only he could do it but also he would do it and so consequently are determined to refute all the blasphemies heresies of the supposed reformed side which are contained in the supper to the ende also we be not thought to eschue the combate of the supper the Masse as the ministers haue reproched to vs protesting notwithstanding to kéepe in meaning that after we haue concluded resolued vpon this matter to returne to the examination of the moÌ„strous errors of the ministers which containe great numbers against the other Articles of the Créede which the ministers feare by all likelihoode in that they are not willing we pursue the order begon as foreseeing that in the next conference we wold open vnto them an other blasphemie maintained by the reformed church against the bountie of God according to Caluines doctrine which is that God works in the reprobate the euill sinne which they coÌ„mit which is an execrable atheisme no lesse than the denial of gods omnipoteÌ„cie and in like sort as such as shal read these coÌ„ferences if they continue to the end discussing of the ministers errors their religion against al the articles of the Créede shall maruel to vnderstand the absurdities blasphemies discending from them so yet there is an other point the drawes the ministers to demaund the disputation of the supper which is that they haue al their matter redily prepared by many of their sect which haue written therof as especially they will not want the great Booke of Peter Martir by which they are furnished with sundrie infamous obiections certaine texts of the Ancients either cut of depraued or euil applied to impugne in shew the truth of the body in the sacrament but to the defense of all their other errors they are very slenderly prouided wherin their coÌ„science is a sufficient witnesse that by the scripture iudgmeÌ„t of general councels coÌ„mon consent of the authorities of the ancients they are coÌ„uinced condeÌ„ned of their errors against the said Créede But to enter into the supper of the ministers we say it is a prophane eating drinking not differing from the coÌ„mon eating drinking sauing that it is so much the worse as they abuse the holy institution of the supper of Iesus and pollute and defile such their banket withal impietie blasphemie we maintaine also that they do great wrong to the sacrament of Iesus Christe to attribute falsly to suche their banker so prophane and defiled the name of sacrament And to the ende to proue it more cleare we aske them if they receiue a common doctrine allowed not only in the catholike church but also of all the sects which are separated froÌ„ it the same is that in the confection of sacramentes there be two things essentiall and necessary the matter or the element and the woorde Secondly what word is necessary with the element to coÌ„stitute a sacrament namely that which they cal the sacrament of the supper and whether they must vse certain woords or not Thirdly if the woorde haue any vertue or efficacie in this sacrament and what And if it worke any thing in the matter of bread and wine Fourthly whether by the same woord the consecration be made of the matter of the sacrament or not In the fifth place if by the woord there be not made consecration of the matter that is howe the same consecration is made and by what vertue the sacrament is made For the sixth if bisides the bread wine and the spirituall graces benefites of Iesus Christ is receiued in the supper really the true body bloud of Iesus Christe in his propre substance not only in spirituall effect vpon this Article we require of the ministers an open confession of faithe We ask further if in receiuing the bread afore they take the wine they receiue by the eating of the bred the body bluâ— of Iesus Christ or only the body to beâ—â—â—rt if they admit that which the diuines cal a concomitance of the body bloud of Iesus Christ We aske also if the supper bisides the assurance it giues them of participation in the flesh of Iesus Christ in their redemption do woorke in them reâ—ission of sinne We aske lastly if by the supper there is receiued any thing which can not be receiued oute of the Supper or if withoute taking of breade to goe to the Supper or to assist it may be receiued as muche of the body and graces of Iesus Christ as if they did assist the supper We will debate afterwards the other Articles contained in the laste pamphelet of the ministers bicause the former demaundes are to be first examined as grounds of the other Articles proponed by the ministers For the rest after the supper of the ministers is confuted and the Real presence of the body and bloud of Iesus Christ in the sacrament confirmed we will procéede by order and withoute confusion to teache clearely by the pure and moste expresse woorde of God that the Masse was instituted said by Iesus Christe and that also he commaunded his Apostles to say it which they did according to the ordinaunce of their Maister That the Masse is a true sacrifice of the Euangelical law That suche as reiecte the Masse and admit no outwarde sacrifice in the Church nor priesthoode are without true law and without true Religion and therefore worse than Idolatrers That the Masse is of value to obtaine remission of sinnes fauoure and grace of God and that it is of value bothe for the quicke and the dead That it is no abuse in the Church if the Priest communicate alone in the Masse when the assistantes will not communicate with him That suche commit horrible blasphemie which call the woorshipping of the body of Iesus Christ in the Sacrament the worshipping of breade and wine and falsly doe they call such veneration of the body of Iesus Christ idolatrie To be short there is nothing in the masse as it is celebrated in the Church at this day which is not good and holy in it selfe and conformable to the woorde of God. We require the ministers to Aunswere to the demaunds héere before written pertinently clearly and by order Sunday .28 of Iulie the years aforesaide The Aunswere of the Ministers to the vvryting of the Doctors sent to them by the Duke of Nyuernois the .28 of Julie .1566 about .7 of the clocke in the Euening THe Doctors in the beginning of their writing reproche vs as that in our complainte against them we imitate the Donatistes wherin they iustifie oure former iudgement and opinion of them that the moste parte of their wrytings swarmed more with matters of repeticion iniuries scoffes and inuectiues than with argumentes and good reasons like as also the example of the Donatistes becomes them farre better than vs bicause the Donatistes soughte to restraine the name of the Churche who comprehendes vniuersally all the chosen and Faithfull that eyther
respecte of their nature and substance but onely touching the vse and signification and that only during the Action in which they serue For to consecrate the signes as the water in Baptisme and the breade and wine in the supper is no other thing than to assigne and make them serue to a holy and sacred vse by the publike declaration of the ordinance of God made to that ende and not to chaunge them touching their nature and substance the which vanishing and being made nothing there shoulde be no more signe nor by consequence any sacrament So that euen as the water in the Baptisme after the Consecration remaines water without that his nature or substance be in any thing chaunged or altered so the bread and wine in the supper touching their substance remaine after the consecration suche as they were afore for there should be no Analogie nor correspondencie betwéene the signe and the thing signified For what comparison conformitie is there betwene the accidents of the bread and the truthe of the body of Iesus Christe séeing that the accidents of the breade as the whitenesse and roundnesse destitute of their substance as the Sophisters doe falsly imagine coulde not nourishe or sustaine the bodie and by that meane should not be proper to signifie that the fleshe and bloude of Iesus Christe nourishe and sustaine oure soules So that we must hold this for resolute that the bread and wine remaine in their substance the same being clearely verified by Iesus Christe who speaking of that which he gaue to his Disciples to drinke in the Supper calles it specially the fruite of the Vine Which can not be referred to the accidentes but is necessarily to be vnderstanded of the wine in his proper substance As also by that which S. Paule saythe calling the Elementes of the Supper Breade and Wine thrée seuerall times yea after they were Consecrated Like as also he wrytes elsewher we that are many are one bread and one body bicause we participate all of one lofe wherein he teacheth vs there by his comparison of the lofe that euen as it is made of many graines so wrought and mingled togsther that they can not be distinguished or seperated one from an other euē so also ought the faithful in the Church to be so knit and vnited togither in one selfe body as they may séeme to be membres one of another This comparison wold be altogither foolishe out of purpose if the bread which we eate in the supper were not true bread Gelasius Bishop of Rome wryting against Eutichus saithe that the sacramente which we take is a thing Diuine and yet forbeares not to be a substance and nature of breade and wine Theodoret also in his first Dialogue vseth these propre termes the Lorde hath honored with the name of his bodie and of his bloud the visible signes which represente them without chaunging their nature but adding only grace to the nature The same Author in his second Dialogue speaking also of the breade and wine distributed in the supper saythe that after the sanctification these misticall signes forsake not their nature for they remaine in their proper substance kinde and figure by meane whereof they are seene and handled after the Consecration neither more or lesse then afore S. Iohn Chrysostome wryting to the Monke Cesarius saythe in the Supper we call breade that which is there present afore it be sanctified And after the sanctification by Gods grace and meane of the minister it hath no more the name of breade but of the body of our Lord yet the nature of bread remaines there By the places aforesaide as well of the holy scripture as Auncient Doctors and others which mighte be yet alleaged for this matter it appeares that the breade and wine in the supper remaine alwayes as hath bene said in their proper nature and substance after the Consecration as well as before wherein it néede not to be doubted that the Faith of the auncient Churche hath not alwayes bene so and that Transubstantitiaon was neither established nor holdē for an Article of Faithe in the Romishe Church vntil the time of Innocent the thirde To withstande and reiecte all that hathe bene sayde touching the nature and substance of the signes which remaine after the Consecration suche as be aduersaries to this Doctrine alleage ordinarily the woordes of Iesus Christe speaking of the breade in the institution of his supper take eate this is my bodie And staying vpon the proper and natural signification of the termes they defend obstinately that the substance of bread is vanished in the Consecration and that there remaines no other substance except that of the bodie of Iesus Christe The reason of this is that they obserue not the Figures and manner of spéeches which are ordinarily vsed in the holy Scripture when and as often as there is Question of the matter of the sacramentes For then the name of the things signified is ordinarily attributed to the signes which represent and signifie them as the name of the alliance is attributed to the Circumcision bicause it was assigned to signifie and ratifie it The Lambe by like reason is called the passage and Baptisme washing of regeneration and that not bicause they be things like to the signes and mysteries signified by them But for the conformitie that is betweene them The signes as S. Augustine him selfe dooth say take oftentymes the name of the things which they represent So that the error procéedes in that they take and vnderstand the manners of spéeches figured as if they were propre and naturall That this spéeche take and eate this my body is figuratiue it appeares by that which our Lord Iesus Christe addes after of the cuppe saying this cuppe is the newe Testament in my bloud which is shed for you Héere he calles the cuppe Testament and new aliance in his bloude wherin we must necessarily confesse that there is figure and that with oute it the saide place could not be wel vnderstand nor aptly interpreted For it is a thing manifest that an aliance which is a contrary couenant betwéene parties made and cōceiued vnder a certaine promisse and woorde is not the wine and yet it is so called by figure bicause the wine which is distributed in the supper is as the seale by the which the saide aliance is sealed and the faithe of the same confirmed By suche or like manner must we also vnderstand and expoūd this sentence this is my body the same being as much to say as this is the newe Testament in my bodie which is deliuered for you For as by the effusion of his blud the new Testament was ratified so was it also by the death of his body we néede not searche better interpretation of the words of Iesus Christe than Iesus Christe himselfe For it is certaine that that which he saide of the cuppe is as a glose and cleare and familiare exposition of that which he sayd of
the greatnesse of our God to maintein his woorkes incredible by nature which are comprehended in his woord in our Faith and also to confute all suche as woulde deny any of them as impossible to be done by any manner what so euer And bicause Caluin and Beza with their Ministers raise them selues against the power and greatnesse of our Lorde and openly deny him to be able to commit the body bloude of Iesus Christ vnder the formes of Breade and Wine and bicause also that in the Religion pretended reformed to resist the efficacy of the woorde This is my Body this is my Bloude they teach not a more great reason nor more familiare to al those that are out of the way than the impossibilitie of God to be able to make a body to be in twoo or many places that is to say in the Sacrament and in Heauen wée obiecte with good righte to the Ministers that in their Doctrine they derogate the firste Article of Faithe which is of the Almightinesse of god And also we knowe that the anciente manner of the Christians disputing againste the aduersaries of Faith was oftentimes to beginne to aske whether that whereon they doubted were possible to God or not or whether onely he woulde not doo it in which sorte and order Tertullian and others propone the pointes wherein they enter into contention againste the Heretikes In like sort afore we passe further into the matter of the holy SacrameÌ„t we would in preamble wise fele of the Ministers whether they iudged it to be in Goddes power to make a body occupy many places or whether only he would not c. wherein wée are enforced to aduertise al Christians of one manner of dealing common to al the Ministers of the pretended reformed Religion which is when they are asked if God can establish the body of Iesus Christ in the Sacrament or not they aunswere that there is no question of the power of God but of his Will onely And when wée produce matter which declares the will of God then of the contrary they deny that his wil is suche bicause it is impossible to him Alleaging here their contradictions according to the nature of the body And bicause they thinke this to be impossible in action they depraue and interprete the woorde of the Supper otherwayes than either it beares or is written Here is also to be noted that wherin an Almaine called Heshusius reprocheth Caluin that he his felowe Ministers are goodly noble amplifiers of the power of God but when it comes to the déede and pushe as the saying runnes they neither giue or graunte him any more than they thinke méete to introduce their errours and fansies resembling as the saide Almaine compares them a good Traitor who most dooth cherishe and magnifie a man when he is most ready to betray him as Iudas did our Lorde wherin wée are constrained to say of the Ministers touching Goddes Almightinesse as Tertullian saith of the Heretikes Credendo non credunt which is in beleuing the Omnipotencie they beleue it not for when they haue saide that there muste be no exception they hold againe an other way that it must not stretch to euery thing that mannes sprite can conceiue and so they will not apply it but to what they thinke good couering themselues with the nature wisedome eternal wil of God which are no lesse vnknowne and incomprehensible to them than his Omnipotencie in which respecte wee aduise euery one not to be abused with the speach of Caluin nor his ministers but to consider the woorkes which they deny to be in the power of god Wée haue produced to them these foure questions Whether God may make a body to be in twoo places and of the contrary twoo bodyes in one place Whether he can lodge one body in one space lesse than his greatnesse and whether he can make it inuisible which haue bene specially culled and chosen for that vpon them are founded the principal arguments of the pretended reformed Religion againste the true presence of the Bodye and Bloude of Iesus Christ in the Holy Sacrament Wée beleue simply as al other things that the foure questions are possible to God and haue proued it by the infinitie of his power both by the scriptures who giue vnto him al vertue ouer creatures without any exception and also by Examples and straunge myracles don vpon bodyes against their natures which are writteÌ„ as Tertullian holdeth in his Booke of the Resurrection to the ende wée beleue that our God is more mighty than al Lawe and nature of al bodyes whereunto he addes that such knowe God very euill who thinke that he hath not in his power things which thei cannot comprehende in their fansie From whence it comes as S. Cyril saith that such wicked sprites reiecte and condemne al things as impossible bicause they vnderstand them not Besides wée thinke wée haue sufficiently shewed no lesse by expresse scripture than by the Exposition of the same taken of the Ancient Christians that it was not only in Gods power to make twoo bodyes to be in one place and one body without place equall to his greatenesse but also that he had already truely done it in the byrth of the body of our Lorde Iesus Christe in the Resurrection of the same â—â—is entry throughe the doores shutte and in his Ascension aboue al the Heauens like as also wee haue deduced that there was equall and like repugnancy in those deedes as in the other of one body in twoo places whiche by the scripture is no more excepted from the power nor will of God than the others as to iudge it impossible to be done neither hath there bene any Christian afore our time which durst affirme the same to be impossible and out of the power of God notwithstanding the occasion was often offered if they had any waye estéemed it impossible as the Ministers of the supposed refourmed Religion pretende Of the contrary the most parte of the auncient Authours of the Primitiue Churche haue holden expressely that it was in Goddes power to bestowe a creature in many places according to S. Ieromes opinion againste the Heretike Vigilantius that the soules of the Sainctes maye assiste in many places with the immaculate Lambe our Sauiour Iesus Christe Yea there was question Whether the saide soules and sprites of the Holy ones did assiste at any time the Churches where their Graues and Monumentes were the same resembling with S. Augustine in his Booke whiche he wrote of the care to be had of the Dead Chapter 16. wher he saithe that by the power of theire nature the soules cannot be here belowe and in Heauen or in many places but that the same may be done by the power of God and he will not resolue whether they vnderstande our affayres by suche assistaunce in many places or by reuelation of the Aungels or other meane of the power and grace of God. Morouer it is
appeares first by this that it belongs not to al persons to cōsecrate the bread and the wine in the supper but only to such as are lawfully ordained by the imposition of the handes of the Pastors and Bishoppes according to the succession since the Apostles till our time And it is moste certaine that the most parte of the ministers of the supposed reformed church are not ordained by the authoritie of the handes of the Pastors who haue power by succession of one to an other since the Apostles So that we must conclude that suche ministers vsurping the office that pertaines not to them can not make any consecration and by consequence they giue but common bread and wine of which Article shall be spoken when we handle the sacrifice and priesthoode Secondly to make consecration of bread and wine it suffiseth not that the person be fit to consecrate the matter but it is also necessary that by a certaine meane the lawfull minister make the consecration which is by Benediction and pronuntiation of certaine woordes vpon the matters proposed as Iesus Christe did firste obserue wherein bicause the ministers albeit they were lawfully ordained and had authoritie and power to consecrate do not vse Benediction and pronuntiation of certaine woordes vppon the Breade and Wine impugning first that which Iesus Christe did and after left it to the Apostles and their successoures to doe so they can not pretende any consecration of the Breade and Wine nor that in them doe come any mutation whereof it foloweth that as they differre not from other Breade and Wine so that banket and feast is but common and that it is blasphemie to attribute to it the name of Christian Supper And this is a partie cause why we said the ministers supper was a banket prophane and polluted We haue required the ministers to Aunswere pertinently and fully to our Demaundes which bicause they haue not done to the ende to intercept all vaine trauaile we thinke it not good for the present to impugne their Aunsweres only we summon them eftsoones to Aunswere that which is proponed to them without shifting of the conference which they pretend to holde in so deare regarde The first Demaund was general for all the Sacraments to wéete if the ministers beléeued that two things were essentiall and necessary to the confection of the Sacramente which are the matter or element and the woorde the Ministers Answere that the Sacrament considered in his perfection consists in thrée things c. they speake in determinately so that it can not be iudged if their spéeche vnderstand the Sacrament only which they call of the Supper or generally of all as they were asked albeit in respecte they alleage Ireneus it may be easily gessed that they meane not but the Sacrament of the Supper we haue also to note the woordes of their Addition considered in his perfection as alwayes to haue a hole to créepe out when we speake of the essence of the Sacrament We demaunde that they Answere to the Question proponed in general of all the Sacramentes séeing there is like reason touching the essence of the Sacraments in generall and that also they declare openly what things are essentiall and necessary in the Sacrament to be made a Sacramente without speaking for the present of the perfection of one Sacrament containing the essence and spirituall frutes which are not of the essence of the Sacrament Touching the seconde Demaund the Ministers Answere no more pertinently than to the firste And specially where we made a Demaunde that certaine woordes muste be vsed for the confection of the Sacramente and what was necessary for the Sacramente of the Supper the ministers haue sayde that the base and secrete speeche of certaine woordes addressed to the Elementes was not a necessary speeche to the confection of the sacrament We did not Demaund whether that spéeche should be pronounced high or lowe But the Question was if there be any necessary spéeches to make the sacrament which ought to be pronounced vpon the matter or in administring the matter and what might be those woordes for the supper wherin it is not inoughe to say that the word by the which the ordinance of Iesus Christ is declared is the woorde of the sacrament But they muste Answere in what woordes that speeche consistes and when it ought to be pronounced Touching the sixthe Demaunde which is the principall the ministers care not to Answere pertinently and clearely only they exhibite a captious Answer by which it can not be perceiued what is their opinion of the presence and participation of the body of Iesus Christe in the supper And so doe they temper their spéeche that there is neither Zuinglian nor Almanist which confesseth not as muche or more than they that is to say that they are conioyned to our Lord Iesus Christe and that they possesse him ii vertue of their Faithe and by the operation of the holy Ghoste as to be made fleshe of his fleshe and bones of his bones c. But it is farre from the question which was if in the sacrament of the supper the Faithfull receiue in their soules besides all the spirituall graces amongst the which is communication with our Lord Iesus Christe the true bodie and the true bloude of him Really truely and touching the substance And if in the supper the Ministers make not distinction of the substance contained and perceiued in the Sacrament from the frutes and effects which procéede therof And to be short we aske if the Ministers receiue and allowe that which Caluine in his Catechisme Institution other Bokes hathe written of the Supper and that whiche is receiued therein Touching the seuenth Demaund the Ministers haue not vnderstand what was proponed to them touching the concomitance for they haue taken it as if the Demaund ran whether it was lawful to receiue the sacrament vnder one kind or not which was not ment nor put in question onely this was the difficultie that was proponed to them whether in their supper when the bread is receiued and afore the wine be receiued they participate really with the true body of Iesus Christe and not participate with his bloud till they haue taken the wine or whether in eating the bread the bodie be receiued afore the cuppe be taken To which Demaundes to the ende Paper be not spente and moiled for nothing we admonishe the ministers to Answere without swaruing or varietie and yelde open Confession of their Faithe And that we may knowe what Doctrine we may impugne or approue Touching the Articles of the Masse we reserue them to their propre places which is of the Sacrifice of the body and bloud of Iesus Christe after it be knowne and proued that they are present in the supper and holy sacrament Sunday the fourthe of August the yeare aforesaide An Answere of the Ministers to the vvryting of the Doctours sent vnto them by the Duke of Nyuernois the Wedensday morning the seuenth
for all that one flesh and one body by meane of the societie and matrimoniall acquaintaunce betwene them In like sort be it that Iesus Christ with whom we are knyt and vnited by faith and trust we haue in him and in his promises be as in respect of his body resident in heauen and we remaine here on earth so that there is a great distance betwene him and vs touching his bodye yet that doth not hinder vs to be flesh of his flesh and bones of his bones and that he is not our head and we his mēbers he our husband and we his spouse that we are not of one self body tyed with him that we are not cloathed of him and that we dwell not in him as the braunches in the vine Neither is there distance of time or place what soeuer it be nor difference of seasons which may hinder that coniunction that the faithfull eate truly his flesh and blood For as the auncient Fathers notwithstandyng they were two or three thousande yeares afore Christ dyed yet forbare not to communicate in his flesh crucified and eate the same meate spirituallye which we eate and drinke the same drink spiritually which we drinke so the faythfull also whiche are comen twelue or fiftene hundreth yeares after forbeare not in what place soeuer they be to participate as the Fathers with the same meate and drinke which they did Neither is there anye other difference betwene the eating of the Fathers that were before the comming of Iesus Christ and suche as haue followed hym but the reason of the more or of the lesse whiche is that in the one there is more ample and expresse declaration of Gods good wyll towardes vs than in the other By which we ought to conclude that from the beginning of the world vntyl the ende there was neuer nor euer shall be other coniunction betwene our Lord Iesus Christ and his Churche than spirituall that is purchased by the spirite of god For euen as there is but one fayth in the Fathers and in vs which considereth alwayes on the one and other syde our Lorde Iesus Christe euen so are not wée conioyned with him in other sorte than they were So that as the Fathers had no other societie or communication then spirituall euen so it followeth also that we neither are nor can be otherwise vnited with him than spiritually And yet do we not say that we and the Fathers are not fleshe of hys flesh and bones of his bones that altogether we participate not as wel with his humanitie as with his diuinitie But all our saying and opinion stretcheth to this that this participation which we haue there is by the operation and vertue of the holy spirite Which Iesus Christ in S. Iohn speaking of this coniunction teacheth clearelye in these fewe wordes the thinges whereof I speake to you are the spirite and life as also S. Paule our Fathers sayth he haue eaten the same spirituall meate and dronke the same spirituall drinke Wherein when we speake of thys spirituall eating both in vs and in our Fathers it must not be thought therefore that we would reiect the holye Supper of the Lord or once thinke that in the same the vse of breade and wyne is superfluous no more then the vse of the water in the Baptisme For our Lorde knowing the hardnesse of our vnderstanding together wyth the infirmitie and weakenesse of oure hearts and by a pitie compassion he hath of vs seekyng to remedye the same was not onely content to leaue vnto vs the ministerie of hys word to assure vs of the participation which we haue in hys flesh and bloud and all the benefites lykewyse depending thereupon But he hath also added thereunto the signes of breade and wyne which he hath annexed to his word as seales to seale in our heartes by the vse of the same the fayth which wée haue of the sayd coniunction by his woord Like as it dyd not suffise him to haue contracted the alliance with Abraham by the word and promise he made him but he added further the signe of Circumcision as a seale to confirme and assure more amply the sayd alliance To the ende then that euery one vnderstande what is the supper of the Lord and also what we beleue and teach of it ther must be considered and acknowledged in the same three thinges First the ordinaunce of the Lord contayned in hys woorde and declared by his Minister according to his commaundement By the which word this holy ceremony was ordained and established in the Churche to edifie and entertayne the members of the same which must be diligentlye obserued as to haue it in such honour and reuerence as appertaineth and not to put it on the beadroll or sorte of other ceremonies who haue no other ground or reason of authoritie than the onely wil and traditions of men yet there must be héede taken that by the institution and ordinance whereof we speake ther is vnderstanded a certaine pronunciation of words or any vertue which is hid in them as do the prests of the Romish church who by ignorance and their superstitious opinion thinke to haue consecrated and transubstanciated the bread and wyne which is in their Masse by the vertue of fiue wordes Hoc est enim corpus meum breathed and pronounced vpon the elementes Wherein they are no lesse deceiued than abused bicause the woord which is the formall cause of the sacrament is not a word sayd and spoken simply but a declaration of the institution and ordinance of God don by the Minister according to his cōmaundement and a predication of the death of Iesus Christ wyth the fruite of the same by the which the heartes of the hearers are raysed into contemplation and meditation of his benefites and theyr faith kyndled and enflamed in his loue And where this is not done as is sayd we must not thynke that the elementes are sacramentes as S. Augustine teacheth vppon S. Iohn 80. Treatise in these termes from whence comes this vertue to the water that in touching the bodie it washeth the heart but that it is done by the woord not bicause it is pronounced but by reason it is beléeued this woorde is the woorde of faith which we preache sayeth the Apostle which is if we confesse with our mouthe that Christe is the Lord and beleeue in our heart that God hath raised him from the deade we shal be saued wherin continuing his matter he addes in the end these woordes this woorde of faithe which we preache is the same without doubt by which baptisme is consecrated to the end it may clense and washe The ministers inferre héere before two things the one that the woorde of Consecration is not as is saide a simple pronunciation but a publike and manifest declaration of the institution and ordinance with all the misterie of the deathe of Iesus Christe The other that the signes and Elementes consecrated are not chaunged in
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
1. Cor. Cap. 11. Whereunto howe so euer the Ministers Aunswere the Doctoures desire that the text of Caluine together with the reasons which he brings of the holy spirite may be well weighed and considered They Obiect further that the Ministers in their Supper attribute more to the humaine vertue than to the omnipotencie of God yea they doe more than God coulde doe as in that they vaunt to doe a thing by their Faith which implies contradiction saying in their Confession of Faithe exhibited at Poissi to the Bishoppes which were in the congregation that Faith makes things absent present at one instant in one place that is in the soules of the Faithfull when they make the supper the same being as much as if they had saide that faith makes things not present present in one time place so as to euery Faithful man in the Supper comming woorthily the Body of Iesus Christe is there present in vertue of Faith And yet is he not there present as themselues holde saying He is but in Heauen wherein maye be séene implication of contradiction that is presente and not presente Really neither can it serue to any purpose a little stippe or scape whiche they saide to vs that the body of Christe is on high corporally but in the hearts of the Faithfull in the supper spiritually For the spiritualitie can not take away the substance of the thing and their Faith can not bring to passe that a body is not a body and that a body hathe not his dimensions as they haue saide héere before Therefore in what sorte so euer they confesse that the Faithfull in the Supper receiue the substance of the body of Iesus Christe into their soules they muste necessarily and willingly confesse that either their Faithe is more mightie than the vertue and infinite power of God or else that God can bring to passe that his body shall be locally in Heauen and Sacramentally Really notwithstanding and substancially in the Sacrament of the Aultare in which pointe the Doctoures desire to heare the Ministers and after to sette downe their Aunswere by writing The Ministers can neuer shewe by the woorde of God that their Faithe can bring to passe that in one instant and in one place a thing shall be present and not present And it is as muche to say a thing present and not present by Faithe as to say the body of Iesus Christe is in a Faithfull man and is not Neither néede there to be put any chanell of the power of the holy Spirite to make the Fleshe of Iesus Christe slide from Heauen hither if the saide Fleshe were not but in Heauen and yet come to vs. And touching the poyntes which the Doctoures haue obiected that Peter Martyr and Theodore de Beza were the first that saide that God could not bring to passe that one body might be in two places which newe Doctrine the Ministers would confirme by antiquitie we not name it otherwayes than blasphemie The Doctors say that many times they haue prayed the ministers not to lose time to the end things might be better cleared to say nothing that were not to purpose which notwithstanding they alleage forthwith the testimonies of the fathers to shew that a body by nature is circumscript naturally can not be in many places but the same authors speake nothing that God is able to do it And yet S. Augustine and others in their places recited by the Doctors touching the Article of the doores being shutte witnesse that by the power of God two bodies may occupie one place which containes the like difficultie and when it comes to the profe of the reall presence of the body and bloud of Christ they are to shew euidently that all the auncients wholly which haue spoken of the Sacrament haue not onely confessed hys abilitie to bring to passe that his body was on highe in heauen and héere belowe in the Sacrament but also they with one accorde haue aduouched to beléeue according to the woorde of Iesus Christe that he is in Heauen and heere in the Sacrament The Doctoures demaunde of the Ministers if any afore Peter Martyr and Theodore de Beza haue denyed this power of God whome they maruell not if they so muche magnifie séeing of them they haue taken all the places alleaged For the Article that begins where the Doctours pretende that the forme c the Doctoures say this forme is common as often as the power of God is debated vppon neither can she proofe be better guided than to folowe the woorde of the Aungell that there is nothing impossible to God From which when any thing is exempted there is alleaged the selfe same that the Ministers inferre that there is a repugnancie of things wherof folowes an implication of contradiction as did the auncient Heretikes against the Fleshe of Iesus Christe alleaging alwayes some impossibilitie according to nature doing the like againste the Article of Resurrection and Incarnation as if there had bene contradiction that God was man man was God As shall be easie to a wicked mind to forge alwayes some contradiction in his spirite according to the propreties of nature for the Article beginning wher the Doctors alleage that God can change c The Doctoures say they haue not well conceiued their meaning For they take for a thing absurde that a substance resting affected of his qualities may by Gods power haue effectes contrary to his qualities As if God coulde not bring to passe by his omnipotencie that the fire possessing his natural heat in place to burne do refreshe and qualifie which no man of sounde iudgement and a Christian would not denie For the Article touching the limitation of the povver c the Doctoures say it séemes by the Aunswere of the Ministers that Gods power is limitted according to his will which is as muche to say as God can not but that which he willes which is manifestly false Touching the Hebrue alleaged it séemes the Ministers haue desire to shewe their skill therein For suche recitall is nothing to purpose resting principally vpon the woorde danar which is as muche to say as a thing but it meanes not that we oughte to vnderstand it as a thing done the sense of the place is suche by the woorde shall any thing be hid from me And bicause harde things be hid and things impossible also more hid they haue therefore turned is there any thing hard or impossible to me which Pagninus and other interpreters of the Hebrue tonge shew well that the verbe Pala signifieth to hide The Doctoures had not made Aunswere to this but to make it knowne that they are not astonied at one woorde of Hebrue For the Article beginning touching the daunger c the Doctours say they are but woordes superfluous and what so euer the Ministers were able to produce others mighte vse againste them And where they say it is a reproche in that they
presumptionibus nostris hac sententia vtamur quiduis de Deo confingere poterimus quasi fecerit quia facere potuerit Non autem quia â—amia potest facere ideoque credendum est illum fecisse etiam quod non fecerit sed an fecerit requirendum Potuit ita saluus sum Deus pennis hominem ad volandum instruxisse quod melius prestitit non tameÌ„ quia potuit statim fecit potuit praxeam omnes pariter hereticos statim extinxisse non tamen quia potuit extinxit oportebat enim miluos esse hereticos oportebat patrem crucifigi Hac ratione erit aliquid Deo difficile id scilicet quod non fecerit non quia non potuerit sed quia noluerit etenim posse velle est non posse nolle By which texte may easily be séene according to Tertullian that God can doe many things which he will not doe as to make a man to flie but dothe it not he can destroy the heritikes yet spares them bicause he wil not do all he caÌ„ do And touching their conclusion of the saide place of Tertullian that the power of God is his will his impower likewise his vnwill they wel declare their sleight examination of the meaning of that place for Tertullian saith it not of his owne sentence considering he should conclude againste that he had saide afore but he inferres it against the Monarchian heretikes who held that what God might do he would do and it was done By which reason Tertullian concludes againste them that what God had not done muste néedes be hard and impossible to him so that according to those Heretikes it was all one to be done and might be done and not to be done as muche as to be impossible to God And of that as Tertullian inferreth would folowe that the power the will and the déede of God should be all one and of the contrary a thing not to be done and to be impossible to God to do it should also be all one And euen so also would be al one the power of God and his will and his impower and his vnwill which Tertullian concludes for an absurd thing procéeding of the opinion of the saide Monarchian Heretikes and not of his sentence which was altogither contrary wherin as we sée the ministers consent in opinion with the said Monarchian Heretikes which Tertullian refutes so the moste euident proofe standes in the fifthe blasphemie And for conclusion against the said blasphemies the Doctoures declars that God can doe much more than he wil doe and more than he hath established in the world for otherwayes woulde folowe yet other blasphemies as this that the power of God should not be infinite but limitted An other that for necessitie all things should be done in the world bicause God could not otherwayes doe than entertaine the order established in the world which Caluine himselfe detestes saying that God of his omnipotencie chaungeth and altereth the order established as it séemes good to him and to thinke otherwayes were to limite his power and prouidence Where the ministers say in their saide first Article that the auncient Doctors of the churche denied the omnipotencie of God it is a most manifest falshoode great wrong for they deny it not but interprete the scripture which séemes to deny it and so giue to vnderstaÌ„d how it ought to be taken that much lesse by the same scripture well vnderstanded there is any exception at al suffred against the almightinesse of God séeing that in the contrary it is confirmed as S. Augustine saithe in his fifth Booke de Ciuitate Dei. Cap. 10. Gods power saithe he is in nothing diminished when it is saide he can not die nor be deceiued For he can not suche things bicause if he coulde them his power shoulde be lessened concluding that he can not doe things which are of infirmitie bicause he is almightie Vppon the ende of the first Article the ministers chalenge vs as saying their difference is that we mainteine a body to be in many places bicause God can do it and that of the contrary the ministers holde that it is not in Gods power to do so bicause he wil not The doctors declare that for their part they neuer concluded to be true that a true body was in two places bicause God could do it But the Question was only to know if God could doe it to come afterwardes by order to proue by Scripture that he wold do it they haue already heretofore recited the scripture of the supper and the Ascension adding withall the Doctrine of Caluine touching the said supper to shewe that Gods will is to bring to passe that a body be in two places as in déede it is according to the expresse woorde of God. Besides we haue produced to the same end the scriptures of the doores being â—â—t of the birth of our Lord and of the Resurrection thorow the â—â—one which be like déedes and of the selfe reason to one body in many places Of the contrary the ministers to deny the will of God and depraue holy Scripture which sheweth that suche is Gods will that a body be in diuers places alleage not any thing more instantly than the impossibilitie of God to doe it But to the ende that al the world vnderstande the difference betweene vs we presently declare that there hathe bene no other difference touching this Article vntill now but to knowe whether it be in Gods power to bring to passe that a body be in two places at one instant or not And for the second Article the Doctors say the Ministers Aunswere not to the matter For the Obiection was not if quantitie were accidente of a Mathematical body aut de predicamento quantitatis as the philosophers hold but to know if it were of the essence and necessitie to the quantitie of a body to be circumscript and enclosed in place And touching S. Augustine alleaged by the Ministers he speakes expressely according to the propretie of the diuine nature and corporall nature saying that the Diuine nature is euery where but not the corporall as of his naturall propretie requiring a certaine place wherof the Doctoures make no difficultie arcording to the saide naturall propertie But the Question is if aboue nature by Goddes omnipotencie it may not be that a body be withoute place equall to his greatnesse the same being openly coÌ„fessed by S. Augustine when he speakes De clansis lanuis hauing no longer regarde to the nature of things but to the power of God And we coulde wishe that the ministers woulde alleage this Epistle of S. Augustine against the Doctrine of Caluine and his Ministers as often as they alleage the texte of the place of bodies againste the power of God touching the body of Iesus Christe in the Sacrament Touching the third Article the ministers are abused for according to the Philosophers and natural reason of bodies whiche
For conclusion of this Article we would willingly aske the Ministers if they holde as an Article of Faithe the virginitie of the mother after hir deliuerie and if they can proue it by expresse and inreprocheable woorde of God written bicause Beza calles in doubte these two poyntes at his pleasure and the Religion pretended reformed amongste other Articles of Faith of their diuers confessions imprinted recites sometime the Virginitie of the mother of God after hir deliuerie and sometimes it is omitted And in some Confessions is brought in no more but that Iesus was borne of the virgine Marie and only issued of the séede of Dauid The Doctoures applie for the Resurrection and issuing of Christes bodye thorowe the stone of the Sepulchre the moste parte of the Authorities alleaged by them vppon the doores shut as the absolute reading of the saide Authorities will make Faithe togither with Gregorius Nazianzene in his tragedie of the Passion of our Lord who ioynes as many other Auncients these thrée miracles hapned in the body of our Lord aboue nature the birth without breaking the virgine the resurrection thorowe the stone and his entrie thorowe the doores shutte We say also that Caluine and Beza make conscience to ioyne with the Ministers that oure Lorde rose not againe the Sepulchre being closed and shut yea they had rather fall into the friuolous absurdities and vaine Expositions héere afore alleaged than discende into the opinion of the Ministers bicause there is more Testimonie in the texte of the Gospell that Iesus was risen afore the stone was rolled away by the Aungell as the most parte of the Aunciente Christians doe consent which meane also giues occasion to beléeue more easily the Resurrection of our Sauioure than if the stone had bene taken away before his Resurrection for so it mighte haue bene more easily sayde that the bodie was transported and not raised or risen neither doothe the Texte beare that the Aungell rolled away the stone afore the Resurrection or when Iesus did rise or rather after as is greate likelihoode in Scripture in reason and all Antiquitie Pope Leo is euill alleaged by the Ministers as concealing that is wrytten in his Epistle touching the shutte dores as also producing euill the matter of the Resurrection for it is not sayde that our Lorde did rise after the stone of the monumente was rolled awaye But it is sayde agaynste the fantastike sorte that the substance putte on the Crosse and that which rested in the Sepulchre and likewyse that whiche rose agayne the thirde day the stone of the Monumente being rolled awaye is the true Fleshe of Iesus Christe By whiche speaches the Pope meanes not to saye that oure Lorde did not rise afore the stone was reuersed but only declares that the body of Iesus Christ risen was a true body and not fantasticall whose Resurrection appeared by the opening of the monument And this is the common interpretation of the Auncient authors touching the reuersement of the stone For ende of these Auncient testimonies we maruel that the ministers séeing them so manifest and as conuinced not only that God can bring to passe that two bodies be in one place but also that he hath done it dare reprochefully depraue the vnderstanding of the same and yet they say that the reasons taken of suche and so euidente testimonies are impertinent Like as by like licence common with the Heritikes they feare not without any texte of the scripture nor any place of the Ancients to enterprete two bodies penetrating to be no other thing than one body to giue place to an other of which false and licentious interpretacion euen the common vse of spéeche amongste the Philosophers dothe condemne them Like as also their fine example touching such as walke thorowe the aire which moues them and the birdes when they flie is farre to subtill And where they vaunt in the sayde Article that in denying two bodies to be able to be in one place by the omnipotencie of God or one body in two places they yet aduaunce and magnifie the power of God the same is as true as when in all other their erroures by whiche they oppugne Gods truthe and blaspheeme it yet they bragge alwayes to aduaunce Gods glory seeming héereby that they haue néed to couer their filthinesse and deformitie with some cloke of spéeche the better to blinde the simple and ignorant The ministers haue also good reason not to seeke to excuse the interpretacions of Caluine and Beza as too friuolous and yet they preferre their owne much more vaine before their Maisters by which may be séene the agréement betwéene the Maisters and Disciples vsing all the foundacion of their religion which is to beleeue and preferre afore all others their particulare and priuate interpretacion and inspiration where the Ministers say that the body of oure Lord was not inuisible to the disciples of whome is spoken in S. Luke 24. but only the hauing a swift body was sodainly withdrawne we Obiect that the sodaine departing which S. Ambrose and de Lyra speakes of makes not that the body was inuisible according to the Gréeke woorde aphantos not signifying sodaine departure but incapacitie to be séene and knowne and so the text of the Scripture is apparantly for the Doctoures as also that as often as bothe the auncient and present Diuines giue example that Christ made himselfe inuisible they alleage ordinarily this place The ministers who vaunte to rest onely vppon the pure woord of God for the exposition of the scripture bring forthe their dreames grounded vppon their owne persuasion as hath béene séene touching the doores being shutte vsing the like licence to expounde the texte of S. Paule which mainetaines expressely that our Lorde pierced the Heauens and they say that it is a likely truthe that the Heauens deuided and were open And if they be asked from whence they fetch this interpretacion their Aunswere is from Goddes woorde grounded of their inwarde inspiration by the which they accommodate the saying of S. Mathevve that the Heauens were open when the Piller discended vppon oure Lorde as thoughe all the Heauens were deuided and that the spirite could not descend without the same were opened being not aduised that the scripture in many places takes the Heauen for the aire And where they alleage that S. Stephen sawe the Heauens open when he was stoned it were more conuenient to the ministers to interprete such visions to be done in spirite as there is great likelihoode Otherwayes two miracles must be confessed the one in the Diuision of the Heauens and the other in that the sight of S. Stephen pierced not only into the Heauens but also euen aboue where the ministers confesse the body of Iesus Christe is vpon the righte hand of his Father which S. Stephen saw the same being against the order of God established in the world by which it is necessary that there be a certaine difference betwéene the eie séeing and the
thing which is séene Neither is it lesse harde that suche a thing be done than that two bodyes be penetrate We must not forgette that oftentimes the scripture in the appearings and spirituall visions vseth this language that the Heauens were open and yet in suche cases there was but spirituall vision and likewise but spirituall appearing And as the Ministers séeke to take the rigoure of the woorde opening of the Heauens euen so they must not note it straunge if we wrest in like rigoure the penetration of the Heauens specially in the Article of the Ascention where is Question of the body of Iesus Christe which had already pierced bodyes more impenetrable than the Heauen which pointe of penetration of the Heauen we referre to be more amplie handled an other time as nowe to auoide tediousnesse Touching the eight and twentieth Article where the ministers againste expresse scripture defend obstinately that God of his power can not bring to passe that a Camell or Cable enter the eye of a néedle we can not a little maruell bothe at their blindnesse séeming to sée nothing in the midde day and at their frowarde obstinacie By which as we can not iudge that they vnderstand not wel their fault but sinne euen against their conscience oppugning the truthe by them well knowne so it séemes God suffereth this to happen to them in this text and place of the scripture so manifest to the ende that by this Article the world may vnderstande howe farre more hardie they are to giue false vnderstandings of scriptures more obscure than this yea in the matter of the Auncient Christians which are against them But to the ende the world vnderstand their great wrong to denie that our Lorde can bring to passe that a Camel or cable passe thorowe the hole of a néedle we obiecte that it were impossible to God to saue a riche man vsing this Argument taken of the texts of the Gospell it is more impossible or harde that God saue a riche man than to bring to passe that a Camel or cable passe thorow the hole of an Néedle God can not bring to passe of his omnipotencie as the Ministers say that a Camell enter the hole of a néedle then he can not of his almightinesse make that a riche man be saued and enter into the kingdome of Heauen The Maior is of the Scripture the Minor is confessed by the Ministers and the consequence is necessary and according to all Philosophie he that can not doe the moste easiest can not doe the moste hardest The Auncientes also haue expounded withoute gaine saying the present Scripture as Origen in his Homilie vppon this place saying it is possible that a Camell enter the eie of a néedle not for all that that it be possible as in respecte of men but to God like as the manner by which suche things may be done is knowne to God and his Sonne Iesus Christe and to him to whome it is reuealed S. Augustine likewise in his Booke de spiritu littera Cap. 1. and 5. writes in this sorte to Marcellinus it séemes to thée an absurde thing when I tell thée that a man may be withoute sinne albeit there is none suche founde except Iesus Christe thoughte it to seeme absurde to thée that a thyng may be done whereof no Example can be shewed séeing as I beléeue thou doubtest not at all that it was neuer done that a Camell entred the eye of a néedle and yet it is said that suche a thing is possible to God. By their Aunswere to the nine and twentie Article it may easily be knowne that they beguile and abuse their Disiples making them beléeue by faire woordes and writings that Really in the Supper they receiue the bodie of Iesus Christe euen he that issued out of the wombe of the virgine and was putte vppon the Crosse for the restauration of mankinde And they séeke to make to vnderstande that these which put not to the Sacrament which they call of the Supper wyth the Breade and Wine but some Spirituall effecte onely as redemption iustice sanctification eternall life and other giftes and benefites which Iesus Christe brings to hys chosen diminish the excellencie dignitie of the same Sacrament and that they be Zuinglians yea and that ouer and aboue suche spirituall effectes it muste be beléeued that the body of Iesus Christe is truely receiued in the Supper and yet they feede an other opinion in their braine For when they are pressed to Argue not being able to sustaine that fantasticall presence confessed in their writings they make themselues Zuinglians and returne to the spirituall presence of Iesus Christe in the Supper the same being as muche to say that bisides the Breade and Wine they receiue some spirituall effecte and not Really the body as the Ministers holde in the presente Aunswere which as they make manifest by that they recite of the Apostle S. Paule so by the same may be gathered what is their opinion touching the supper which is that the body of our Lord Iesus Christ is not Really but onely by spirituall effecte in the heartes of the Faithfull For the Galathians by the hearing of the preaching of S. Paule did not receiue Really the body of Iesus Christe crucified but onely had an imagination of the Crosse and Passion of Iesus Christe and receiued onely the frute of their Faithe That is by that meanes they were iustified and sanctified before God. The Allegation also which the Ministers make of S. Cyprian tendes to this ende to shewe that in the Supper is receiued onely certaine effectes spirituall which notwithstanding Allegorically are signified by these woordes to embrace the Crosse of Iesus Christe to sucke his bloude c. wherein they denie albeit againste the intente of S. Cyprian in his Sermon of the Supper the Reall presence of the body of Iesus Christe The Doctoures confesse that the Argumente which they haue made tendes to the Caluinistes and not to the Zuinglians neither did they thinke that the ministers woulde otherwayes iudge of this Sacrament than Caluine Beza and the other ministers who vaunte them selues to be ministers of the churche of the Caluinistes which they call reformed But those which exhibited to the Bishops being at Poissi the Cōfession touching this Sacrament vsed an other maner of spéech They without difficultie confessed Really the Bodye of Iesus Christ to be present in the Supper which at this daie the Ministers denie with the Doctoures conferentes And as farre as the Doctoures can iudge the Ministers be come of Caluinistes Allemanistes which suche wil not wel disgest as mainteine the Doctrine of the Churche whiche they call Reformed séeing their principal supposts faile them at néed as vnable to aunswere one Argumente obiected by the Doctours as affirming in their aunswere to be so farre illumined with the Holy Sprite which makes them vnderstande and knowe al things Touching the Article folowing they reueale openly their present opinion touching
the presence of Christes Body in the Sacramente bicause they saie that the faitheful receiue no more in the time of the Gospel than the Ancientes before the Lawe and vnder the Lawe And it is certaine the Ancients receiued not Really the body of Iesus Christ which was not then formed so that we muste conclude that vnder the Gospell is not receiued Really the Body of Iesus Christe in the Sacrament which the Ministers cal the Sacrament of the Supper To the 31. Article they aunswere not as in déede they coulde neuer answere And necessarily they must confesse that in vertue of theire Faithe they doo that whiche implies contradiction for they mainteine a thing in one instant one place to be present and not present neither doth their spirituall or rather fantasticall presence any thing seeing according to their Doctrine the body cannot be present but with his dimensions Locally Diffinitiuely and Corporally otherwayes it were to take cleane away or corrupte the body And the manner to be there spiritually cannot make that the body be not there otherwayes they saye falsely that it is present in the Supper and abuse the worlde wherefore it is necessary that if the body be there yea spiritually if their Doctrine be true of the nature of a body that the body of Iesus Christe be Corporally Diffinitiuely and Locally in the Supper Besides séeing he is absent according to their confession it folowes that he is not there present And as to conclude the Ministers saie he is there and that he is not there so for an absolute solution without entring into the principall of the argument they thinke to escape with obiecting to vs certaine woordes of briefe which wee haue not yet seene which wée thinke they haue found in certaine Breuiaries of Monkes as that thei remember wheÌ„ they were in the Couent they vsed so to chaunt and say But albeit such things were found in the Breuiaries vsed in the Romish Church yet such manner of speach might be defended in the sense which the Auncients haue giuen when they said the Apostles Conficiunt Corpus Christi Like as also the scripture saith that they baptize they forgiue sinnes saue those whom thei conuert which is vnderstand as Ministers of God who of his authority and as Maister baptiseth forgiueth sinnes and iustifieth the faithful persons Where the Ministers maruel that the Doctors cal faith humaine vertue considering the great woonderfull effects it woorketh the Doctours replie that they haue no great occasion of woonder séeing that all woorke so long as it is in man that it woorkes there with God is reputed humaine as also the scripture cals the Faith of man the woorke of man The Doctours delare to the Ministers that according to their custome resting alwayes vpon smal things they folow not that which is the principal in the mater not vnderstanding or faining not to vnderstand where lies the difficultie of that which is handled as they doo in their aunswer vppon the Argument proponed by the Doctours by which they obiect that the Ministers by their faith whether it may be called Diuine or Humaine may doo more than God can to whiche Obiection the Ministers without entring to the pointe aunswere with songs In the 32 Article thei passe ouer very lightly many obiections made by the doctors wherin whether ther be superfluity or repetition or whether they be impertineÌ„t the iudgment remaines to the Reader notwithstaÌ„ding al the the doctors wil not forbeare once againe to require theÌ„ to bring foorth some place of scripture to ground that God cannot bring to passe that one body be in twoo places séeing this coÌ„sequence is too foolish vaine God cannot lye he cannot then bring to passe that a body be in twoo places for so must thei subsume Wel God hath said ordeined that one body cannot be in two places then he cannot make that it be so but they shall neuer teach the truth of the assumption or Mâ—nor propositioÌ„ the contrary wherof hath bene verified sufficiently by many testimonies of the Scripture We demaund also that the Ministers produce some Ancient yea a man euer reputed Catholike that durst pronouÌ„ce that God could not bring to passe that one body be in twoo places But in all their answeres they coulde not bring foorthe any of that opinion excepte S. Augustine albeit falsely alleaged bothe in respecte of the Letter and for the sense of the Letter neither will wée cease to vrge aswell the Ministers as al others that there is founde neither place of Scripture nor Booke of any Auncient that God cannot bring to passe that one body be in twoo places Touching the laste Article wée are fully determined to shewe by the pure and expresse Woorde of God interpreted by the common consent of all Antiquitie that our Lord hath instituted the Sacramente and Sacrifice of the Aultare And wée wil teache the effecte and vertue of the Masse according to the Institution and Ordinaunce of Iesus Christe making also to vnderstande that the Ministers haue polluted and defiled the Sacramentes instituted by Iesus Christe And lastely that the Supper mainteined by the Ministers is no Sacramente in any sorte but a prophanation of Holy things conteining execrable Blasphemies which al the worlde ought to abhorre Sondaye the xxij of Iuly the yeere aforesaide The Aunswere of the Ministers to the writing of the Doctours sente to them by the Duke de Neuers xxij of Iuly aboute fiue of the clocke in the Euening 1566. THe Ministers afore they enter into particulare Answere to the Obiections and Reproches of the Doctours séeing in all their speaches withoute any occasion they laie vppon them imputation of blasphemie thinke good in their beginning to tel them that albeit thei haue heaped iniuries vpon them yet they holde themselues neuer the more wronged and muche lesse to be guiltie in blasphemie bicause they repute them for such no more than our Lorde Iesus Christe in the iudgemente and opinion of Caiphas the soueraigne Sacrificator and S. Stephen vppon whom the saide crime was vrged by the enimies of truthe and also Naboth notwithstanding he was innocent for it is a custome common to suche as hate the truthe and the light to blaspheme that which they vnderstande not and so yeelde to their proper and naturall furie as S. Peter Iude write that impudently they denie things moste apparante without shame confesse others that are straunge and obscure the same being offered of the Doctoures to the Ministers of whom they will heare nothing with iudgemente nor iudge their Doctrine vprightly but séeme in all the course of this Disputation either to confront them generally without respecte or at least to giue sentence without examination that what so euer they produce is either lyes or matter of blasphemie And albeit the Ministers handling the Omnipotencie of God according as they haue learned by the consent and contentes of the Scriptures agrée alwayes that he is
God Almighty as being able without exception to doo what so euer he will and that there is no power neither in Heauen nor Earthe which may hinder change or delay in any sort the effect and perfecte execution of his eternal and immoueable councelles yet his Omnipotencie ought not to be stretched without discretion or distinction to all things generally that men maye conceiue and imagine in their fonde fansies but to those onely whiche neither are nor can be contrary to his iustice bountie wisedome nor by consequence againste his holy and eternall will wisedome and truthe which is and shal be for euer to doo al things wel and wisely with number weight and measure without any iniquitie disorder or contradiction in any thing he doothe All whiche things being well vnderstande and considered are able to cleare the Ministers to all indifferent people of the slaunderous imposition of the Doctours raised and falsly pronounced by them to make vs hateful to the worlde And to proue it by degrées and set a truth of their slaunders they chaunge and alter almoste al the speaches of the Ministers either by additions or retractions as knowing that without that policie they were without meane both to grounde their saide reproches and giue them any colour of likelyhoode whiche shal nowe appeare by the deduction and particulare confutation of their pretended blasphemies against vs. Firste they accuse vs as to haue saide that Gods Omnipotencie oughte not to be measured but by the onely things which are conformable to his will and not to derogate his wisedome his truthe his nature or the order which he hath established in the worlde Wherein to verifie their accusation and slaunder they choppe and hacke this sentence taking the laste parte of it onely whiche they haue separated from the rest and which the Ministers had limit to the whole for a more expresse and cleare declaration howe Goddes Almightinesse ought to be knowne beleued and woorshipped of al the worlde neither haue they vnderstande the terme of order according to the sense and meaning of the Ministers who signifie thereby the estate and disposition whiche God hath established conserues and enterteines in all things by his eternall prouidence and immoueable will onely to intercept that no confusion happen in his workes according to the Diffinition of S. Augustine in his Bookes de Ordine and himselfe hathe vsed in the fifth Booke of his Confessions the which being not vnderstande by the Doctours they haue translated the opinion of the Ministers to the ordinary and accustomed course of Nature and to the mouing of the creatures whiche be in this worlde Wherein to procure a more exception to the Doctrine aforesaide they obiecte the myracles that God did aboue nature inferring thereby that God doothe and maye doo againste his Order established To the whiche the Ministers aunswere that albeit the myracles be done ouer and aboue the ordinary course of nature yet they are not done contrary to the Order aforesaid bicause al things referred to the prouidence and ordinaunce of God be well done and rightely disposed notwithstanding theire reason and Order be many times vnknowne to men according to the opinion of Salomon God doothe all things in their time to the whiche maye be appropriate a testimonie out of the Sentences of S. Augustine 283. and 284. God who is the Creatour and Conseruer of Natures doothe nothing in his myracles contrary to nature Neither doothe it followe that that whiche is newe in custome is contrary to reason c. whereof if the Doctours will knowe further lette them reade the seconde Booke made by the saide Holy Personage of the Order and likewise what he writes of the myracles in the fifth and sixth Chapter of the thirde Booke of the Trinitie This aunswere may suffise to confute the twoo other pretended blasphemies which folowe in the obiection of the Doctours And touching the fourth wée aunswere that the will of God maye be considered in twoo sortes as the Diuines teache which is as it is declared to men by woordes signes and effectes and according as it is retained and hidde in himselfe the one is called Wil knowne by signes and the other the Will of the good pleasure of god For the regarde of the firste consideration the Ministers confesse as heretofore they haue said to the doctors that God can doo many things which he wil not But to the other we saie his wil is equal with his power as also his power in that regard is equal to his wil According to which consideration ought to be vnderstanded and interpreted the sentence of Tertullian alleaged by vs and euill applied by the Doctours to the Monarchians as beste may iudge all suche as heedefully reade that place produced by vs who to aunswere an other reproche of the saide Doctoures accusing vs of wrong to the Auncientes as to accepte some matter of the Omnipotencie of God are here enforced to reiterate Theodorete in his thirde Dialogue who writes as foloweth Wée muste not saie without some determination that all things are possible to God for who so holdes suche absolute opinion comprehendes all things aswell good as euill whiche oughte not in any sorte be attributed to God. By whiche maye appeare that neither this good Authour nor the others before alleaged by vs woulde not submitte all things indifferently to Goddes power But doo excepte what so euer is contrary to his will and essence To be shorte to qualifie the difference betwéene the Ministers who holde it impossible one body to be in diuerse places at one instant and the Doctours which affirme the contrary there is but one meane which is that the Doctours without entring into so long a circuit and wasting of speache in alleaging so many superfluous matters doo proue summarily by one onely place of the Scripture that God wil doo it To knowe whether the Ministers haue wel or euil alleaged S. Augustine as to proue that a body cannot be withoute place and measures and also whether they haue well or euill defended that the Quantity is essential in a body and not accidental as the Doctours holde they laie themselues vppon the vpright iudgement of the Readers of the Acts of this conference Touching that which foloweth in the writing of the Doctours that there is no place aboue the Heauens wherein Iesus Christ is not comprehended conteined that the Bodies and Sprites are therein differently without any distinction and distaunce of place The Ministers saie that touching all those pointes they rather beleue the Scripture expresse woorde of God which they haue alleaged than all the suttleties and Sophistries which the Doctoures or others are able to bring foorthe of their vaine Philosophy Besides the same is expressely conteined and taught in one of the Articles of our faithe in this phrase From thence shal he come to iudge both the quicke the deade By whiche muste be noted that there is Vnde which is an Aduerbe signifying
body yea euen his owne inuisible And that he could not bring to passe that a Camel or cable kéeping his grosenesse might passe thorow the hole of a Néedle From these is deriued the deniall of his almightinesse a blasphemie moste execrable and very atheisme These be the disordered absurdities which such are enforced to confesse that denye the Reall presence of the body of Iesus Christ in the Sacrament of the Aultare which the Doctors pray may be well considered by the Readers of this present cautele Where the ministers in the last Article of their Answer chalenge vs for calling Faith an humaine worke seeing it is of God that is not to be maruelled in them no more than a numbre of other truthes which séeme straunge to them bicause their Doctrine is grounded vpon the foundation of error amongst the which this is not least in degrée that man hath not a frée will and that for a man to thinke well to wil well and to do well dothe not worke with God contrary to many places of the Scripture which settes a man woorking with God bothe for his Faithe and workes and receiues recompence for the same which shall be more aptly handled in an other place without varying from the matter We are very glad the Ministers confesse that the Auncientes neuer saide that a body was in two places which is true but the reason they giue why they haue not saide it is of the forge and inuention of the Ministers they might tel vs as muche out of the testimonie of scripture wherin is no more founde than in the writings of the Auncients wherof we haue sundry times warned the said ministers who chalenge to groūd all their Doctrine vpon Gods woorde If the ministers at the beginning had confessed the truthe of the omnipotencie or that they would haue acknowledged that Christe might bring to passe that his body mighte be on high and néere below in the Sacrament really and truely if he would we had no néede to handle the questions passed which notwithstanding contain no small consequence as the ministers estéeme the same appearing by the wrytings of the Auncients who haue handled those places with great diligence and with them haue aided themselues againste the heretikes But bicause the ministers wil not agrée that God may bring to passe that one bodie be in diuers places at one instante And that if they had begon to shewe his will to be suche as to ordaine that the body of Iesus Christe might be in heauen and in the sacrament they might haue sayde as is the opinion of these of their secte that God would it not bicause he could it not And albeit we had rather treate first of the omnipotencie than of the wil so séeing the first hath ben sufficiently handled we are nowe in minde to proue that Iesus Christe woulde and did ordaine his body to be in diuers places in the proofe wherof we will enter into the first conference after we vnderstande the fansie of the Ministers what they helde in their Churche touching this matter to the ende we trauaile not in vaine as iudging that they folowe not the opinion of Caluine and Beza for which cause we say they muche abused the people faining to teache according to the Custome and Direction of the Refourmed Churche and yet in their Aunsweres they declare the contrarie Where they holde themselues righte happie to endure suche reproches as to be estéemed seducers by vs Let them remember that all sectes may say as much as they but whether it be righte or wrong we shall make séene by the examination of their Doctrine The Resolution of the Doctoures touching the Article of Gods omnipotencie as for the regarde of the foure Questions proponed by them to the Ministers the same seruing to the vnderstanding of the Reall presence of the Bodie and Bloud of Iesus Christe in the holy Sacrament ALl men disposed with patience to runne thorowe the scriptures and beginning from Abraham the Father of the Faithfull euen vntill the laste wryting of the Apostles shall finde that the very roote and fountaine of all infidelitie ordinarily was in hauing regarde to the propretie of creatures and common order of nature as to gainesay and enter into doubt and distrust of the woorde of God. In respecte of which reason Tertullian and other firste Christians saide wel that the Philosophers and suche as depended vppon naturall things were the Fathers of Heretikes bicause the contemplation of nature engendred almost al heresies of the contrary men may perceiue that the omnipotencie of God is proponed by the scriptures as a knife cutting in sunder all argumentes which might come of naturall reasons as to take a certaine and last resolution to beléeue al that is written and imported by the said woord of God albeit it séeme impossible and incomprehensible to all creatures and that our Faithe might rest vppon the same power in all doutes what so euer All the difficulties that Abraham made vppon the promises which God made to him proceeded of certaine impossibilities of nature which he saw in himselfe in his wife wherin it séemes that his cōsideration stretched no further til God vsed his authoritie and said to him I am God almightie since warning of God Abraham forgate all regardes to the propreties of his nature and tooke holde of this buckler of faith which is to knowe and fully persuade himselfe that God is almightie to whome nothing is hard or impossible And after this when there was question to slea his onely sonne notwithstanding he had greate apparance of contradiction in nature and in the woord of God giuen to him which was that from the séede of that sonne should issue one that should blisse all nations and yet he must kill him afore he had any linage discending of his bodie yet he did not contest as opposing this contradiction of nature and of the woord of God to maintaine that which had bene saide and promised him was impossible but he had recourse to the pilloure of the Faithe of the Faithfull as S. Paule to the Hebrues which is to the omnipotencie with this persuasion that God had the meane to make the one and the other true as to make his Sonne die and raise him vp againe to the ende to drawe out of him afterwarde linage and posteritie albeit as then there had bene no example of the Resurrection Likewise the consideration of creatures and the order of nature which Moises saw before him made him fal into infidelitie but God shewed him his fault when he denyed that he was able to nourish the people long with flesh séeing the nature of the deserte did not beare it warning him to raise vp his spirite to the almightinesse against nature and there to settle and assure his Faithe Moyses saide Héere be sixe hundred thousande people in the midst of whom I am and thou hast said I wil giue them fleshe to the ende they eate a whole
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
to him and yet notwithstanding he may be incircumscript For if it be necessary that the dimensions wherof he is composed be terminable it folowes then necessarily that he is termined limited and circumscript Afterwardes where they say that our reasons takeÌ„ of the Creede alleaged to proue that the body of Iesus Christe is in heauen in place certaine are friuolous we Answere that therein they shewe the reuerence they beare to the woorde of God and his holy spirite which hath reuealed it vnto vs and to his Apostles who haue pronounced it to vs. To iustifie Gratian and the Canon which we alleage of S. Augustine as prouing therby that the body of Iesus Christe muste necessarilye be in a certaine place Wée alleage againe for more ample confirmation the Maister of sentences Lib. 4. Distinct 10. who reciting the selfe same texte of S. Augustine vseth this verbe Oportet and not Potest Where the Doctours alleage Iustine to proue that the myracles which were done when Christ appeared in the middest of his Disciples the doores being shutte and when he walked vppon the waters were done in his person Wée maruell muche that the Doctours doo yet repeate that seeing the same Iustine as hathe bene already aunswered them saithe in expresse termes that at the time when the saide myracles were done there happened no chaunge in the body of Iesus Christ which as it had bin necessary if the myracles had bin done in his person so wée confesse stil as many times wée haue done that the cause of the saide myracles and the Diuine vertue of which they procéeded rested in Iesus Christ as when he healed the sicke that touched him with other myracles recited in the Histories of the Gospelles which were done by him but not in him but in the person of those that were healed There is greate difference betweene those myracles and them of his Transfiguration and Resurrection which were done by his onely vertue and in his proper person Vppon the importunate repetition whiche the Doctoures make aswel touching the meane of the byrth of our Lord Iesus Christe as of the terme Aphantos The Ministers no lesse to auoide the losse of time than to gréeue or trouble the Readers sende them to their former aunsweres Wée maruell also that the Doctoures to proue their penetration pretended of twoo bodyes and theire dimensions will grounde their proofe and principell Argumente vpon the proper signification of the woord to Penetrate For be it that by the French terme they woulde interprete the Gréeke woorde Pâ—eâ—cliestai or the Latine woorde Penetrare yet it shoulde be alwayes impossible to them to proue that which they pretend And to shew it is so in the Actes of the Apostles chapter 1â— 10. it is saide of the Aungel and S. Peter that they passed the firste seconde warde And in S. Luke 4 3â— but he passed through the middes of them and wente his way And in S. Iohn 4.4 He must passe by Samaria in al which places the Doctoures cannot finde that the terme Diercherstai alleaged in the said places may be any wayes applied to their penetration of dimensions neither can they proue any more that the terme Penetrare which the Auncient Translatour hathe vsed in 2. Timoth. 3. may be referred to their said penetration Wée say further that the Doctoures oughte not to finde it more strange that Iesus Christ mounting into heauen with a body termined and limited made himselfe opening to enter therin than wheÌ„ he discendes betwene the hands of Priests singing their masses for then as S. Gregorie saith the heauens are opened to make him passage albeit that according to their imagination his body be then separated from his measures dimensions The Doctors ought to haue conteÌ„ted themselues with the answer which we made them vpon the similitude parable of the Camel. For first they could no way proue that the saying of Iesus Christ vpon the end of the speach ought to be referred otherwaies than to the next member of the same where is spoken of the conuersion sauing of the Rich séeing the Pronoune Demonstratiue Hoc shewes it clearly After notwithstanding the proposition generall whiche is vpon the end coÌ„clusion of the said speach that al things are possible to God stretcheth aswel to the Camel as to the rich men as the doctors hold yet to accomodate the two parts of the comparison thei must confesse that as changing is necessary to the rich man to be saued so is it also to the body of the Camel to make him passe through the hole of a néedle but what so euer it be in what manner so euer that may be done the doctors shal neuer proue or conclude by that that two bodies may penetrate one an other Bicause the doctors by their most mighty and strong Argumentes coulde not conclude any their said absurdities nor enforce vs by force of their reasons to coÌ„fesse them they doo nothing but crye blasphemie blasphemie the same being the last shift of al men that despite and whet their téeth against the Truthe and mainteiners thereof when they can not ouercome them If wée woulde subscribe to their errours and abuses wée should be good and Catholike men but bicause wée resist and reproue them wée are in their opinion Heretikes Seducers Blasphemours and Atheistes Yea they haue in vs such horrour that it is maruel they rent not as did Caiphas their hoodes and hattes in spite of Gods woorde proponed defended by vs and condemned by them as Blasphemy The doctours haue dissembled our place of scripture alleaged to proue that faith is a worke of God that it produceth in the hart of the faithful when he wil regenerate him speaking by chaunge of Frée wil and Merite of Woorkes wherein wée are determined to answere and mainteine the truthe of these twoo pointes with Gods grace againste the enimies of his glorye when they shal be proponed to be debated vppon And touching the ioy that they say they haue receiued for that wée haue confessed to haue read in no ancient Authour or expresse termes that God cannot bring to passe that one body in one instant be in diuers places they haue no great cause to reioice at it séeing that albeit the said ancients haue not spokeÌ„ it in expresse speach yet haue they both said and written it in termes equiualent and that in infinite places A shorte resolution of al the discourse and aunsweres whiche the Ministers haue made vppon the matter of Goddes Omnipotencie in the conference which they haue had with the Doctoures THe craft art of Sathan hath bene alwaies from the beginning of the world to traÌ„sfigure him self into an Angel of light search some fine preteÌ„ce to colour distinguish him self as vnder such colour to insinuate into the church of God there to sette abroach his Lyes trumperies like as we sée that vnder the colour to honor God he hath established al the Idolatry
Article of the distinction of the willes of God the ministers mumble all togither vnderstanding nothing in the saide distinction no more than where they say that a body to be in two places is of the societie of those things which God hathe declared by his woorde that he can doe nothing againste them First there is question of gods omnipotencie which is referred to that which he can not to his essence that which is in himself as is to be all one wise good which things belong not to the omnipotencie but of the essence in him selfe Secondly what reason is there to conferre the being of one body in one place or to know whether God can make it to be in two or more places with the essence of God which is one incomprehensible c. séeing that such things being numbred appertain to the essence of God And to be able to make a body in many places belonges not proprely to him nor is referred to the same Thirdly the ministers say that God by his woorde hathe declared his will concerning that he was one which serues nothing to the present matter But pardoning them those follies how dare they compare with the essence of God that which is in contention of the being of one body in one or diuers places séeing God hath neuer sayd that he could not do it as he hath pronounced manifestly al the other perfections which appertaine to the diuine essence by which may be espied that it suffiseth the ministers to fill the paper withoute grounding their opinion vpon any substantiall reason Séeing they take for reproche when they haue any woord cutte of notwithstanding the sense remaine whole we maruell they feared not to receiue the like Obiections from vs as in the Article where is mention made of the definition of a body they conceale that which giues solution to their difficultie we defined a body to be a kinde of quantitie constant of thrée dimensions length largenesse and depth which definition comprehendes all the essence of a body which is of the predicament of quantitie neither is there mention made of the circumscription of place in any sorte the ministers say that by our definition we limite the body and therefore it is circumscripte but they haue left out this litle woorde place maliciouslie as is to be supposed For the question is not whether a body be limitted or not séeing no man saithe it is infinite But the Question lies whether it be circumscript of place essentiallie so that it cannot be a body if it be not in place wherin bicause they could not Aunswere to the argumente they haue cut of that which was against them The foure next Articles are woorthy of no newe Replie and therefore we sende the Readers to that which hath bene sayd before only it is a great matter that the ministers hold that a miracle can not be done in the bodye of Iesus Christe without chaunge of his nature imposing that opinion vppon Iustine who as well as other Auncientes hathe sayde and maintained that the body of Iesus Christe without chaunge of nature did passe thorowe the doores although the operation of the miracle was done in the nature of the bodye without chaunging it but in giuing it a qualitie and spiritual perfection aboue the natural qualities of a body that is suttelty With like boldnesse the ministers call the Scripture for the place of the Camell to passe thorowe the eie of a néedle a parable and similitude as they doe that of the supper and al others which resist their errors and to escape they say that God saues not the riche man if he be not chaunged and conuerted And so they say he can not bring to passe that a Camell passe thorowe the eie of a néedle withoute diminution and chaunge of his greatnesse But the ministers doe not admonishe that when oure Lord spake of the entrie of a Riche man into the kingdome of Heauen he put not the difficultie proprely in the entrie to the kingdome but in the conuersion of the Riche man whereby he may obtaine the entrie and possession of Heauen wherfore when our Lord sayth that it is more easie to God to make a Camell or Cable enter by the eye of a Néedle than a Riche man into the kingdome of heauen he meanes to compare the conuersion of a riche man which is impossible to men to the passage of a Camell being in his grosenesse otherwayes as there should be no likelihoode of difficultie so our Lorde would not say that suche a thing was impossible to men We say further that we haue not produced this place as to proue the penetration of dimensions proprely but to shew that God may bring to passe that a body occupie a place which shall not be proportioned to his greatnesse which is as muche againste the nature of grose and thicke bodies as that one body be in diuers places Where the ministers glory in that they are not constrained to confesse any thing of the doings of God alleaged oute of the scripture by the Doctors it foloweth not that the said Doctors haue broughte forthe vaine reasons to enforce and conuince them referring themselues to the Actes of the conference And touching to know if God could do such miracles alleaged aboue the nature of a body the ministers can not escape what euasion so euer they pretend that they are not coÌ„uinced to haue denyed as well the power as the fact though not openly yet at the least couertly For affirming that God can not bring to passe that one body be in diuers places bicause it dothe impugne the order he hathe established in the worlde his wisdome also and his will which dispose all by good order and that it was against the nature of the bodie if there may be as muche saide as truely there may of all the other things mentioned touching a body with like reasons in confessing the one they must necessarily confesse all the other as containing like reason wherunto the ministers haue secretely accorded being not able to giue any difference nor shewe why God can not doe the one and be able to doe the others And albeit they will neuer confesse the debt nor yelde as ouercome as they vaunt yet there is no maruell seeing it is the nature of Heretikes to become obstinate and resist the truthe what reasons so euer are proponed The Scribes and Pharisies neuer confessed to be ouercome of the Lord notwithstanding his arguments were irreprocheable Likewise albeit such as contended against S. Steuen had no more to Answer yet they forbare not to resist the holy spirite that spake in him euen as the ministers resiste the selfe same holy spirite speaking by the scripture the mouth of the Ancient fathers of miracles done in the body of Iesus Christe aboue nature which the ministers impugne I know not by what vain and friuoious escapes Touching this matter S Ierome saith heretici conuinâ—â— possunt non
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
pretend any right to exalt the power glorye of God by such a confusion and hotchpotche of all matters together Moreouer we let the Ministers vnderstande that wyth better reason we could returne vppon them the conclusion they pretende to inferre of the subtiltye and art of Sathan the same being as they write that vnder a godlye pretence of pietie Sathan in the maner of a Serpent slides into the Church of God to the ende to plant their disorder and at last to set vpon euen God himselfe Let euerye one sée and consider in himselfe if this be not the true enterprise of the Ministers both by their deductions and generallye the principall poyntes of their doctrine For vnder a farie pretence to roote vp certayne abuses and errours whiche falsely they séeke to persuade the world to be in the catholike Church against Gods word and vnder colour of preaching that they searche to exalt the name of the Lord they go about to dispoyle God of hys properties and perfections notwithstanding they declare it not no more than Sathan opened his intent to the first man. The Ministers besides deface the merite and efficacye of the blood of Iesus Christ and by their doctrine open the gate to all vices and synne For proofe wherof albeit we should spare to repeate what they haue holden of the power of God yet their writinges stand as their accusers onelye in good resolution although they vtter faire spéeche God can doe no more as they holde than it pleaseth them to receiue of hys wysedome and wyll which they disguise after their sense when it is founde declared in the scripture Agaynst the bountye of God they hold that he is author and worker of euyll and synne Against his mercy they teache that he neyther doth nor wyll pardon a man that hath impugned by malice the knowledge of the truth or resisted it Against the merite of the blood of Iesus Christ and passion of the crosse they haue written in proper tearmes that if Iesus Christ had dyed onelye by the anguishes of corporall death and the effusion of all his bloud he had done nor profited nothing for our redemption If being vpon the crosse and afore hys death he had not endured the payne of the damned in his soule with other horrible blasphemies contayned in the article of his discention in to hell They instruct also their adherentes that manslaughter adultery robbery theft sacriledge and all other crime what soeuer are but veniall synnes to the predestinate whom they say are neuer out of Gods grace whatsoeuer they do Assuring their faythfull and such as stand in their Church to beleue constantly that they be in grace and predestinate which in playne spéeche though they would otherwyse excuse it is to giue full licence to do all euyll With sundry other articles whiche we intende to verifie as the matter requires But if they denye these poyntes to bée wrytten and published in their secte the places in Calums bookes which we haue noted in the Margent are to giue witnesse In effect that is the glorye of God and hys Sonne Iesus Christ whereunto the Ministers incline and tende by the extirping of the pretended impieties mencioned in manye articles of their last resolution To aunswer the which in short spéeche we saye that some are spitefullye and falselye layed vppon the catholyke Churche by the Ministers others be expresselye written in holye Scripture and others drawne out of the same and confirmed by the tradition of the Apostles and vniuersall consent of the first Christian churche except the slaunderous impositions which in euery article the Ministers doo adde And so in tyme and place we wyll declare and proue by péecemeale if the pacience of the Ministers wyll consent to handle euerye difficultie in hys place But if they continue to cauell withall to put confusion in the doctrine we protest to aunswer them with scoffes For the rest they bable much of Gods power in general alledging that we ought to take certaine knowledge of it by the Scriptures whiche wée haue alwayes aduowed vnto them They say also that it is infinite and incomprehensible but when we offer particularities to knowe wherein omnipotencie consistes then they forget the holye scriptures and without them measure it according to the wisdome and eternall wyll of God and the order established in the world yea and as if they were without all remembraunce that that almightynesse were infinite they wrest it to a condition propertie and naturall order of creatures as if to do anye thing against or aboue the order condition and naturall propertye of the sayd creatures were a thing repugnaunt to the wysedome nature and wyll of god This is the short resolution which we may gather of their opinion touching the omnipotencie of God the same appearing in their papers and answers giuen to vs wherin touching S. Augustine produced by them we haue sufficiently aunswered before Where the Ministers lay vpon vs to hold as a sufficient argument that a case being done of God declares that hée could do it we referre our selues to our writinges whereof our resolution and obiections containe all the contrarye We are also slaundered by the Ministers to affirme that faith contrarieth nature euery way onely we sayd that ordinarily the contradiction done to fayth founded vppon the worde procéedes of the consideration of thinges naturall against the power of God. Touching Abraham the scripture of Genesis wytnesseth alwayes that hée and hys wyse made a certaine difficultye touching the promise of God and considered corpus suum emortuum et mortuam vuluam Sarâ—ae vntyll he hearde the assurance of the omnipotencie as also S. Paule speakes ynough of Abraham since his first vocation till after that assurance without putting distinction in the historye of that which was afore or after suche assuraunce according to the saying of the Apostle that he did not consider corpus suum emortuum resting vpon the assurance of the power and promise which had bene made to him We say we haue better concluded touching the fayth we ought to haue of the power of God to make one body in diuers places than the Ministers who haue no woord of God to assure their faith and beliefe that God cannot do it or that it impugnes his wisedome prouidence and eternall vertue or the humanitie of Iesus Christ yea onely the nature of a simple body But touching all this the Ministers truste in their presumption and particular reuelation without one onely place of the scripture whereupon they maye settle or rest their opinion Where of the contrary we haue grounded our faith not onely touching the power of God to bring to passe that a body be in diuers places but also to beleue the fact and that God would it so vpon the holye Scripture as appeares in our resolution together with the places of the auncientes alledged for that purpose the same being so manifest that as the Ministers are not able to gainsay them so
caÌ„ change the order which he hath established in nature then he caÌ„ also bring to passe that one bodie at one time be in many places we denie the consequence and by this reason suche a case would not only chaunge the order but also woulde intangle contradiction which euen by the Confession of the Doctors is out of the omnipotencie of God. In the Article folowing they doe the same which they reproche in vs as darkening that which we clearely proponed in our last wryting by meane whereof if they will that we Answere them at large let them vnfolde it better Where the Doctors accuse vs to haue malitiously concealed this woord place in the matter of circumscription of a body measured we say it was not néedeful to vse that woord expresly there bicause there is no man so ignorant who vnderstanding that a body is circumscripte inferreth not immediatly that then he is comprehended in a certaine place Touching the Camell if they suffice not with that hathe bene already saide let him read againe S. Ieromes opinion in his firste Booke againste the Pelagians who expounding the woords of Iesus Christe saithe as foloweth in this the Lord hath not saide that which might be done but hath compared one impossibilitie with an other for as a Camel caÌ„ not enter the hole of a needle so a rich man shal not enter into the kingdome of heauen or if thou shewe me that a rich man entreth there it shall folowe also that a Camell may passe thorowe the hole of a needle doe not alleage to me Abraham and others whom we reade in the olde Testament to be riche and being suche did enter into the kingdome of heauen bicause they vsing their riches well and employing them to good woorkes did cease by that meane to be riche thus it is written in S Ierome So that as it is necessary by his opinion that for the saluation of the riche man there be a chaunge in his heart and that he forbeare to be riche to the ende to enter into the kingdome of heauen so there muste be mutation in the Camell and he to chaunge his proportion to make him passe thorowe the eie of a néedle Touching the Article folowing we say that with gods grace we can discerne the light froÌ„ darknesse dreames froÌ„ mater of truth the same being the occasion that we cannot approue either the argumentes or the conclusions of the Doctours touching one body to be in many places at one instant being most assured by good and certaine testimonies of the Scripture that all that they go about to proue proceedes not from other where than of the spirite of errour and lyes Who by this meanes labours to retayne the impietie and idolatrye which heretofore he hath established in the world to the destruction almost of all Christendome Touching the Verbe Diâ—rchestaâ— the Doctors finde them selues somewhat troubled to saue their penetracion whych they cannot any way ground vpon the proper signification of that tearme neither yet vpon any authority of the scripture as hath bene to them by the places heretofore produced To proue that faith comes partlie of our selues and not wholy of God the Doctors alledge that no man beleues nisi volens which is that no man beleues but willingly we answer that vnder correction of our Maisters that is to euyll purpose bicause suche wyll and consent are of God who workes in the faithfull the wyll and well doyng the same being very well taught by S. Augustine in one of hys Epistels where he saith that when God cals the faithfull to saluation he findes in them no good wil at al but that he makes and creates it in their heartes if he meane to finde it there That which the Doctors alledge of S. Paule that we worke with God serues no way to their purpose For the Apostle speaketh therof the Minister not meaning there other thing than that which he writes more clearely to the Corâ—â—â—â—â—â—s in these wordes we are Embassadours of Christ as if God exhorted by vs And that which they adde that none of the auncient Doctors haue taught that a body cannot bée in diuers places at one time we saye they haue As our former writinges haue proued as being alledged in the textes of S. Augustine ad Dardanum and in the .30 treatise of S. Iohn We aunswer onely to two pointes of the aduertisement of the Doctors The first is that our sermons our writings the discipline obserued in our Churches the censures wee make of the slaunders there committed the care we haue to discouer reprehende and correct them the payne we take to reforme what is there disordered the publike prayers we make in all places to that ende defende vs towardes all honest men and iustifie vs agaynst the slaunders of the Doctors The seconde is that the Doctors abuse their aduertisement in saying that Abraham doubted of the promise the same beyng all together contrarye to the opinion of the Apostle in the fourth to the Romaines where he sayth in proper tearmes he made no doubt of the promise of God by distrust but was strengthened by faith giuing glory to God. To aunswer the last obiection of the Doctors made as they say against our aunswere giuen to their former question vpon the matter of the supper how soeuer they fayne not to haue delayed the conference and disputation of the Supper and the Masse yet they are not able to persuade any of any iudgemeÌ„t that hetherunto they haue not alwaies and yet do not shift off to enter into it For what requestes so euer came from the Lady of Buyllon or at any time made by vs yea notwithstanding the desire wyl many meanes made by the Duke of Nyuernois to drawe them to it yet they haue stand alwaies vnwylling yea and as it were impossible to enter vpon these two pointes The which when wée well perceiued contayning notwithstanding our desire not to depart from them tyll wée had first conferred therein We often protested not to dispute further with them if those two articles were not first decided and resolued To which ende we proponed certaine argumentes as well of the one as the other by order and good Methode to the end they might aduise what they wold oppugne and gaynsay in the sayd argumentes But the doctors dissimuling herein in place to pursue theÌ„ propone other friuolous and vnprofitable questions drawne out of theyr schoole diuinitie And notwithstanding our iust occasion of greefe in that our arguments were omitted by the Doctors yet to cut of all further pretence or colour to defer we haue answered their last questions And now in place to followe our answers reuerse them if thei had meane they propone eftsoones other new questioÌ„s no lesse friuolous than the first the same reuealing sufficiently their fansies dissimulation with discouery to euery man that they disguise their wyl to conferre vpon the sayd pointes seing they do what they can to alter the
vocation is necessary to suche effecte But not that this vocation is the imposition which they pretend assuring our selues that our vocation is more lawfull and better grounded than that of the Doctors Where the Doctors in the Article folowing alleage that we haue not Answered them to their sufficient liking touching the partes of the sacrament and the woord required for the consecration of the matter in the same we Aunswer that in our wrytings is no ambiguitie no darke sense nor any inuolution but suche as the Doctors list to finde there wherin as we lay our selues vppon the iudgement of the vpright hearers So also it becomes no more straunge to vs that the doctors chalenge vs of darke wryting than it was to S. Paul that his gospell was hid and couered to those that perished whose vnderstandings the God of this world had blinded Touching the presence of Iesus Christe in the supper wherin they would vrge vs to declare more amplie than in our former Aunswer we say we haue Aunswered sufficient clearly notwithstanding the doctors rest not satisfied wherof we make no greate maruell as knowing that they haue seldome in custome to be contented onlesse we consent both to their demaundes and desires which we are not nowe setled to do and much lesse that our Aunswer excéede the limits and bounds of the scripture neither in this Article of the supper nor in others but onely to folow the phrases and manners of spéeche of the same as neere as we can possibly By meane wherof for a full and resolute Aunswer we acknowledge no other eating of the flesh and bloud of Iesus Christe whether in or out of the supper than that which Iesus Christ declares in the sixth Chapter of S. Iohn who eateth my fleshe and drinketh my bloud he hath life euerlasting also he that eateth my fleshe and drinketh my bloude he dwelles in me and I in him as the liuing Father hath sent me so I goe thither bicause of my father and he that shall eate me shall liue also bicause of me Vppon the last Article which is of the concomitance we Aunswer that the Doctors demaunde was not so harde that we conceiued it not only we dissembled it as not to lose time to speake and write of such dreames wherin also we iudged the Doctors of sufficient suttletie to vnderstande that in denying them Transubstantiation was not to approue their concomitance And nowe to satisfie them we make this addition not to seke to know more than that which Iesus Christ teacheth in his woord that in the supper to participate in his flesh crucified and blud shed for remission of sinnes we must take and eat the bread and drinke the wine which are administred and not deuide or separate them in any sort the same being also defended by the Canons De confecr dist 2. Cum omne crimen Wedensday the fourtenth of August the yeare aforesaide This wryting being dispatched and sent away the Ministers not long after went to the Lord of Neuers with declaration that for their parts they had at large handled this coÌ„ference as finding the doctors by their impertinent and vain questions hitherto to séeke only to winne time without any aduauncement at al of the solution of the supper the Masse And albeit they disguised their demaundes as necessarily to tend to a prepratiue for this disputation yet they contained no other purpose than not at all to enter the conference but rather to kéepe things in suspence vntil they grew weary by which meanes this holy purpose mighte altogither dissolue breake in the ends they besoughte him humbly to aduise the Doctors without vaine varietie or change of matter to auoide the difference and refute that which the Ministers had maintained of the supper and defend that which they had coÌ„demned of the Masse wherein they obtained his promisse which gaue them a hope of profitable matter héereafter and such as might serue to edifie the readers and purge the greatest abuse and error that then occupied the Romishe Church All this notwithstanding there ran immediately a brute thorow the towne that Vigor was falne into a dangerous sicknesse without likelihoode of spéedy recouery the same giuing a feare to the Ministers to be intercepted in their laste hope which they doubted so muche the more as at the instant they were told that Doctor Sainctes was also gone out of Paris to the Cardinal of Loraine by which they could not otherwayes presume than that they should be enforced to a long abode in Paris without any sette exercise to occupie the time as being come thither but by chance for Spyna but made it in his way to passe into Aufon and for the other being Minister to the Church of Orleans it was not long since he was taken out of prison whether he was led in Iune afore vpon a false imputation by the enimies of Gods Churche charging him to be Author of a most pernitious wicked Boke written against the obedience to Kings and Princes by which he founde it very inconuenient for him to tarie so long in the Towne whether he came not at the first willingly For these respects they resolued eftsones to returne to the Lord of Neuers and also to tel him that séeing doctor Sainctes who might haue taried and drawne to him in Vigors place some other at his plesure was departed without any aduertisement of his returne there was also no reason of their abode stil as wel in respect of the incertaintie of their businesse as also that their Churches had neede of them for the exercise of their charge as they desired notwithstaÌ„ding in the end they yelded to their propre incommoditie as to remaine there vntil the Lord of Neuers parted from Paris which shuld be vpon the ende of August being minded then to go to a Lordship of his called Conlomiers for then hauing neither the presence of the Lord of Neuers nor the company of the Doctors the Ministers were at a gaze as hauing nothing to doe nor any man to dispute withall Vpon these declarations the Lorde of Neuers deliuered them their pasport in wryting signed Lodouico de Gonzague with promisse to send vnto them the Answer of the Doctors that by the meane of the Lord de Buci S. Georg who vndertoke the charge of the businesse The Ministers for their parts promised also to be ready to returne to Paris either els to Answer from the place where they should remaine as often as the Doctors would wryte This businesse being thus setled the Ministers departed immediatly with expectation of some spéedie newes froÌ„ the Doctors from whom as yet they haue hard neither argumeÌ„t nor effect only they haue hard that thorow the citie of Paris there hathe bene publike sale of certaine wrytings within whose titles is included this woord of conference as to make séeme to the worlde that they contained matter touching the former disputations this policie was not without great profite to the Printers so vehemente was the desire of men to knowe the truthe for whose satisfying and contentment we thought good to spred abrode the matter as it passed in déede reseruing till an other time to publish that which the doctors would wryte against it if they will wryte at all and also the Ministers Answeres which shall neuer faile In the meane while let euery one make his profite of the present Contentes with prayer to the Father of all lighte to poure more and more the cleare lighte of his spirite vpon his Church in the true vnderstanding of his holy woorde for the restoring and aduauncement of the spirituall kingdom of Iesus Christe his Sonne our Lorde FINIS 2. Tim. 3. 2 Pet. Rom. 15. Iames 1. Luke 16. Luke 2. Sorbonae a College of Papists in Paris Cap. 7.18 Rom. 12.6 Cap 59. 21. Deut. 28. Rom. 8.9 Chap. 2.20.27 1. Tim 3 15 Psal. 30. Chap. 13. Hebrues 13. Rom. 10. Hebr. 11. Rom. 10. Iohn 24. Luk. 24. Hebr 12. Iohn 8. 1. Timo. 2 Hebr. 6. Actor 12. Actor 5. Luke 24 Lib. 4. Cap. 17. Sect. 29. Hebr. 4.14 Iohan. 12. Act. 7. King. 1.11 Iohn 6. Ephe. 2. Psal. 7.5.2.8 1. Cor. 15. 2. Cor. 6. 1. Cor. 1. Iohn 14 Ephe. 3. Iohn 17. 1. Cor. 4.13 Rom. 10. Iohn 6. 1. Cor. 10. Math. 26. 1. Cor. 11. Gene. 17. Exod. 12. Tit. 3. epist. â—3 â— Corrin 1. Cor. 1. In a Sermon of the supper Chap. 16. Hom. 17. epist. 29. Agaynst Faustine 1. Cor. 11. Sermo 3. ad Ephesi