impugnes and reuerseth that which God obserueth in the holy scripture and the Angel speaking to the virgin for God ordinarily when he assureth any thing impossible to nature that men cannot coÌ„prehend alleageth generally his power like as also the Angel laying a fouÌ„dation of the Incarnation of our Lord saith generally there is nothing impossible to God as touching his creatures But is it so that the generalitie of an argument is deserued by particular exceptions and made vnprofitable and without force by that meane When God then alleageth generally that his power can doe it it may be doubted of and thought that the things proponed of God may be of those that are impossible to him aswel as the exceptions alleaged of the ministers And that also should be false which the Aungell saithe that there is nothing impossible to god by that that many things are alleaged and proponed to the contrarie So that to the ende God and his Aungelles be mainteined true in their woordes we muste not doubte that he can not chaunge and transforme his creatures and al their qualities muche more easily than a potter is able to worke his clay and fourme at his pleasure any vessell thereof Further if we limite the power of God towards his creatures there is daunger that we fal not to deny him his Empire and dominion ouer them for to be Lord ouer a creature is no other thing than to haue power to chaunge and alter him and giue him suche a nature and qualitie as he thinkes good as hauing him altogether in his power And therefore God in Ieremie to shewe that he had power to reuerse and destroy Ierusalem according to his pleasure begins to say I am Lorde ouer all fleshe is there any thing impossible to me and therfore the Doctoures conclude that there is daunger if this question be mainteined as impossible to God that euery one will doe as muche alleaging the selfe examples that the ministers do to exempt from Gods power al things that displease him And when suche matter shall be produced out of Scripture he may interprete the Scripture in other sense saying that suche a thing shal be impossible to God in the naturall sense of the woordes of the Scripture euen as the ministers chaunge the Scripture which saithe that the body of Iesus Christe is in two places that is the woorde of the Supper compared with the woorde of the Ascention and they say that that spéeche of the Supper oughte not to be vnderstanded literally bicause it is impossible to God that one Body be in twoo places And so the Doctours saie that euery one woulde corrupte the Literall sense of the Scripture holding that the thing is impossible to God and therefore the Scripture muste be otherwayes vnderstande and yet it maye so happen that it is only bicause it doth displease him producing notwithstanding the same reasons and allegations whiche the Ministers doo to declare that all things are not impossible to God. The Doctors conclude eftsoones that it is better to mainteine the Scripture in his truthe albeit shée propose things incomprehensible and impossible to our iudgement than to giue way to euery one to depraue Goddes woorde applying it to his owne will and fansie vnder shadowe to saie that it is impossible to God and so to alleage other examples Lastely they will not omitte that the Ministers who haue so déepely protested to rest stay vpon the pure woord of God allege not against Gods power but the ancient doctours aiding themselues with their authorities against the expresse woord of God which beares that nothing is impossible to him generally without some exception Aunsvvere The Ministers aunswere that the Doctoures proue not their consequence but leaue it as in a distruste not to be able to confirme it as is moste likely They make no mention but of the Antecedent of their consequence to the confession of whiche it will neuer be possible to them to bring the Ministers by the reasons and authorities by them alleadged so strengthen theire saide consequence bicause of a Particulare they inferre a Generall whiche is againste the Rules of Dialectice where they saye that the authorities alleaged by the Ministers apperteine nothing to reproue their consequence and to shewe that God forbeares not to be almighty notwithstanding that he cannot doo any thing which derogates his nature They referre themselues for that to the ancient authours aforesaid who for the same and reason of the ministers alleage the saide exceptions Where they pretende that the Authorities and Sentences alleaged of the Auncientes doo nothing apperteine to the presente question as denying that they oughte to be vnderstand of other things excepte suche as conteine in themselues contradiction The Ministers aunswere that euen so doothe that whiche they propone of a Body that in one instante he maye he in diuerse places the same being asmuch as if they had saide that a Bodye is and is not at one time and that a Body is one and not one And lastely that a Creature maye be incircumscript and not enclosed in certaine limittes whiche if it were so he shoulde be no more a Creature but a God as maye be gathered of the saying of S. Basile in his
Booke of the Holye Ghoste Chapter 22. whose opinion is that the Aungell whiche appeared to Cornelius was not in the selfe place where Philip was and he whiche of the Aultare spake to Zacharie did not furnishe at the same time he spake to him his Seate and place in Heauen But the Holy Ghoste is in Abacuc and Daniell in Babylon and in Ezechiell vppon the Floudde of Chobar for the Sprite of God replenisheth the Earthe wherein the Prophete crying saithe Whither shall I goe to hide me from thy Sprite where shall I flée to decline from thy face And Dydimus confirming this in his Booke whiche he hathe written of the Holy Ghoste makes this question If saithe he the Sprite of God were a Creature he shoulde haue his substaunce circumscripte and limited as haue all other Creatures whiche are made and created So that as it is that Goddes Sprite replenishes the worlde and is not circumscripte in any place nor lymited so it followeth thereupon that he is God. Vigilius in his Disputation whiche he wrote betwéene Sabellius Photius Arius and Athanasius vnder the personne of Athanasius writes in this sorte By this it maye chiefely appeare that the Sprite of God is God that he is euery where and not conteined in any place as the Prophete writes whither maye I withdrawe my selfe to hide me from thy Sprite By these places wée maye conclude that if a Bodye be not circumscripte termined and closed within certaine lymittes he coulde not be a Creature whiche oughte not only to be vnderstande by other Bodyes but also euen by Iesus Christe as appeareth by Theodorete in his seconde Dialogue saying then the Body of the Lorde is risen againe exempte from all corruption impassible and immortal decked with Diuine glorie adored woorshipped with the Celestial powers And yet albeit he be in this sort qualified he leaues not for all that to be circumscript as he was afore he was glorified whereof it foloweth that being true Body Creature he cannot at one instante be in sundry places Touching their allegations that the examples aforesaide apperteine nothing to the questiō proponed bicause it stretcheth not but to know if God may change the qualities into a Substance the substance remaining The Ministers deny it bicause in the Question there is mention of a Bodye whiche cannot be without his Measures And the measures and Dimensions be not as Qualities and Accidentes which may come to a Body and departe from it without that it be corrupted which is the nature condition of Accidents but they are of their proper Essence so that it is impossible that a Body be a Body but that he be measured circumscripte The first example they produce to confirme their saying is that it may happē that a weighty thing which naturally in respect of his heauinesse enclines downward may be raised on high wherunto the Ministers answere that the same may be in déede by a violēt mouing but this example is nothing pertinent to reuerse that which they haue said bicause such things conteine no contradiction in themselues neither are they contrary to the essence of the thing where they happen for a stone which a man throwes on highe leaues not for al that to be a stone like as also by the same mouing it is not depriued of his weightinesse Touching the Example of the Fire they aunswere that there is one selfe reason bothe of lighte and heauie things and that without any corruption of their Essence their naturall mouings maie be chaunged by force and violence donne to them Touching their allegation of the fire which contrary to his nature that is to skorche and burne refreshed the three Iewes in the Furnace of Babylon they aunswere that the fire for all that was in nothing altered neither touching his Essence nor in respecte of his qualities Whereof the proofe fell oute in that it sparing the sayde thrée Children burnte and consumed the Tormentoures or suche as had office to dresse it By whiche maye be well alleaged that why it did not offende them procéeded not for that his nature or qualitie were in any thing chaunged but onely bicause his action was suspended And where they alleage that two Bodies may be at once in one place prouing the same by that whiche is written in S. Iohn that Christe entred where his Disciples were the doores being shutte The Ministers aunswere that it is not so in the Texte but that the Disciples being assembled in one place Iesus Christe stoode and appeared in the middest of them By which it cannot be inferred that he entred the place where they were without opening the doores nor that he did pearce or penetrate them to make his entrie And it is no lesse likely true that they were open and shutte againe than the doores whiche the Aungell opened shutte againe when he was sente to deliuer S. Peter out of Prison and when he was likewise sente for the deliuery of the Apostles And where they bring in a grosse Body passing throughe a straite place alleaging the example of a Cable throughe the hole of a Néedle the Ministers finde it alleaged to euill pourpose as an argumente founded vppon a thing impossible and saye further that the Doctours haue euill vnderstande the tearme of Camelos whiche is vsurped in the Scripture not for a Cable but for a Camell As is manifeste inoughe to those that are but slenderly exercised in the antiquities of the Hebrewes and as appeareth by the opinion of Angelius Caninius vppon the ende of his Chaldey Grammer Touching the conclusion whiche the Doctors drawe of the former examples it is to euil pourpose and grounded vppon the Antecedentes and premisses which they bring in presupposed and neither as yet confessed by vs nor wil not be in the sense wherein they alleage them for the reasons héere afore declared Touching that which they say against the opinion of the Ministers that one body at one instante can not be in two places yea were it the body of Iesus Christ and that it was neuer written by any the Auncientes nor proponed afore the comming of Peter Martyr and Theodore de Beza the Ministers mainteine it was aduouched afore their time as S. Augustine in his Epistle written to Dardanus vsing these termes According to this fourme saith he meaning the corporall fourme of Iesus Christ we must not thinke that it is euery where as also we must vse good héede that in establishing to him his Diuinitie we take not from him the truthe of his bodie And in an other place he saith that by reason of the nature and measure of his body he is in one place of heauen Theodoretus vsing the selfe same spéeche or Phrase in his seconde Dialogue as hathe béene alleaged heere before Like as also Vigilius in his fourthe Booke against Eutiches vseth this Question if it be but a Nature of the Worde and the Fleshe howe comes it that the Fleshe is not in euery place
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
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
firste place they alleage that God can not do a thing to derogate the order which he hath established in the world in the seconde that it were to establishe mutabilitie and chaunge in Gods councels to confesse that he is able to doe any thing contrary to the said order established in the world in the third that if it were so there should be contradiction in his will whereof should folow that he were a lier And for the fourth blasphemie that the power of God is his will and likewise his not power his not wil And for the fifth they pretende that God would haue a body which in one instant might haue bene in many places afore they beleue that God could haue made it otherwayes they meane to infer that he neither hath could nor can make it by which the Ministers will acknowledge nothing of Gods power but so muche as he shewes by effect for which matter they alleage Tertullian All these blasphemies are drawne out of the propre woordes of the first Article of the Ministers Touching the firste that God can not doe a thing to derogate the order he hath established in the worlde it is proued an apparant blasphemie by the Scripture who in infinite places makes mention of Gods works aboue nature which the Ministers call order established in the world the Scripture teacheth in proper termes the God can do infinite things aboue the order established in the world As the wife of Lot which was conuerted into a piller of Salte that a barraine woman in hir last age hauing an olde husband had a childe That a Vine all drie hathe flourished A shée Asse hath spoken that the Sunne stayed and went backe againe with other innumerable Examples contained in the olde Testament And for the new Testament that a virgin brought forth a childe That a body hath walked vpon the Sea and mounted to heauen and generally all the miracles done by Christ and his Apostles aboue nature the same being contrary to the order established in the worlde From this blasphemie growes an other that God séeing he hathe established his order in the world hath not done nor coulde nor can doe any miracle But to proue by the Authoritie of the scripture that God can do against the order established in the world it is writteÌ„ in Esay 50. My hand which is my power is it abridged that I can not redéeme buy againe is there no more power in me to deliuer Behold by threates I wil make dry the sea wil put the fluddes into the deserte so that the fishes shal perishe for wante of water and shal die of thirste I apparel the heauens with darkenesse and putte a sacke for their couer But more expressely in the newe Testamente where it is saide by S. Iohn that God can raise children to Abraham of the stones Which place albeit may be expounded Allegorically yet by the literall sense S. Iohn declares it was possible to God the Deuil knewe and hath confessed that if Christe were the true sonne of God he might transeforme stones into breade The same notwithstanding contrary to the order established in the worlde And we haue to note that there is no lesse impossibilitie that bread be turned into Flesh by Gods omnipotencie than a stone transnatured into bread Wherin for such as denie this last done by the power of God they declare that they beleeue lesse of the almightinesse than Deuilles The confuting of the seconde blasphemie dependes vpon the disproofe of the first for albeit God contrary to the order established in the world hath done many miracles as hathe bene recited héere before yet there is no mutabilitie or chaÌ„ge in his Councell Touching the third blasphemie that if God did any thing contrary to the order established in the worlde there shoulde be contradiction in his will and therfore he should be a lier The Doctoures Obiecte that it would folowe that suche should be the will of God neuer to doe any thing against the order established in the world and that he wold haue stayed and declared that to be his will by his woorde For otherwayes it coulde not haue bene knowne what was Gods will. And as the ministers neither haue nor can make appeare by Gods woorde that suche is Gods wil as not to do any thing against the order established in the world so they must firste teache and instructe that suche is Gods will afore they conclude that if God made one body to be in two places or other thing against the order of Nature established in the world he should be a lier Touching the fourth blasphemie that Gods power is his will and that his impower is his vnwill According to the sense which the ministers giue it if God can not doe but what he will to be an Heresie of the Heretikes called Monarchians in the primitiue Church against whom Tertullian writes in his Booke aduersus praxeam and since renued by one Petrus Abaillardus and continued by one VVickleffe they in déede measured Gods power according to his will the same contrary to the expresse woord of God which oftentimes declars many things to be possible to God which notwithstanding he wil not doe as appeareth in Sap. 2 where it is recited that God could sende many sortes of afflictions to the children of Israell to chastise them but he would not doe it hauing disposed all things by measure number and ballance and that he might destroy suche as had offended him but he would not but vsed mercy to them In the gospel our Lorde saide to S. Peter Thinkest not thou that I can pray to my Father and he will sende me more than twelue legions of Aungels and yet as he would not pray to him so his Father did not send them although he was able to haue done it in the persone of his sonne Christe might haue let his enimies to haue taken away his life but he would not And the Father might haue saued him from corporall Deathe saithe S. Paule by his power but neither the one nor other would doe it which albeit the ministers might say was foreordained yet the Scripture holdes expressely that he might haue done it notwithstanding it was foreordained And touching the authoritie of Tertullian the Doctoures are glad they produce it as making altogither for the truthe againste their blasphemies and yet they haue omitted many of his woordes and sentences to confute their erroure as the text it selfe heere witnesseth Nihil Deo difficile Quis hoc nesciat in possibilia apud seculum possibilia apud deum qâ—is ignorat Et stulta mundi elegit Deus vt confundat sapientia Ergo inquiunt heretici monarchiani scilicet difficile non fuit Deo ipsum se patrem filium facere aduersus traditam formam rebus humanis Nam sterilem parere contra naturam difficile Deo non fuit sicut nec virginem planè nihil Deo difficile sed si tam abruptè in
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
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
most certaine that the Auncient Fathers of the Churche in the matter of the Holy Sacramente haue acknowledged mainteined that the Body of Iesus Christe by Omnipotencie was in many places as S. Ambrose vpon the tenth of the Epistle to the Hebrewes and S. Chrysostome in his seuententh Homilie vpon the same Epistle where they both almoste in one phrase and woordes write that albeit in many places there be many actions and oblations of the Body of Iesus Christe yet hauing regard to the thing which is offered that is to the true Lambe and body of Iesus Christe that Sacrifice offered in many places is but one bicause it is but one selfe thing the true Lambe and true body of Iesus Christe which is but one and remaines whole in all places where he is offered And they adde further that the Oblation of the same in diuers places is not an iteratioÌ„ of the sacrifice of the Crosse but in commendation of the same so that in the sacrifice of the Masse they acknowledge and distinguishe twoo pointes the one concerning the Realty of the thing that is offered which they saie is the true Lambe and true Body of Iesus Christ who as then remaining one and in his entyer is notwithstanding in many places And the other concernes the action of suche a thing by the Prieste whiche is no iteration nor like action or oblation to that of the Crosse but diuers in commemoratioÌ„ notwithstanding of that which was made on the Crosse S. Chrysostome in his thirde Booke of Priestehoode cryes out and saith Oh myracle and power of God He that uts on the Right hande of the Father aboue is holden betwene the handes of euery one in this sacrament S. Augustine vpon the 33. Psalme declares that the body of Iesus Christ in the supper was in two places that is in his visible place amongeste his Apostles and yet betweene his proper handes in suche sorte as he carried him selfe But afore he concluded vpon this S. Augustine debates with him selfe howe it was possible that a person shoulde beare his Body betwéene his handes And after he hath examined it to be impossible to Dauid and al other creatures he discends at last to the Diuine power which was in Iesus Christe by the whiche to him alone amongest other men that myracle was possible But leasâ—e wée depraud or wrest the intent of S. Augustine bicause he was carried in a certaine maner as though that diminished the truth let vs consider that the end meaning of S. Augustine is to shewe that Iesus by his Omnipotencie carried himselfe which was impossible to any Creature But if he had only carried in the Supper betweene his handes the Figure Sacrament and Signe of his Body and not the Reall Truthe he had done no more than the leaste man mighte haue done séeing euery one maye beare the Figure Image Signe or Sacrament of his body betwéene his handes or fastened as a Brooche to his Cappe without myracle or power supernaturall so that the certaine manner which S. Augustine vseth diminisheth nothing of the Truth which is that he was visible betweene his hands and in one manner supernatural albeit Real and true S. Basil with others in his Liturgie auowes the body of Iesus Christ to be in Heauen and yet present in the Sacrament by Omnipotencie And yet the Ministers are grounded principally vppon the saide S. Basil to proue the impossibilitie that one bodye or an other creature maye be in many places But he protestes expressely in the very place alleaged by the Ministers not to speake but according to the natural propertie And in his Liturgy he declares that it is not only in Gods power to bring to passe that the body of Iesus Christe be in Heauen and in the Aultare but also that it be truely done so To end this question of one body in many places we say that it is not only in the power of God but also we must beleue that it is so done in the Sacrament to the ende God be not founde a lyer or a deceiuer in his woord by which Iesus affirmed to his Apostles that that whiche he gaue with his handes was his true Body deliuered for vs Which Argumente Tertullian makes in his Booke of the Resurrection after he had disputed against suche as denied it to be possible to God wherin it séemes that they saide as the Ministers said firste there was something impossible to God by Scripture whiche is that he could not lye nor deceiue of which they tooke occasion to passe further and dispute that the Resurrection was also impossible to him like as also the Ministers of the point that could not lie haue labored to inferre that to put one body in two places was impossible to him as well as to lie and deceiue in the ende Tertullian accordes with the Martianistes that he had rather confesse that God could not deceiue and that he is only weake and impotent in deceit to the ende that thereby it might be séene that he hath not otherwayes taughte or spoken nor otherwayes disposed the facte than is contained in his woorde Then if he can not as Tertullian concludes deceiue and abuse we must beléeue the resurrection as his word beares it and not otherwayes to the ende there be no deceit in the sayd woorde and in God Euen so we say and willingly confesse that God can not lie nor deceiue in regarde wherof we must beléeue that he hath so willed and ordained the truthe of the supper as the woord pronounceth and not otherwayes And if it be so that the woord beare Verbatim and expressely that he affirmes that that which he gaue with his handes to his Apostles to eate was his body deliuered for vs we must theÌ„ beléeue that his word speakes not otherwayes then his wil is least he be estéemed a lier And that as he hathe saide this is my Body this is my bloud that truely it is so which God willing we meane to handle in the next conference for declaration that not onely he might establishe his body in the holy Sacrament but also that he would and did so Articles proponed by the Doctors for the next conference and others folowing according to the order of the said Articles ALbeit according to the order of the conference touching the Créede of the Apostles we ought secondly to entreate of an other Article like as euen the ministers themselues in the first dayes of conference did not only consent but made request offering the Articles of their Confession Imprinted vnder Date .1564 to be examined by vs from the firste to the last yet we séeing it can not be much from the matter after we haue handled the omnipotencie of God which stretches so farre as to make him able to bring to passe that the bodie of Iesus Christ be in heauen and in the sacrament continuing stil this matter to enter into the profe of his wil are content to shew that not
persuaderi As also Tertullian Duritia haeretica vincenda est non suadenda And touching the iniuries which the ministers multiplie in this behalf against vs in that they folowe all the aduersaries to the truthe and giue good testimonie what disquiet of minde suche kinde of people suffer when their errors are laid afore them of whom such is our pitie that we pray God to restore them to their good minde as knowing that the Conuersion of an heretike is one of the things reserued to the omnipotencie of God. The ministers labor in vaine to produce much Gréeke to shew that penetrare coelos signifieth not to passe the Heauens without opening bicause this verbe Dierchestai is found to passe where is opening But we neuer said that penetrare or Dierchestai can not be applied to places opened or that in opening them they were pierced thorow For we know in all Authors that doth encounter We said that as the ministers would inferre the Reall opening of the heauen by the rigor and propretie of the verbe aperire so might they alleage that the heauens were shutte in the Ascention of Iesus Christe by the verbes Dierchestai and penetrare signifying with rigor to pierce or passe thorowe without that of it selfe it importe opening notwithstanding it may be vsed where is a place open But by the rigour of their signification opening can not be necessarily inferred if by some woorde from else where or euident condition of the thing that is pierced the opening be not shewed as it is in the textes alleaged by the ministers In the Ascention these Verbes Dierchestai and penetrare be vsed as to pierce neither is any woord added which imports diuision of the heauens whose condition nor the estate of the glorified bodie of Iesus Christe doe not enforce any necessary vnderstanding of opening to be made to suffer the saide body of Christe to enter Therfore we argued of the rigor of penetrare as the ministers did of the wresting of aperwe which is founde in the scripture and not to signifie a Reall opening of the heauens more often than penetrare is red in the Scripture to signifie diuision or actuall seperation of the heauens for eperire coelos is founde very often for spirituall and imaginatiue opening and penetrare coelos is scarcely euer taken for actuall diuision of the Heauens And therfore better was our reason to conclude by the rigor of the verbe Dierchestai or penetrare to passe without actual diuision of the heauens than the ministers to infer the opening of the same by wresting the Verbe aperire In the last Article the ministers obiecte to vs to haue passed ouer certaine places of scripture by which appeares that Faithe is a woorke of God whereunto we say that in some of our wrytings we haue expresly confessed that Faithe in that it is a gifte of God is a woorke of god But in that he that beléeues woorkes with God in beléeuing for Nemo credit nisi volens it is a humaine worke and it is not repugnāt one selfe woorke for diuers considerations to be a woorke of God and a woorke of man And where they bring the Auncientes to haue sayde if not in propretermes yet in like that God can not bring to passe that a body be in diuers places that is false for they neuer either coulde or can shewe it as also they gainesay their laste wryting for bringing the reason why the Auncientes saide it not in expresse termes they alleaged it was bicause they neuer thoughte suche absurditie coulde fall into the braine of man which reason oughte to take place as well to speake it in termes like as in expresse termes séeing it is one selfe thing signified as wel by the one as by the other For the rest the ministers neuer Aunswere to the principall whereof they haue bene often warned and eftsoones we doe admonishe them although they terme a thousande times our spéeche matter of repetition it is that we require them to bring scripture to proue that it impugnes the order established in the world the truthe wisdome omnipotencie and immoueable wil of God one body to be in two places which they can not doe but Aunswere according to their custome nothing wherein may be discerned that their Doctrine is not founded vppon Gods woorde but vpon their propre opinion or particulare inspiration which can not be but of Sathan for being contrary to the common consent of the vniuersall Churche it can not be of the holy Ghost And vppon the same are founded also the other Articles of their Religion albeit they disguise and promisse at euery woord the word of God. A short aduertisement of the Doctors vpon the resolution of the Ministers touching the omnipotencie of God. WE maruaile of the maner of spéeche and writing vsed by the Ministers who since the beginning of the conference could neuer endure to pursue conclude one onelye point without entermedling of others which belonged nothing to the matter of the question as maye appeare by the reading of their Actes Wherein afore they set downe their resolution of Gods omnipotencie they heaped together as many Articles as they coulde remember and thrust them one vppon an other withoute occasion and reason Notwithstanding vpon their owne request we had set afore them articles of the Supper yea to the intent that after we had disputed of the almightynesse of God to make present the body and blood of Iesus Christ in the holye Sacrament we might discende by order into the declaration and proofe that suche was Gods wyll and also that he is there But we are not ignorant of the good customes of those of the religion pretended reformed to blow in the eyes of the Christians all the articles of their religion together with the polutions they inuent thereupon all vppon one lyne to the ende nothing be determined but all rest in confusion and that the Serpent runne away when he hath vomited his poyson Besides by the obseruation of their aunswers it is to bée discerned that they neuer rested vpon any certaine and selfe aunswer But to euerye question they haue returned aunswers no lesse diuers than impertinent and sometimes not to be suffered of the which we giue warning to all suche as shall reade the conferences and laying our selues vppon their iudgement beséeche them to haue good regard to the doinges of the Ministers side Moreouer we tell the Ministers that either they may or ought to know that all the sectes of our time bleare the eyes of such as they meane to blinde with the selfe same traine of articles which they haue gathered together in their resolution and that to obtaine audience in the catholike Churche and to bring in theyr errours and heresies vnder the name of Gods glory Of the which they vaunt them selues to be protectors no lesse than the Ministers wherein lyke as notwithstandyng all these they are not to be receiued or allowed in their opinions and conclusions so the Ministers cā not
touching their escapes they are to be conuinced by the simple reading of the bookes Touching the residue of the Ministers resolution containing many iniuries slaunders and wronges against vs we aunswer nothing hauing regarde to the maner of theyr doinges Like as also we consider it should be but paine lost to teache the Ministers who for their instruction esteeme more their particular reuelation than all the doctrine of the vniuersall church and all the Christians together And lastly we pardon them with all our heartes at the wrongs they haue done vs as beyng people estraunged from their full sense and without iudgement which they well declare by the maner of their doing The Doctors obiection touching the Supper against the Aunswer of the Ministers IT appeares sufficiently in the actes of the first dayes arguing why in the beginning of the conferences we touched not the articles of the supper wherein the Ministers do maliciously slaūder vs in saying we refused to enter into the matter of the same as is truly proued as well by our sundry offers made to them to conferre thereof verbally to the ende to aduaunce it with more spéede and so at leysure to set it downe in writing which the Ministers refused as also by our former obiections touching the article of the almightynesse By these we touched the groundes wherupon are builded the errours of the religion pretended reformed against the reall presence of the body and bloud of Iesus Christ in the holy Sacrament The same being to be iustified further in that wée obiect to them certayne argumentes agaynst their Supper the rather to make them enter into it To the whiche eyther they haue aunswered nothing at all or at least so impertinentlye that euen the woordes of their aunswer discouer their disposition to flée the combat As yet they continue by their last writings hiding so farre as they can that which they thinke of the supper notwithstanding they haue bene required to aunswer both to purpose and truth But whether they or wée refused the effect standes to iudge For though they wyll not aunswer yet we wyll not forbeare to aduise them and reueale to the whole world the intollerable errours aswell in the Supper as in all the doctrine of the Ministers Who being asked yet dare not confesse and iustifie what hath bene written by the inuenters of their supper But now to begyn to speake of the supper the Ministers mayntaine it celebrated according to the ordinaunce of Iesus Christ and maner with the Apostels vsed in all the primitiue Churche when she floorished and whylest she remained in her purenesse Whereunto we aunswer with this question howe manye worldes they thinke that the doctrine hath remayned in her purenesse touching the Supper and whether as then the Church stood not as pure in the doctrine of al the other Articles as in this Besides whether since that tyme there was not found any place through the whole worlde where the true doctrine of the supper and the other Articles was retayned and preserued As also in what place and by whom from world to world it was preached and aduaunced In these we desire to be satisfied by the Ministers as importing muche bicause that afore Caluin preferred hys Catechisme there was no memorye in any Region of suche doctrine as he taught neither was the supper celebrated in the maner it is now in the reformed Church And we woulde gladlye relieue the Ministers who in their writinges séeme straungelye passioned that we haue sayde that their Supper differs not from a common Banquet sauing that it is woorse as beyng prophane and polluted But to encounter this they make a great speake of all the action of their sayde Supper and by goodlye accessories carying a forme of all pietie they labour to make it highlye commended couering a goodly nothing betwene two platters And of the contrarye to treade downe and deface the most precious sacrifice of the body and bloud of Iesus Christ in the Masse by tearing in péeces some accessorye of the same as though wée vsed it without reason and signification whiche the Ministers eyther vnderstande not or dissemble not to vnderstande But as thynges ought not to be taken and estéemed by their accessories but according to their value nature and truth so the Ministers haue to foresee that all the sectes standing at this day in all the worlde against the catholike Churche for the matter of the Sacrament vse at least thys brauerie that they do Who if they were asked there is not one of them which would not enforce to proue that their sect approcheth nearer Iesus Christ hys Apostels and the primitiue Churche than the Religion pretended reformed Touching all which we referre our selues to the writinges of the Lutherians Zwinglians Anabaptistes Trinitaries Maister Alasco with other lyke Therefore it is not reasonable by these faire voyces and speeches to preferre the supper of the Ministers afore other sectes with iudgement that it is good holye impoluted and according to gods word but rather to repute it infected and defiled with impietie as couering a dreame in place of truth and giues the accessaries of pietie to impietye and falshoode Neither haue we dispraysed their Supper for the thankes they giue to God or in respect of their confession of sinnes or their preaching if it containe matter of truth or for any other preparatiue But in this haue we named it to be detestable as not containing but common bread and wyne contrary to the ordinaunce of Iesus Christ and yet they attribute vnto it some spirituall effect with other goodly accessaries of pietie the same being a matter of more abominatiō and inuented by Sathan who séekes by suche maner of supper to quenche and abolish the true supper according to the institution of Iesus Christ and rob the faythfull of the fruite and truth of the said true supper in making them giue onely common bread in place of the body and bloud of our sauiour Iesus Christ Here we could recite the wicked accessories as well as they speake of the goodly which are in their supper as the secrete and newe enterprises which are practised vnder colour and shaddowe of the assemblies drawne together at their sayd supper but least the Ministers reproche vs that the Clerke speake of weapons of contributions c. we wyll altogether hold our peace and referre our selues to that which is contenting our selues to deduce certayne causes by the which we maintaine that there is no truth in the sayd Supper according to the institution of Iesus Christ First that in the supper of the Ministers and their lykes there cannot be made any consecration of the matter of the bread wyne which are there proposed and therfore there is not made in the sayd matter anye mutation either before the vse or in the vse or after and by consequence that the bread and wine in that Supper cannot be but common That there is no consecration made in their Supper it
of August 1566. THe Ministers forbearing all that is superfluous and immateriall in the wryting of the doctors as their repetitions and dissembling withal their wrongs and accustomed scoffes by which they proue muche better the spite they beare to the truthe and vs then the questions proponed we will rest only vppon the pointes which séeme to require Answere In the first place we denie to haue imposed vpon the Doctors that they haue drawne and restrained the Church into a certaine place but rather to a certaine company and to the traditions giuen folowed and approued by the same wherein we praise God that the saide Doctoures are come now to acknowledge that the Catholike Churche stretcheth thorow oute all the world and that it is not enclosed within bounds and limites of the authoritie and traditions of the Romishe Churche which as we confesse was highly estéemed of the Auncients when errors abuses and vices did not abounde in it as is happened since So nowe being so corrupted as well in manners as in Doctrine as nothing is more hateful than the woorde of God the light the truthe and vertue we say that as the estate of the saide Churche hathe bene chaunged so also oughte the value and reputation wherin it hathe dwelt And yet in what degree of honour so euer it hath ben raised in times passed the Auncients neuer estéemed it an vniuersall Churche nor hir Bishop an vniuersall Bishop as appeareth by that which S. Ierome wrytes to Euagrius and the resolution of one of the Councels of Carthage And touching the reformed Churche in Fraunce we say not that it is the Catholike and vniuersal Churche but only a member of the same and that shée hathe hir foundation not vppon the opinion or Authoritie of men but vppon the Doctrine and wrytings of the Prophets and Apostles For the rest touching the protestations of charitie zeale by the which the Doctors feare to be driuen forward into the inuectiues and pursutes which they raise againste vs and other the Faithfull by the example as they say of S. Augustine and other Bishoppes who not long since solicited the Magistrates against the Donatists Their procéedings which they haue and doe vse against vs and other the Faithful reueale plainely inoughe that with false shadowes they couer themselues with those examples Bicause euen the Catholikes which they alleage persuaded the Magistrates to vse moderation and softnesse to the Donatistes and other Heretikes prouing all meanes to reduce them afore they ministred the rigor of paines and iudgementes enforcing themselues furthermore to bridle and represse the fury of the people that they should not be put to the spoile and ouerrunne Where they of the contrarie sharpen againste vs bothe the people and Magistrates and that by slaunders and false imputations with all other meanes they can suborne to that ende Touching the omnipotencie of God and the Diffinition we haue laide of the same drawne out of S. Augustines bookes the Doctors in their laste wryting inferre no newe thing to driue vs from it For that which they alleage of the Angels to be able to doe what they will and therefore to be almightie as well as God if the diffinition aforesaide of Gods almightinesse had place is no Example either to the presente purpose or to proue that there is in Angels a power equall with God séeing it is most certaine that their wil and power depende elsewhere and that God rules ouer them to chāge suspende and stay them as it pleaseth him and as he can doe to all other creatures which can not be saide of God without blasphemie But be it in what sorte so euer if they will reprehende the diffinition of Gods almightinesse proponed by vs it is not with vs but with S. Augustine that they haue to doe for the saide diffinition was taken woorde by woorde out of his wrytings We muche maruell that hauing so amplie aduouched to them our opinion of the omnipotencie of God with declaration that it stretched indifferently to all things which mens fonde fansies coulde conceiue or imagine that yet they will eftsoones regrate vpon that pointe alleaging that God can do wisely that which the foolishe imagine fondly For it is moste manifest that Fooles may imagine many things which are impossible to God As for example that God is not as is written in the Psalme .14 and .53 that he is corporall as the Anthropomorphites did déeme that the worlde is eternall as the Peripaticiens did teache that there be two Princes as the Manicheans held All which things can not be attributed to the omnipotencie of God withoute blasphemie But in this are we best contented that touching this Article our maisters after long and sharpe debate with so many blasphemies euen when we stoode in the truthe of it are yet constrained in the ende to consent with vs and folowe the interpretation and restriction which we gaue touching Goddes omnipotencie as appeareth by one speeche of their last wryting whose woordes be these All things say they that are to be imagined of man are to be done of God without excepting any thing but suche as implie contradiction to be and not to be Then what reason is there that for suche things wherein they cōsent to vs which be excepted frō Gods almightinesse that we for excepting them shoulde be guiltie in blasphemie and not the Doctoures who say and confesse the selfe same thing This proposition that a naturall bodie euen that of Iesus Christe is in diuers places at one instante is of the numbre of those things which implie contradiction as hathe bene already sufficiently proued therfore we conclude that the omnipotencie of God oughte not to be referred and stretched so farre The Doctoures charge vs afterwardes with foure horrible blasphemies as they terme them grounding them vppon our opinion defending that one body can not be in diuers places at one instante as to resiste the truthe wisdome and omnipotencie of God this the Doctoures finde so straunge and farre from reason that they disdain to refute it thinking it is vnworthy of Answere and that only it suffiseth to recite it whereunto we Answere that to say it is a blasphemie vnworthy of Answer is an easie and most ready mean to shake of all difficulties wherwith they may be entangled The Doctoures are also importunate with vs to bring foorthe by Goddes woorde that one body can not be in diuers places at one instante whereunto we Answer once againe that it belongs to the Doctours to proue the contrary by one text of the scripture that one body may be in one instante in diuers places séeing they are proponantes and we respondents in this conference And yet we haue declared héere before by liuely reasons drawne out of the scripture and essential propreties of God the nature of bodies the Authoritie of the fathers that the matter of the question is altogither impossible and touching their argumēt containing this nature form God
the Hebrues By meane wherof it is no lesse blasphemie matter contrary to the doctrine and meaning of the Apostle to approue the repeticion and reitteration of the sacrifice of Iesus Christ than the plurality of sacrifices for sin And if the Doctors would as hath beene their custome to disguise and colour such an abuse preferre their distinction betwene the sacrifice propiciatory and applicatorie as to say the Priestes pretende not in their Masses to sacrifice Iesus Christ for other ende than to apply the merite of hys death to those by whom they celebrate them We answer that in doyng thus they would attribute more than they do to Iesus Christ bicause all the fruite of hys sacrifice comes to vs by the application of the same euen as the healing our cure comes not so much of the confection and preparation of the medecine as by applying the same Besides we make this question to our Masters by what meanes the benefit of the death of Iesus Christ was applyed to the fathers afore his coÌ„ming seeing at that time ther was no Masse soong All men of any spirit iudgemeÌ„t may perceiue that those distinctions are friuolous suborned onely to darken the truth bleare the eyes of the simple and ignorat For Iesus Christ who hath offered the sacrifice is the selfe same which he applies to vs by his spirite his woord and his sacramentes And now to returne to the matter of our beginning to declare to what ende the auncients haue called the Supper all the action of the same sacrifice there is to be noted that in the supper ther be many sortes of sacrifices as the sacrifice of a contcite hart which is offred by publik confession of sins done there After the sacrifice of our bodies which is there offred by open praier following the said confession thirdly the sacrifice of praise and thanks giuing there offered when after the confession prayers they sing Psalmes The preaching of the gospel which is called a sacrifice Rom. 15. comes after as when the confession praiers being done the Minister presents himselfe to the people to reueale the woorde of god Almes which is an other kinde of sacrifice were in times past layd to the supper by the faythfull who by thys meane would testifie not onely the memorie they had of the graces and benefits of God but also their charity and desâ—re they had to relieue the necessities of their poore neighbours Ouer and besides all these kindes of sacrifices there bée two particular in the Supper whereof is mention made in the writinges of the auncientes the breade and wine which were chosen and taken of the almes brought thether for the poore and were consecrated that is to say assigned and deputed to the holy sacred vse of the supper The other kinde is the memorie of the death and sacrifice of Iesus Christ celebrated and repeated in all the action of the Supper which for this reason is called sacrifice by S. Iohn Chrisostome vpon the Epistle to the Hebrues his wordes be these We do euery day no other sacrifice than that of Iesus Christ no rather saith he in correcting him selfe we make the memorie of the same sacrifice S. Ambrose cals it the memorie of our redemption to the ende that we remembring our Redéemer may obtaine of him to multiply his graces vpon vs S. Augustine propones it also more cleare vnder a comparison of the daies of the passion resurrection of Iesus Christ which he applies in this maner Often times wheÌ„ the feast of Easter approcheth we vse this maner of speaking to morow or within two daies we haue the passion or the resurrection of Iesus Christ It cannot be properly vnderstand of the daye that Christ suffered death which is past long since but onely of the memory of his death the which is solemnised and celebrated as vpon that day euery yeare A litle after he addeth to apropriate his comparison hath not Iesus Christe bene offered in himselfe one onely time and yet in the Sacrament of the Supper not onely the day of Easter but euery day he is offered to the people In an other place the flesh and bloud of this sacrifice afore the comming of Iesus Christ were promised by the figures of sacrifices in the passion of Iesus Christ they were deliuered vp and offered in truth And since Iesus Christ ascended into heauen they are celebrated by the sacrament of memorie By these places and many other like we maye deduce that the fathers haue often called the supper sacrifice bicause in it the memory of the sacrifice of Iesus Christ is restored and celebrated The name of sacrifice is also often times applyed by the auncientes to the almes brought by the faithfull in the supper as by Iustine Martyr in the second Apologie by S. Augustine in his .20 boke chap. 20. against Faustus by S. Ciprian in his booke of the almes by S. Chrisostome hom 46. vpon S. Mathew which may also be verified euen by the canon of the Masse where it is sayd we offer to thy maiestie part of thy giftes and benefites the same to be referred to the almes of the faithfull offered by the Minister to God in the name of all the church Sometimes the prayers which were made there were called sacrifices as Cyprian vpon the dominicall prayer and Eusebius in the .vij. of the Ecclesiasticall history Tertullian in the third booke against Marcion where alledging the place of Malachie of the cleane offring which ought to be made to God from the sunne rising tyll the settyng of the same saith it ought to be vnderstand of the Hymnes and prayses to God which S. Ierome also confirmes in hys exposition vpon the sayd place For conclusion of this matter we say that all the places of the bookes of the auncientes wherein touching the matter of the supper is mencion made of the sacrifice ought to be referred to one of the sayd kindes neither can it be found that either they haue sayd written or thought that there was other sacrifice propiciatorie than onelye that whiche Iesus Christ hath once offered on the crosse in his proper body for our redemption by which meane it is sure that he ought to be acknowledged in the Christian church sacrificator of the new testament And touching the other sacrifices as that of a contrite hart mortification of the flesh of thankes geuyng and almes and the pronouncement and memory of the death of Iesus Christ we saye that generallye it belonges to the church to offer them and that there is neither faithfull nor any member in all the body of the Church who for this respect is not sacrificature as S. Peter saith in his first Epistle chap. 2. and S. Iohn in the Apocalips chap. 1. and that for that reason we ought to offer in the Supper such sacrifices vnto God as appeares euen by the canon of their Masse by them euill vnderstanded applied