Anſwere.

Touching the firſt Article, the Miniſters neuer ſaid (as may appeare by the reading of all the former anſweres) that their religion is founded on their particular reuelations; but vpon the word of God, as is propoſed in the writings of the Prophets and Apoſtles. Of the truth whereof, they haue ſaid to be principally aſſured by the • eſtimoni • and reuelation of the holy ſpirit. They alſo ſay, that faith is not the truth (to ſpeake properly): but the perſwaſion of the truth, which in the ſcripture • s • aught vs. Moreouer, that this faith is not of our owne getting▪ but a pure gi • t of God: adding, that the Miniſters to make them lawfull • , ought to bee ſent not from the pretended Paſtors, which haue not but the • y • le, and onely name of Paſtors: but ought to be ſent from God, a it appeareth in Ieremy: where this marke is propoſed, to knowe and marke a falſe Paſtor or Shepheard when hee thruſteth in himſelfe, or is ſent of an other then of God.

Touching the article following, they adde that the true marke whereby one may certainly iudge of the reuelation, is rather the word of God, then the conſent of many: for as much as it oft times happeneth, that the multitude in the Church, declining from the word doo altogether erre: as in the time of Micheas, the time of Ieſus Chriſt, and afterward alſo of Constance the Emperour.

Concerning the Prophets, which doo follow they • owne ſpirite (as bee thoſe which leaue the word of God, and depend vppon the commaundements and traditions of men, or on the vanitie of their owne ſence) there is no doubt but they are falſe Prophets; and that ſuch perſons are to bee ſhunned and reiected. But great difference muſt bee put betweene the reuelations and teſtimonies of the ſpirit of God, and the vaine imaginations of the hearts of men.

Touching that which the Doctors haue ſet foorth, that heretikes (as Anabaptiſts and others) doo vſe for confirmation of their errors, the texts of ſcripture alledged by the Miniſters. It may ſo bee, for as much as the ſcripture beeing common, may bee produced and alledged of eue • ie one. And yet men muſt not ſtay vpon that which is alledged: but weigh and examine how and to what end and purpoſe it is alledged: and in ſo dooing, men ſhall knowe the difference betweene the Miniſters and heretikes.

And concerning that produced of Brentius and Bucer, namely, wherein they affirmed, that by the onely tradition of the Church, the Canonicall bookes may be diſcerned from the Apocrypha. This it ſeemeth cannot well ſerue the Doctors, ſeeing they maintaine all the bookes of the Bible to bee Canonicall: and neuertheleſſe by that they haue ſaid of Brentius and Bucer, it appeareth that the one and the other, following the tradition (as they ſay) put a diſtinction therein: calling the one Canonicall, and the other Apocrypha.

Touching the Article following, wherein the Doctors alledge certaine textes of the auntient Fathers, to take away the difference betweene the bookes Canonicall and Apocrypha. The Miniſters do anſwer, that as they haue alledged ſome to proue the ſame; ſo can they alſo for their part alledge ſome to that purpoſe: as Saint Ierome in his Prologue called Galeatus; and in an other which beginneth Frater Ambroſius: vnto whom, writing the ſumme of euery booke of the Bible, hee mentioneth thoſe onely which the Miniſters call Canonicall.

They may alledge alſo two or three Catalogues recyted in Euſebius: which they receiue not for Canonicall bookes; but thoſe which the Miniſters themſelues approue. Moreouer, the Councell of Laodicia, which the Doctors haue alledged, is for the Miniſters: for as much as it comprehendeth not the bookes in queſtion. And touching the experience, they anſwere: that it is a queſtion of fact: and that it may be alledged, rather againſt the Doctors, then the Miniſters. And finally, that they looſe not more time in often repeating of one ſelfe-ſame thing, but haſten to conferre of the points of the confeſſion, which the Doctors will debate. The Miniſters do ſhewe, that the 24. bookes of the old Teſtament, which are in the Canon of the Hebrewes, with all the bookes of the new Teſtament, be on both ſides approued Canonicall. And they are wholly ſufficient to decide all the points of their confeſſion, & all that in generall which appertaineth to true religion. And by meanes thereof, they haue no cauſe at all to drawe backe from the Conference, for the difference betweene both parties, touching the diſtinction of the bookes Canonicall and Apocrypha.

Obiection.

Although the Miniſters doo affirme, that they build their Religion vpon the word of God, yet build they Gods word vpon their inward reuelation. So that ſuch a reuelation is the foundation of the Word, and conſequently of their religion. For they receiue not for the word of God, but that which they thinke to bee particularly reuealed to them.

Touching the other Article, wherein they finde fault that the Doctors haue ſaid, that faith is obtained by hearing of the word of God, it ſeemeth they will ſtay vpon ſmall things, becauſe they will not goe to the principall. And where they ſay, that faith is the gift of God, and therefore is not gotten▪ it is too plaine by manifold texts of Scripture, that one ſelfe-ſame thing to be giuen and obtained, is not repugnant. As the kingdome of heauen, which is giuen to the bleſſed, and notwithſtanding men obtaine it by true faith, working by charitie. And the ſcripture it ſelfe dooth Heb. 13.call it a reward, and recompence of good workes. And Saint Paul ſaith: that by liberalitie and almeſdeeds, the grace of God is gained. Yea that which Saint Paul ſaith, Fides ex auditu: Faith commeth by hearing, cannot otherwiſe be vnderſtood, but that faith commeth by hearing the word of God, which is the obtaining thereof, by the meane of hearing the word preached; although it be a gift of God. The like ſubtiltie they vſe, willing to reproue that which hath bene ſpoken, that faith is the truth reuealed: as putting great difference betweene the truth reuealed, and the reuelation of truth. Meet it were, that the ſubtiltie were vaileable I. Cor. 1. 10againſt S. Paul, who ſaith: Panis quem frangimus nonne communicatio corporis Domini eſt? The bread which wee breake, is it not the communion of the body of the Lord? Which is as much to ſay, as Panis fractio nonne, &c. The breaking of the bread, is it not, &c. And therefore to ſpeake properly, it behoueth that the text of S. Paul bee ſubiect to ſuch reprehenſions. And as touching this article, that they may not enter thereinto, albeit the Miniſters do reply; the Doctors will ſay no more of it: as beeing a thing too much impertinent. For in the end, ſhould we ſpeake of Merit, and from that matter fall into an other.

It troubleth them to deale with the vocation of lawfull Miniſters of the Church; and to eſchew that matter, would not alledge (what they might without ſtraying) that firſt before we receiue their doctrine, it was meete to examine, whether they were Miniſters lawfully ſent from the true Church, to preach the word of God, and in their preachings to be heard of the people, according to the text of S. Paul Rom. 10.aboue alledged. Which thing, had they of the new Religion well conſidered, a very ſufficient argument ſhould they haue had for not receiuing of their doctrine, becauſe it is more cleare then the day, that they be not Miniſters ſent by the Paſtors of the Church but thruſt in themſelues to preach, vnable to ſhewe any ſigne of their calling from men, and much leſſe from God. And were it lawfull for euery one to preach the word, which ſaith he is ſent, there would be infinite Sects: as we ſee at this time haue happened. And they ſay no more of this matter, for feare to aggrauate theſe things any further.

Touching the Article, where mention is made, how a man may knowe that a reuelation is of Ood: where it is ſaid by the Miniſters, that men ſhould rather know it by the word, then by the conſent of many: that maketh nothing to the purpoſe of the Doctors. For the queſtion is, how a man ſhould iudge a booke to containe the word of God, and not to iudge of the doctrine, by the word alreadie receiued. The Doctors would willingly deſire, and doo pray the Miniſters to anſwere directly to the very point. Touching that they haue ſaide, Of the conſent of many. The Doctors ſaid not ſo, but ſpake of the conſent of the Church, which is alſo as infallible, as the word of God. For as it is certaine that the holy Ghoſt is author of the Word; ſo alſo is it certaine, that hee is the ſoule of the Church: by whoſe conduct ſhe can neuer erre: witneſſe S. Paul, who calleth her Columnam & firmamentum veritatis. The ground and pillar of truth. But they will not enter into this queſtion, whether the multitude of the Church may erre or not.

Neuertheleſſe it will not be found • ithens the Church was planted after the death of Ieſus Chriſt, that ſhee hath bene of leſſe number, then the Sects of heretikes. And that alledged of Constance, and of the time of the olde Teſtament ſeru • th nothing to that purpoſe: for there is great difference betweene the Synagogue of the Iewes and the Church: which is the congregation of all Nations beleeuing in Ieſus Chriſt, and which cannot be or conſiſt, but in a moſt great multitude: otherwiſe the promiſes made to the Church of the Gentiles, ſhould be vaine: for it is ſaid to Abraham that his • eed (this muſt not bee vnderſtood of the carnall) ſhould be multiplied as the ſtarres of heauen, and the ſand of the ſea.

Concerning the Article which beginneth, Touching the Prophets, &c. The Doctors do ſay, that they confeſſe there is great difference betweene phantaſticall imaginations, and the reuelation of the holy Ghoſt: but the Miniſters doo not anſwere how they would proue their particular perſwaſions, to be reuelations, rather then the vaine and fooliſh imaginations of the Prophets, which Ezechiel ſpake of. The which notwithſtanding they called inſpirations: and what they ſaid, and preached, they called alſo the Word of God.

Concerning the Article which beginneth, Touching the Anabaptiſts, &c. The Doctors ſay, that to one ſelfe-ſame end, doo the Miniſters and Anabaptiſts wholly produce the ſelfe-ſame places, of which mention is made: that is to ſay, to ſtay and aſſure their doctrine to be of God, becauſe therof they haue particular reuelation, as God hath promiſed them by the Prophets. And for this ſelfe-ſame cauſe, haue the Miniſters produced the ſaid teſtimonies of the ſcripture, to proue that euery faithfull man may indge by his particular inſpiration, if a booke do containe the word of God: and diſtinguiſh a booke Canonicall from Apocrypha: to iudge and diſcerne the true doctrine from the falſe: which is the ſelfe-ſame foundation of the Anabaptiſts and other heretikes.

To that Article which beginneth, touching that which is produced of Brentius, &c. The Doctors ſay: that the Miniſters haue not well conceiued their meaning. For they bring not the ſaying of Brentius and Bucer, but onely becauſe they ſay, that they know the Canonicall bookes of the holy Scripture, by the tradition of the Church, and not by particular inſpiration, as the Miniſters.

Touching the Article following, the Doctors ſay: there was a time when ſome made doubt of certaine bookes of the Scripture: as of the Apocalips, the Canonicall Epiſtle of S. Iohn, and others. But in time the Church guided by the holy Ghoſt, with common conſent receiued indifferently for Canonicall, all the bookes that bee in the Bible; which conſent (continued by ſo many hundred yeares) hath more authoritie then the ſayings of one or two: the which neuertheleſſe, ſpake not but of their owne time. And further, there is no compariſon betweene the ſayings of one or two particular men, & the determinations of Councels, and conſent of the Church: as hath already beene ſayd. And it will be found, that S. Ierom hath approoued theſe bookes as Canonicall. And for the ſame, will referre themſelues to the Prologue which hee made vpon the bookes of the Macabees, where he ſaith: Touching the Hebrewes, they are not Canonicall hiſtories of the Church: or other wordes to the like effect. For the Councell of Laodicia, they referre Inter diuinorum voluminum anotantur Hiſtoria • .them to that which is contained therein. It may bee, they are deceiued, in cyting one Councell for another. For the Article beginning, Touching the experience, &c. Although it be a queſtion of fact: yet it ceaſeth not to be much auailable. And if it be found as the Doctors haue propoſed, (of which they doubt nothing) the foundation of their particular reuelation is ouerthrowne.

Touching the Miniſters concluſion: the Doctors doo ſhew, that they haue oft times complained, they fell into by-matters. They referre themſelues to the iudgement of all men, that their laſt reſolution was deducted all of one thread, continuing without ſtraying, in the ſame matter: In which, albeit they had found ſomething wherein difficultie had beene, had the Miniſters ſo much deſired to proceed to the conference of the chiefe pointes; they might briefely haue admoniſhed them of the ſaid difficultie. The Doctors vpon theſe articles had verily ſaid ſomething: but to haſten the buſines for the which they bee called, they do forbeare to multiply words.

Where the Miniſters ſhew, that they receiue the 24. bookes of the old Teſtament, with all the bookes of the Newe. The Doctors ſay: that that is not the point. For all the conference they haue made hitherto, that is to ſay: by what rules men might diſcerne ſome bookes from other ſome, and iudge whether they were of the Scripture or not, was to raunge them in this point, that they receiued them by the tradition of the Church: which is iudge of the number of the bookes: and by the ſame meanes, when the queſtion ſhould bee, of the vnderſtanding of the word of God (euen in the conference of the places of the ſame Scripture) the Miniſters and Doctors ſhould haue ſuch reuerence to the Catholique Church, that ſhe ſhould be of both parts accepted for iudge, of the vnderſtanding of the Scripture, which they acknowledg to haue receiued of the ſame: wherof ſhe is an infallible iudge, and more certaine, then the one or the other. And notwithſtanding the Doctors doo make offer to the Miniſters, that they will not vſe at this time againſt them, but thoſe bookes onely, which they receiue for Canonicall. But when they ſhall fall into difficultie of the interpretation of ſome text, or of the conference of many: the Doctors eſteeme it more reaſonable to haue recourſe to the Catholique Church, and to the auncient Fathers, then to their proper ſence, or that of the Miniſters.

Anſwere.

For concluſion, the Miniſters do accept of the offer made them by the Doctors, to decyde the pointes and articles of their Confeſſion, by the bookes Canonicall, whereof they are agreed: that is to ſay, the 24. bookes of the Hebrewes, and all the bookes of the new Teſtament: proteſting neuertheleſſe, that in the laſt writtings propoſed by the Doctors, there bee many things which they no wayes approoue, and doo hope to confute as occaſions ſhall bee offered: and would preſently haue done it, had it not beene that they will ſhew (againſt that imputed to them by the Doctors) that they will not ſtray, nor any way retyre from the conference of the points of their Confeſſion.

Reply.

The Doctors reciprocally do agree to the Miniſters in the ſaid offer: with this moderation, to ad the authoritie of the vniuerſall Church, and the auncient Doctors, for the interpretation and vnderſtanding of the holy Scripture, when they cannot agree.

The Reſolution of the Doctors.

THe Doctors enſuing the order alreadie begun, and their charge which is to conferre with the Miniſters, and afterwards to giue a reſolution for the inſtruction of my Lady of Buillon, vpon the two points propoſed yeſterday: to wit, whether the Apoſtles were authors of the Creed. And why we ought to beleeue it. They ſay, that to know whether the Apoſtles did make and erect the Creed, ought no more to be eſteemed a thing indifferent, then to know whether the Apoſtles be authors of their owne writings. For much more is the authoritie of them, when a man is aſſured that they are certainly proceeded from the Apoſtles. And contrariwiſe, it ſhould be far leſſe, if men did doubt therof, or eſteem it a thing indifferent. Moreouer they ſay, that it is no ſufficient reaſon to call this Creed Apoſtolike, and to intitle it, the Creed of the Apoſtles: in regard of the conformitie it hath with their writings. For by this reaſon, the other Creeds (as that of Nice, of Ath • n • ſius, and all other the like writings) may as well be named the Creed of the Apoſtles; becauſe they containe a doctrine agreeable to the Apoſtles writings. Therefore ſay the Doctors, it muſt be beleeued, that the Apoſtles did make it, and gaue the ſame Creed vnto Chriſtians▪ and that it muſt be beleeued, as being a writing compoſed by the Apoſtles. And their proofe thereof is, that they alwayes finde ſince the Apoſtles time vntil now, that this Creed hath bene propoſed in Baptiſme and Catechiſme: as it appeareth by the authors which haue beene from the Apoſtles vnto vs. And alſo that no man can name, or note any Author or Councell (but euen before that Author, or Councell, immediately to the Apoſtles time) that Creed hath beene propoſed in Baptiſme and Cat chiſme, and called among Chriſtians, the rule of faith. And the like argument S. Auguſtine in many places againſt the Donatiſts, doth eſteeme to be firme and in • incible, to proue and ſhew, that ſomething is from the Apoſtles.

They willingly omit to auoyd • ediouſneſſe, the auncient writers: as S. Ambroſe, S. Ierome, & others, who acknowledge this Creed to haue bene made and receiued, namely of the Apoſtles. For the ſecond point, the Doctors do affirme, that the bond and neceſſitie to beleeue this Creed, doth not depend o • the knowledge of the Apoſtolike or Prophetica •• ſcriptures, nor on the knowledge of the conformitie with them. For it was made and co •• ained among the Chriſtians in Baptiſme, before there was any Apoſtolike writing. And in Baptiſme they propoſed the ſaid Creed to be beleeued, before they ent • ed into the ſcripture, or to ſpeake thereof. And in the Primatiue Church, they examined the ſcriptures whether they were to be receiued or nor, and the vnde • ſtanding of them, and whether a doctrine were true or falſe by this Creed and rule of faith; and by it likeneſſe or conformitie with the ſame. Ireneus, Tertullian, and others, do teach it. And although it ſhould ſo happen, that a man had neuer heard but the Creed, without knowing whether there be holy ſcriptures or not, hee might beleeue the ſaid Creed, and be a true Chriſtian: ſo that hee were voyd of other particular falſe opinion. And contrariwiſe, if the beliefe of the Creed did depend vpon the knowledge of the Propheticall o • Apoſtolike ſcriptures, to vnderſtand and to be aſſured of the conformitie that is therein, as 〈◊〉 as to beleeue it 〈◊〉 none but the learned and well exerciſed in the ſcriptures (who ſhould bee aſſured of the ſaid conformitie) ſhould be bound to beleeue the Creed, or ſhould at leaſt be aſſured of the truth thereof. And ſo ſhould there he very fewe Chriſtians, Therfore the belle • ing of the Creed, doth not depend vpon the knowledge of the ſcriptures.

By meanes whereof the Doctors do hold by tradition of the Church 〈◊〉 by the holy Ghoſt, that the Creed is the Apoſtle and that none ought to doubt therof. And by the ſame tradition it muſt be beleeued, as 〈…〉 of the Apoſtles of like authoritie with that in their writings, although they had no knowledge of the other ſcriptures. And the Doctors are ſory that they haue ſo much declined from anſwering pertinently and abſolutely to theſe two points, which they haue onely propoſed to ſhew, what faith and authoritie men ought to giue to this Creed, and to all other doctrine receiued by tradition of the Apoſtles, (without Canonicall ſcripture) which they will proue to haue bene left by them; by the ſame meane and reaſon by which is ſhewed, the Creed to haue bin deliuered to the Chriſtians by the Apoſtles without that they put the ſame in writing. Finally the Doctors do admoniſh ſuch as read this Conference, not to be aſtoniſhed, nor ma • uell at ſo many perplexed declinings from the true end of the ſaid points propoſed. And do pray them to remember the conferences made by S. Auguſtine, with the Donatiſts and Pellagians: wherin they ſhall finde like maner of dealing, as that of the Miniſters, with whom they do conferre. And for the preſent Conference, referre themſelues to the readers iudgement.

The Reſolution of the Ministers.

THe Miniſters following that which before hath bene propoſed, and alwaies by them maintained; and for the confirmation alſo of the faith of the Lady of Buillon, ſay that it is vncertaine (as S. Ciprien hath written) whether the Creed, called the Apoſtles, was made & compoſed by them: or elſe drawne or gathered out of their doctrine: and why alſo it is called the Apoſtles Creed: or whether it is becauſe each of them added his part and portion therevnto: or elſe whether it be becauſe it is a marke and certaine enſigne of Chriſtian Religion. And as touching the ſame; that it is a thing indifferent to ſaluation: in as much as it hath alwaies one waight and authoritie, be it that the Apoſtles haue written it, or that it hath beene faithfully gathered out of theyr writings. So haue alſo the Creeds, as well of Nice, as of Athanaſius, whereof the Church hath neuer doubted, but that they containe a pure Apoſtolike doctrine, as ſhee hath euidently declared, in ordaining that the ſaid Nicen Creede ſhould bee publikely propoſed and publiſhed to the people, on the dayes of theyr aſſembly to communicate, which at this day is yet obſerued in the Church of Rome: where that Creed is read or ſung euery Sabaoth in their Churches. And did it not containe Apoſtolike doctrine, it ſhould withſtand the 59. Article of the Councell of Laodicia: in which it is forbidden to read in the Church, any thing propoſed of priuate inuention, but onely the doctrine compriſed in the Canonicall bookes of the old and new Teſtament, the number whereof is there made.

The Miniſters ſay further, that the reaſon and principall motiue of the faith which Chriſtians giue to the Creed, is the knowledge they haue, that it is the pure word of God, and him that teacheth it, do they alſo maintaine, to bee the word of God: as may appeare by that which S. Paul writeth: who after he had propoſed to the Corinthians, the 1. Cor. 15.death, buriall, and reſurrection of Ieſus Chriſt, which be the chiefe articles of the Creed, and thoſe vpon which principally iuſtification is grounded, addeth theſe words. That hee deliuered vnto them, that which he receiued: to wit, that Chriſt died for our ſinnes according to the ſcriptures; and that he was afterwards buried: and that he aroſe againe the third day, according to the ſcriptures.

Ieſus Chriſt alſo propoſing his death and reſurrection to the two Diſciples, alledged to them the ſcriptures, thereby Luk. 24.to aſſure them, ſaying: O fooles and ſlowe of heart to beleeue all that the Prophets haue ſpoken, ought not Chriſt to haue ſuffered theſe things, and to enter into his glorie? And hee began at Moyſes and the Prophets, and interpreted vnto them in all the ſcriptures, the things that were written of him. In the ſelfe-ſame Chapter, appearing after his reſurrection, euen before the Creed was made, propoſing vnto them his death and reſurrection; to aſſure them thereof, hee alledged vnto them the ſcriptures, ſaying: It is thus written, and thus it behoued Chriſt to ſuffer and riſe againe from the dead the third day. Whence may be inferred, that for the foundation of faith, and aſſurance of the articles of the ſame, there is no better means then to propoſe the ſcriptures. And although in the time of the birth of the Church, the Creed was propoſed to thoſe that were Catechiſed, before the Apoſtles and Euangeliſts had put any thing in writing: it followeth not therefore that there were no other ſcriptures, wherevpon euery article of the faith might be builded. And to decſare the ſame particularly, The article of the creation hath it foundation vpon the beginning of Geneſis. The article of the almightineſſe of God, hath it foundation vpon the 40. Chapter of Eſay, and diuers other places of the ſcripture. The article of the conception of Ieſus Chriſt, vpon the 7. Chapter of Eſay: For the place of his birth, vpon the 5. of Micheas: and in reſpect of the time, vpon the 49. of Geneſis, and the 9. of Daniel. The article of the death and of the Croſſe, vpon the 22. Pſalme, 53. Chapter of Eſay, and 9. of Daniel. The article of the Reſurrection vpon the 16. Pſalme. The article of the Aſcention, vpon the 68. Pſalme. The article of the iudgement, in Daniel, 12. The article of the ſending of the holy Ghoſt, in Ioel 2. The article of the Church, Eſay. 2. and Micheas. 4. The article of the remiſſiof ſinnes, vpon the 32. Pſalme, and 37. of Ezec. The article of the reſurrecton of the fleſh, and life eternall, in Daniel the 12.

By this diſcourſe, and places of ſcripture quoted, it may appeare to euery man, that there were cleare and euident ſcriptures to ground all the articles of the faith vpon, before the Creed was put in writing: and that men might & ought to alledge them to thoſe that were catechiſed, to aſſure them of that which was propoſed vnto them to be beleeued. And it is not poſſible that a man can beleeue, that hath not firſt heard and vnderſtood the Word: and that is not aſſured thereof, and holdeth it as certaine, and more alſo (were it poſſible) then things conceiued and compriſed by Mathematicall demonſtration: as it appeareth by the definition of faith, when the Apoſtle calleth it Hypoſtaſin, & elenchon. Heb. 11.That is to ſay, the euidence of things which are not ſeene. The Miniſters do adde, that it implyeth a contradiction, to call the Creed a doctrine not written▪ and yet to affirme that the Apoſtles haue written it. And they cannot ſhewe how long it was an vnwritten doctrine, and at what time it began to be written. And the Miniſters are much diſpleaſed, in that they which conferre with them, doo not more propoſe the edification as well of thoſe that bee preſent at this Conference, as of others which may ſee and read the Acts thereof. For where as they might handle and decide points tending to edification of the ſimple, they ſtay on propoſing and handling ſome things whereof they no way doubt: which is as much, as to proue a thing confeſſed, and reſolued on, and to light a candle at noone-day. And they aſſure themſelues, that they which ſhal read the acts of this Conference, will not at all bee abaſhed, becauſe they decline to treat of that point, whereof they be ſo oft required: for that (as Ieſus Chriſt ſaith) he that doth euill, fleeth the light.

For concluſion, the Miniſters do proteſt to confeſſe and beleeue, that the Creed of the Apoſtles, in euery article therof, is the pure word of God, and in the faith wherof, it behoueth euery faithfull man to ſtay and petſeuere vnto the end. So that they would no way receiue nor approue the man in their Churches, that ſhould denie, or ought doubted of the ſaid articles.

Reply.

The Doctors will proue, that the doctrine of the Miniſters containeth points contrarie to the principall articles of the Creed. The firſt is againſt the article of the Almightineſſe of God, when as they ſay and teach, that God cannot cauſe one body to be in two places. The ſecond is againſt the article of the creation, when as they ſay, that God not onely permitteth euil and ſinne to be done, but alſo himſelfe doth it. The third is, that one while they denie, and an other while they confeſſe for an article of faith, that the Virgin Marie remaineth a Virgin after her childe-birth. The fourth, that Ieſus Chriſt deſcended not into hell, but by imagination, and not really. Alſo ſay the Miniſters againſt the ſaid article, that Ieſus Chriſt diſpaired of his ſaluation vppon the tree of the Croſſe: that hee was troubled in conſcience, fearing to bee damned: and many other errors contained in this Article. Vpon which obiections, they warne the Miniſters to be readie to anſwere therevnto.

Anſwere.

The Miniſters will bee readie to anſwere to the ſlaunders aforeſaid.

The Anſwere of the Ministers to the Obiections of the Doctors, giuen on Tueſday the 16. of Iuly, 1566.

THe Miniſters deny, that the conſequence propoſed by the Doctors, (to wit: God cannot make one body to be in two places at one ſelfe-ſame inſtant. Therfore • e is not omnipotent) is neceſſary: For as much as the omnipotency of God ought not to be meaſured, but by the things only, which be agreeable to his will, and are not derogate, either to his nature, or to his wiſdome, or to his truth, or to the order he eſtabliſhed in the world. Vnto which, that directly repugneth, which the Doctors ſet forth: that one ſelfe ſame body, at one ſelfe-ſame inſtant, may be in diuers places. For it would follow, that a body ſhould be a body, without being limitted: And by conſequence, that it ſhould be, and not be, altogither. For the meaſures (as to be long, large, thicke, and to be bounded & limitted with certaine bounds) are ſo eſſentiall to a body, that without that, it is no more a body. And ſo farre of is it, that the Miniſters in ſo ſaying, do diminiſh the omnipotency of God: that contrariwiſe they eſtabliſh the ſame; and will not attribute to him any mutabilitie, and chaunge in his counſaile: nor any contradiction in his will, for feare to make him lye: which by the ſcripture is impoſſible to him.

And where the Doctors alledge frō the Fathers, that they haue not denied the omnipotency of God, The Miniſters haue heretofore ſhewed, that they haue: and in what caſe it may happen. Tertullian in his booke written againſt Praxeas, ſpeaking of this matter, ſaith as followeth: Surely nothing is hard vnto God. But if without iudgemēt we wil vſe this ſentence, and interpret it according to our fooliſh fantaſie, we may faine all things to be of God: and ſay, that he hath done them: becauſe he can do them. Now muſt it not be beleeued, becauſe he can do all things, that therfore he hath done, what he hath not done: but enquired whether he hath done it? And finally concludeth, that the power of God is his wil: and his inhabilitie, likewiſe his vnwillingneſſe. The Doctors then, to ſhew that he can do it, ſhould declare that God hath willed to make a body, which at one ſelfe-ſame inſtant hath bin in diuers places. And a maruellous thing it is, that they impute to the Miniſters, that they derogate from the omnipotency of God, when as they do except frō the ſame, what is contrary to his wil: ſeeing they themſelues do confeſſe it, and except the ſame things. And that there is no other difference between thē & the Miniſters, but that they ſay, that God maketh one body to be in diuers places, at one ſelfe inſtāt: becauſe he can do it. And the Miniſters ſay, that he doth it not, and cannot do it: becauſe he wil not do it. For as much (as is ſaid according to Tertullian) the power of god is his wil.

Touching the reaſon that the Doctors do alledge in Phiſoſophie, to proue, that a bodie, for being a bodie, doth not therfore leaue to be in diuers places: The Miniſters ſay, they ſuppoſe a falſhood. To wit, that quantitie is accidentall, and not eſſentiall to a body. For that (to wit, that a body is meaſured, bounded and circumſcript) is in ſuch ſort of it eſſence, that without that, it is no more a bodie. As S. Augustine him ſelfe, ſpeaking of the glorified body of Ieſus Chriſt, ſaith: That if ſpace be taken away from a body, there is no more place where it might be: and by conſequence, being no part, is no more at all. The reaſo of Philoſophie they propoſe, touching the firſt heauen; as, that it is not in any place: The Miniſters do denie it: for to ſpeake according to the language of the ſcripture, it muſt be confeſſed that there is place e • en Ioh. 14.aboue the heauens. As Ieſus Chriſt ſaid vnto his Diſciples; I go to prepare a place for you. And in the ſame place; In my Fathers houſe there are many manſions. And elſe where: Ioh. 12. 26.Where I am (taking the preſent time for the future) there ſhal my ſeruants be In the which ſentence muſt be obſerued, that there be aduerbes of place. And S. Auguſtine writing to Dardanus, expreſly ſaith: That it behoueth that the body of Ieſus Chriſt be in ſome place in heauē, becauſe it is a true body. Moreouer, in numbring of the errors ſometimes cōdemned by the facultie of Paris, it is expreſly ſaid: That the heauen by them called Empyreum, is the place of Angels, of bleſſed ſpirits, and glorified humane bodies. Where the Doctors pretend, that of the doctrine (which the Miniſters maintaine, that a body cannot be without place, nor in many places at one inſtant) may be inferred, that they blaſpheme the omnipotencie of God. The Miniſters contrariwiſe ſay, that the Doctors blaſpheme his Maieſtie, and diminiſh the ſame, in attributing to the creature that which appertaineth to him alone: to wit, to be vncircumſcript. As it appeareth by that which Didimus ſaith in his booke of the holy Ghoſt: where he proueth, that the holy Ghoſt is God, & not a creature, becauſe he is incircumſcript: and that al creatures neceſſarily be circumſcript, and limited. As much thereof alſo ſay S. Baſil, and Ʋigilius, and the Mr. of the ſentences in his firſt booke. Where they confeſſe, that the Angels and bleſſed ſpirits be circumſcript, although they be not corporall. This reaſon is againſt themſelues, and proper to proue what the Miniſters haue here aboue maintained of bodies: to wit, that it cannot be but that they be circumſcript in ſome place. For by an argument frō the leſſe to the more: If the Angels which want dimenſion and meaſure, (by their own confeſſion) in as much as they be creatures, be neceſſarily circumſcript: by a more ſtrong reaſon, the bodies of men, which be creatures, and meaſured, ſhall be ſo likewiſe.

And where they adde, that the auncient Fathers haue not ſaid, that one body by the power of God could not be in diuers places: That is contrary to the ſaying of S. Auguſtine, in his 30. tract vpon S. Iohn, which is recited De conſec: diſtinct▪ 2. C. Prima quidē. Where, ſpeaking of the body of Ieſus Chriſt, he ſaith: namely; It behooueth, that the body of our Lord, wherin he roſe again, be in one place: teaching therby, that at one ſelfe-ſame time, it cannot be in diuers places. And touching the reaſon they adde, taken frō the Sacrament, to proue their aſſertiō: the Miniſters ſay, that the fathers neuer vnderſtood, nor ſaid, that the body of Ieſus Chriſt was in heauen, and in the Sacrament, in one ſelfe ſame ſort & maner: nor do they teach, that he was otherwiſe then Sacramentally in the Sacrament.

And wheras in their reſolutiō they pretend to proue, that the Angels may at one ſelf inſtant be in diuers places, when the Miniſters ſhall haue vnderſtood their reaſons, then they wil anſwere therevnto. That which they ſay of a body, it being diſpoiled of it dimenſions, ceaſeth not to be a body notwithſtanding: is a very abſurd thing. For did it happen, that a corporal ſubſtance were wholly diſpoiled of it dimenſions, it ſhould no more be a body, but an incorporeall ſubſtance: & of like nature as the Angels & ſpirits. And although God by his power can ſeperate the dimenſiōs of a ſubſtance, without corrupting it: yet can it not be, that they be ſeperated frō a body, without the corruptiō of the ſame. Becauſe the quantitie & dimenſions are accidents of the ſubſtance, but not of the body: which cannot ſubſiſt without them, in as much as they be of it proper eſſence.

Whereas the Doctors ſay afterwards in their obiection, that the waight in a body, is a thing eſſentiall. The Miniſters do deny it. And the reaſon is, that were it of the eſſence of a bodie, and the ſame wanting, the bodie ſhould ceaſe to bee: Neuertheleſſe we ſee, that the glorified bodie of Ieſus Chriſt, (wherevnto the bodies of all the elect ſhall be like after the reſurrection) doth not leaue to be & ſubſiſt, although it be now exempted from all waight.

And as touching their alledged very ſtrong and mightie argument: That if two bodies may be in one ſelfe place togither, one body, at one inſtant, may be alſo in diuers places. The Miniſters not graunting the antecedent (vnder correction) ſay, that the conſequence is not good: and that the argument is very weake. Adding therto, that the Doctors haue nor prooued, and neuer can prooue by the ſcriptures, nor by any authoritie of the auncient Fathers, nor by any ſufficient reaſon, that which they propoſe in their antecedent, or the conſequent which they inferre thereof to be true.

Wheras the Doctors to proue that two bodies may be together in one ſelfe place, alledge out of the ſcripture, that Ieſus Chriſt entred into the houſe where his Diſciples were, the doores being ſhut: The Miniſters do anſwere: that it is not written, that he entred through the cloſed doores, but only the doores being ſhut: which the auncient Interpreter hath well giuen to vnderſtand, expounding in one of the places of S. Iohn, (where mention is made of that aboue ſaid) Cuum fores eſſent clauſae. Then when the doores were ſhut, Ieſus came, &c. Neuertheles the Miniſters ſay, they verily belieue, and are aſſured, of that which the ſcripture doth clearly ſay, to wit, that the doores being ſhut, he came and ſtood in the midſt of his Diſciples. But they cannot certainly define, nor determine, which way he entered: whether it were through the walles, or doores of wood; which Hillary himſelfe maketh doubt of in that place of his writings, alledged by the Doctors. Howſoeuer it be, the Miniſters do ſay: that in entering, he miraculouſly made way. And that a body (be it the wood or wall) did yeeld and giue place to the body of Ieſus Chriſt entering: or that an opening was made vnto him by the Angell, which opened and afterward ſhut againe the doores in a moment; as before hath b • ne ſaid. And that howſoeuer it was done, two bodies were neuer found in one ſelfe ſame place together.

Touching that they alledge out of S. Auguſtine, in his booke de agone Christiano, that Ieſus Chriſt entered through the doores: The Miniſters deny not, that he entred through the doores: but that two bodies onely were neuer in one ſelfe ſame place together. But if Ieſus Chriſt entered through the doores, that the doores at his entire gaue him place, as is ſaid.

For that which the Doctors alledge touching the Apoſtles ſuſpition, that it was a vaine viſion, it nought appertaineth to the preſent matter; nor that alſo that they maruelled at the maner of his entry, which was miraculous: as they euer confeſſed.

And touching that which they adde afterwards, in the opinion held by the olde heretiques, of the bodie of Ieſus Chriſt, that it was not a true bodie: becauſe it did things aboue nature. The Miniſters doo ſhewe them, that they litle think what occaſion and foundation of their errour, the auncient Fathers had preſented vnto them, had they confeſſed what the Doctors haue ſet foorth, and doo obſtinately defend of the bodie of Ieſus Chriſt: that it doth things, not only aboue nature, but alſo contrary to nature: yea euen contrary to the will and ordinance of God. And there is no doubt, but ſuch an opinion ſhould be a great proofe for Marcion and other heretiques, which haue denied the true humanitie of Ieſus Chriſt: if they ſhould confeſſe by the Doctors example, that the body of Ieſus Chriſt (cōtrary to the truth, nature, and eſſence of a body) may be, at one ſelf-ſame time in diuers places: or in one ſelfe ſame place with an other body.

To that they alledge of Iuſtin Martir: The Miniſters do anſwer, that the booke by them alledged, is falſly attributed to him. For it there maketh mention of Origen (to wit in the the 82. queſtion) althogh that Origen was more then 100. yeares after him. And touching the opening of the Sepulchre, whereof there is mentiō made in the place by them produced, They anſwer, that the Euangeliſt reciteth clearly, that there was a great Earthquake, when Ieſus Chriſt roſe again; and that the Angel did rowle away the ſtone, which cloſed the Sepulchre. Whervnto agreeth the ſaying of Leo, the firſt Biſhop of Rome, writing to the Biſhops of Paleſtine, where he ſaith: That Ieſus Chriſt roſe againe, the ſtone which couered the Sepulchre being rowled away.

Touching the place alledged by the Doctors, out of the writings of S. Hillary; one word there is, ſhall ſerue them for an anſwer. To wit, that this holy Doctor expreſly ſaith: that Ieſus Chriſt (to whō all things are open (as the Doctors haue expounded the ſaid ſentence) or (as the Miniſters expound it, that he maketh way euery where, by his diuine power) entred, the doores being ſhut. For thereby alſo he giueth to vnderſtand, that to enter into the houſe where his Diſciples were, he made himſelfe way & opening. And by his writing can nought elſe be cōcluded, but that his entry was myraculous. Concerning that which the Doctors alledge of S. Ambroſe, vpon S. Luke: No more can they inferre thereof, then S. Hillary hath ſaid. And they cannot conclude, neither of the one nor the other, but that Ieſus Chriſt entered within the houſe, by a diuine and miraculous power.

For that which they alledge of S. Iohn Chriſoſtome, touching the virgin, that Ieſus Chriſt came forth of her wombe, her virginitie & integritie no way thereby corrupted nor defiled: yea & that ſhe did remain a virgin before & after her child birth: The Miniſters do beleeue, confeſſe, and teach the ſame. And yeeld a reaſon thereof by the ſcripture: for as much as ſhe neuer had knowne man. But if thence they will infer, that in the birth of Ieſus Chriſt, Nula interceſſerit apertio vteri: The wombe was not opened. The Miniſters do ſay: that ſuch a concluſiō ▪ ſhould be againſt the expreſſe text of the ſcripture; and of that ſaid in S. Luke to that purpoſe: Omne maſculinum ad aperiens vuluam, &c. Euery male that firſt openeth the wombe, &c. Ioyned therevnto, that many auncient authors haue written & approued it. as Origen vpō S. Luke: Tertullian de carne Chriſti: S. Ierom in his firſt Tome, Ad Euſtochiū. Where in expreſſe termes he ſaith: that Ieſus Chriſt came bloody forth of the virgins belly. S. Ambroſe vpon S. Luke. Wherby it may appeare, that the virgin was truly a virgin, and truly a mother.

To the authoritie which they bring of S. Ierome, The Miniſters alledge no other thing for anſwere, then that which himſelfe hath ſaid. To wit: That when Ieſus Chriſt came where his Diſciples were, the creature obeyed his Creator.

What the Doctors alledge of S. Cyril, ſerueth nothing to the confirmation of their purpoſe.

Touching the hereſie in Iouinian, iuſtly reproued by Saint Auguſtine: who to auoyd the error of the Manichees, fel into an other: namely, that the virgin in her child-birth remained not a virgin. The Miniſters ſay: that it was not neceſſary that Iouinian (to auoid the error of the Manichees) ſhould cal in doubt the virginitie of Mary: foraſmuch as the foundiō of the ſame virginitie, is vpon this, that ſhe was neuer knowne of man.

Touching the concluſion, that the Doctors would draw from the authorities aboue ſaid, and apply them to their purpoſe (which was) that one body may be in two places at one ſelf-ſame inſtāt, or that two bodies may be in one ſelf-ſame place togither: The Miniſters ſay, that it is altogither impertinēt. And that neither by the places they alledged, nor any others that they can gather, can they any way inferre the ſame. Adding further, that it ſhall neuer be found in any good Author. By meanes wherof, they cōclude againſt the Doctors, that their foundatiō is nothing. And that they wil falſly authoriſe their error by the name & title of the auncient Fathers, for fault of good vnderſtanding, and taking the terme [piercing] which ſome of the auncient Fathers haue vſed; and ſignifieth not a a confuſion, and mingling togither of diuers bodies, occupying one ſelfe ſame place: but only the yeelding, that the one made, to giue the other paſſage. As we ſee, and haue experience, that the aire giueth place to a man that walketh, and birds that flye. And the Miniſters for concluſion ſay: that, that which they maintaine, and propoſe by their anſwere, doth not derogate, nor any way diminiſh the greatnes, glory, and power of God: but doth eſtabliſh the ſame; and much more aduance it, then ſuch prodigious abſurdities, (as thoſe are, which the Doctors ſet foorth, and will perſwade: without any reaſon or probable meanes) woulde doo. For they confeſſe, that all whatſoeuer happened, both in the entry of Ieſus Chriſt into the houſe where his diſciples were, and in his going out as wel of the virgins wombe, as of the Sepulchre, there was the myraculous & diuine power of God. But they denie, that thereby nothing happened, which was impoſſible, and contained any contradiction.

What they alledge of Caluin & Beza are friuolous things: and propoſed more to ſlaunder and contradict, then to ſearch out and make manifeſt the truth.

Where as they ſay that all antiquitie, with one conſent do vnderſtand by the terme Aphantos ap'aut • n; That Ieſus Chriſt made himſelfe inviſible to his Diſciples, abiding in their preſence. The Miniſters for their anſwer, are content to alledge vnto them, one onely authoritie of S. Ambroſe vpon S. Luke: who expounding theſe words, ſaith: That hee retired from them. And an other of Nicholas de Lyra, which ſaith vpon this place, that it was done by the agilitie of his glorious body, which can ſuddenly vaniſh away.

To that they alledge of the piercing the heauens, when Ieſus Chriſt aſcended thither, the Miniſters do anſwer, that it is very like they claue a ſunder, and were opened; a when at the Baptiſme of our Lord Ieſus Chriſt, the Doue deſcended vpon him: And when as alſo S. Stephen was ſtoned.

Touching that which they reproue in the firſt anſwere of the Miniſters, ſaying: that in the 12▪ chap. of the Acts, there is made no mention of the opening of the priſon. The Miniſters do admoniſh them to read diligently the text of the ſaid place. And there they ſhal find, that whē they had paſſed the firſt & 2. watch, the vtter gate of the priſō (which was of Irō) did opē of it own accord, to make the Angel & Peter paſſage.

Whereas the Doctors reply vpon the anſwer of the Miniſters, to the argument of the Camell formerly propoſed by them in their firſt anſwer: the Miniſters ſay, that there is nothing in their ſaid anſwer, againſt the word of God. But that they deceiue themſelues: referring to the Camell, whereof hee had formerly made mention: that which ought to bee vnderſtood, but of the ſauing and conuerſion of the rich man only. For our Lord Ieſus Chriſt ſaying, that that which is impoſſible to men, is poſſible with God: nought elſe pretendeth, but to anſwere the queſtion which the Diſciples had propounded. To wit, who could be ſaued. Anſwering wherevnto, hee ſaid: that it was indeed impoſſible to men: who of themſelues are inclined to truſt in their riches. But to God it was poſſible, which could pull backe or withdraw their hearts from that vaine confidence.

As touching the argument which they will build vpon the preſence of Ieſus Chriſt in the Supper, (whereof they wil inferre, that it is in diuers places) the Miniſters confeſſe the antecedent, & denie the conſequence. For there is no doubt, but by faith our Lord Ieſus Chriſt is ſpiritually preſent to all the faithfull in the Supper. Whence neuertheleſſe muſt not be inferred, that he is there locally, definitiuely, no • corporally. And wheras they ſay, that it is not imaginable, the Miniſters do avow the ſame, in regard of theſe which are not taught and enlightned by the ſpirit of God, and haue no other imagination, then that which their natural facultie doth furniſh them withall. But they that beeing illuminate by the grace of God, haue a true and liuely faith in their hearts: it is no more impoſſible to repreſent vnto them Ieſus Chriſt crucified in the Supper, then it was to the Galathians to repreſent and propoſe him vnto them, as preſent and viſible, at the preaching of S. Paul: and to thoſe likewiſe of whom Saint Ciprian maketh mention in his Sermon of the Supper: That in celebrating the ſame, they embrace the Croſſe of Ieſus Chriſt, ſucke his bloud, and faſten their tongues within his wounds. All which things are done by a liuely contemplation, and apprehenſion of faith: which is no other thing, then the ground of things hoped for, and an euidence of thoſe things which are not ſeene: as S. Paul doth define it.

Touching the truth of the thing conioyned with the ſignes and Sacraments: the Miniſters confeſſe, that the outward ſignes are neuer without their effect toward the faithfull, who cannot be partakers of the bread and wine diſtributed in the Supper, but that they participate therwithall, of the fleſh of Ieſus Chriſt crucified for their ſinnes, and of his bloud ſhead to ratifie the new couenant which God made with his people. But if the Doctors will inferre thereof a corporall preſence in the Supper, the Miniſters will denie it. And their reaſon is, becauſe ſuch a preſence was not required among the auncient Fathers: who left not for all that, to eate one ſelfe-ſame ſpirituall foode, with all the faithfull at this day: as it ſhalbe by the grace of God, more amply declared when the Lord of Neuers ſhall pleaſe to command conference of this matter.

To that which the Doctors (ſlaundering the Miniſters) do ſay, that they attribute more to themſelues, and to humane power, then they do attribute to the power of God: when they ſay, that by faith they make preſent, the things which be abſent; ſeeing that God (according to the doctrine of the Miniſters) cannot make one ſelfe-ſame body to bee in diuers places at one inſtant. The Miniſters doo anſwere, that ſuch antitheſes be fooliſh, and vnfit for the purpoſe: and that there is much more great apparance that the Doctors do preſume more of their power, and that of the other Prieſts of the Romane Church, then of the power of God: for God created not by his word, but the heauens, the earth, and the other creatures therein contained. And they in their conſecration, doo attribute vnto themſelues, the power to create their Creator: as is contained in their breuiarie, where the Prieſt ſaith: Qui creauit me, creatur mediante me. He that created me, is created my meanes of mee. And the Miniſters much maruell, that the Doctors call the vertue of faith, a humane power, ſeeing the great and admirable effects thereof propoſed vnto vs, in ſo many examples of the ſcripture; chiefly in the eleuenth Chapter of the Epiſtle to the Hebrewes: where Saint Paul ſaith: That the Saints, by faith, haue ſubdued kingdomes, &c. All which things ſurmount not onely the vertue, but alſo the capacitie of humane vnderſtanding.

In that immediately following this article, there is but repetitions in the reply of the Doctors: and many vnprofitable and ſuperfluous wordes: and little or nothing of that, ſhould be neceſſary to the purpoſe. And as they haue anſwered them particularly to euery point which they repeate, they ſend them now backe to the former anſweres: and pray them henceforth not to ſerue them twiſe with one meſſe.

Concerning the Sacrament of the Aultar, as they call it: The Miniſters neither receiue, nor any way approue, that their Maſſe (which they pretend to bee a Sacrament) is a Sacrament: and much leſſe a ſacrifice, by which remiſſion of finnes may bee any way obtained. Yea they ſay, that both their Prieſt and pretended ſacrifice, with all the things thereof depending, are blaſphemies, and impieties: by which GOD is diſhonoured, all the benefite of Ieſus Chriſt buried, and nought eſteemed: and the Church of Ieſus Chriſt ſeduced and abuſed; as by the purſuite of the Conference ſhall plainely appeare. And alſo, that the Miniſters do no way corrupt either the ſence, or the words which Ieſus Chriſt vſed in the inſtitution of his holy Supper.

Thurſday the 18. of Iuly, in the yeare aboue ſaid.

The reply or obiection of the Doctors against the anſwere of the Ministers, touching the Article of the Omnipotencie of God, on Satterday the 20. of Iuly.

THe Doctors ſay, that this coſequence, God cannot by his omnipotencie, make one body to be in two places at one inſtant, he is not therefore omnipotent: is ſo good and ſtrong, that the Miniſters (without wrapping, and more and more drowning themſelues in execrable blaſphemies, to the great griefe and horror of the Doctors) can no way denie the ſame: And beſides the two blaſphemies maintained by the Miniſters in their former anſwers, (that is to ſay, that it was impoſſible for God to make one body to bee in two places: and that it was impoſſible for him to will the ſame) in the firſt article of theyr laſt anſwere, they adde foure or fiue other blaſphemies, out of which doo flow yet many others: beſides the abſurdities, falſhoods, and impoſtures they vſe to the ſaid Doctors. And firſt they ſet forth, that God cannot do a thing which derogateth the order which he hath eſtabliſhed in the world. Secondly, that it ſhould bee to eſtabliſh mutabilitie, and change in the Councell of God, did they confeſſe, that hee can do any thing againſt the ſaid order which he hath put in the world. And thirdly, that were it ſo, there ſhould bee contradiction in his will: whereby it would followe, that hee ſhould be a lyar. And for the fourth blaſphemie, that the power of God is his will: and that his weakneſſe, is his vnwillingneſſe. And for the fift, the Miniſters pretend, that God hath willed to make a body, which at one ſelfe inſtant hath beene in many places, before they beleeue that God could doo it: otherwiſe they intend to inferre that hee had not power, and could not do it. So that the Miniſters will nought acknowledge of the power of God, but ſo much thereof, as hee hath ſhewed by effect. And to that purpoſe they alledge Tertullian. All which blaſphemies be drawne out of the proper words of the Miniſters firſt article.

Touching the firſt, which is, that God cannot make a thing which derogateth the order he hath eſtabliſhed in the world: it is very apparant that it is blaſphemie by the holy ſcripture: which in infinite places maketh mention of the workes of God aboue nature, which the Miniſters call the order eſtabliſhed in the world. And in proper termes teacheth that God can do infinite things, aboue the order by him eſtabliſhed in the world. Namely, that Lots wife was turned into a pillar of ſalte: that a barren woman in her old age, hauing an old husband, brought forth a childe: that a withered Rodde budded: that an Aſſe ſpake: that the ſonne ſtayed and went backe: and other more then innumerable examples, contained in the old Teſtament. And as touching the new, that a virgin brought forth a child. That a body walked vpō the water, & mounted into heauen. And generally all the myracles that Chriſt and his Apoſtles did aboue nature, which is contrary to the order eſtabliſhed in the world. And of this blaſphemie enſueth an other: that God ſince hee eſtabliſhed his order in the world, hath not done, nor could, nor can do any myracle.

Now to proue that the ſcripture teacheth clearely, that God can do contrary to the order eſtabliſhed in the world, it is written in the 50. of Eſay: Is my hand (that is to ſay my power) ſo ſhortned, that it cannot helpe? or haue I no power to deliuer? Behold at my rebuke I drie the ſea: I make the flouds deſart: Their fiſh rotteth for want of water, and dyeth for thirſt. I cloathe the heauens with darkneſſe, & make a ſacke their couering. And more expreſly in the new Teſtament, where it is ſaid by S. Iohn: That God can of ſtones raiſe vp children to Abraham. Which place, although it may be expounded allegorically: yet hath S. Iohn willed in the litterall ſence to ſhewe, that it was poſſible to God. And the diue did know and confeſſe, that if Ieſus Chriſt were the true ſonne of God, he could chaunge the ſtones into bread. Which is neuertheleſſe contrary to the order eſtabliſhed in the world. And it muſt be noted, that there is no more impoſſibilitie that the bread ſhould bee chaunged into fleſh by the omnipotencie of God, then a ſtone into bread. And therefore they which denie this laſt, done by the power of God, do ſhewe to beleeue leſſe the almightineſſe of God, then the diuels.

The confutation of the ſecond blaſphemie, dependeth on the confutation of the firſt. For although God, againſt the order eſtabliſhed in the world, hath done many myracles (as hath beene before recyted) yet neuertheleſſe there is no mutabilitie, nor chaunge in his counſaile.

Touching the third blaſphemie, which is, that if God did any thing contrary to the order eſtabliſhed in the world, there ſhould be contradiction in his will, and he ſhould therfore be a lyar. The Doctors obiect, that it would follow, that the will of God ſhould be ſuch, neuer to will any thing contrary to the order eſtabliſhed in the world. And that God ſhould haue purpoſed and declared by his word, his will to be ſuch. For otherwiſe can they not know what the will of God ſhuld be. And the Miniſters do not, nor can they make it appeare by the word of God, the will of God to be ſuch, that he will not do any thing againſt the order eſtabliſhed in the world. And it behoueth the ſaid Miniſters to teach of ſuch a wil of God, before they conclude that God made one body to be in two places (or other thing) againſt the order of nature eſtabliſhed in the world, he ſhould be a lyar.

Touching the fourth blaſphemie, which is, that the power of God is his will, and that his weakneſſe is his vnwillingnes, according to the ſence which the Miniſters giue it (to wit, if God cannot, but that which he will) it is an hereſie of the heretikes called Monarchians, in the Primitiue Church. Againſt whom, Tertulliā wrote, in his booke Aduerſus Praxeā, and afterwards renewed by Peter Abaillardus. And ſince cō tinued by one called Wickliffe: who meaſured the power of God according to his will. Which is againſt the expreſſe word of God, which often declareth many things poſſible to God, that notwithſtanding he wil not do, as by that which is written in the 2. of Wiſedome appeareth: where mention is made, that God could ſend vpon the children of Iſrael, many kinds of affliction, to chaſten thē, but he would not do it, hauing diſpoſed all things, by number, waight & meaſure. And that he could deſtroy thoſe which had offended, but that he would not, vſing mercie towards thē. And in the Goſpel, our Lord ſaid to S. Peter, Thinkeſt thou that I could not now pray my Father, and he would ſend me more then 12. Legions of Angels? And notwithſtanding he would not pray for that purpoſe. And his Father would not ſend them, although he had power to do it to the perſon of his ſonne. And Ieſus Chriſt himſelf could haue letted his enemies frō taking away his life, but he would not. And the Father (ſaith S. Paul) by his power could haue ſaued him frō corporall death. But neuertheleſſe hee would not do the one, nor the other. Notwithſtanding the Miniſters might ſay, that it was preordained: yet the ſcripture ſaith expreſly, that he could do it, although it had bin preordained. And as touching the authoritie of Tertullian, the Doctors are glad that the Miniſters do produce it, becauſe it maketh wholy for the truth, againſt the blaſphemy of the Miniſters, who haue omitted many words and ſentences of the ſaid Tertullian, which ſerued to the confutation of their error: as by the text here inſerted, may be eaſily iudged. Nihil Deo difficile. Quis hoc neſciat? Et impoſſibilia apud ſeculum, poſſibilia apud deū. Quis ignorat? Et ſtulta mū di elegit Deus, vt confundat ſapientia. Ergo inquiūt haeretici (Monarchiani ſcilicet) difficile non fuit deo ipſū ſe & patrem & Filiū facere, aduerſus traditam formā rebus humanis. Nam & Aerilē parere contra naturam, difficile deo non fuit, ſicut nec virginē planè nichil Deo difficile. Sed ſitā abrupte in praeſumptiombus noſtris hac ſententia vtamur, quid vis de Deo confingere poterimus quaſi fecerit, quia facere potuerit. Non autem quia omnia poteſt facere, idio que credendū eſt illū feciſſe etiā quod non fecerit: ſed an fecerit requirendū. Potuit (ita ſaluus ſum) Deus pennis hominē ad volandū inſtruxiſſe (quod & miluis praeſtitit) non tamen quia potuit, ſtatim & fecit, potuit & praxeam & omnes pariter haeriticos ſtatim extinxiſſe, non tamē quia potuit, extinxit. Oportebat enim miluos eſſe & haereticos: oportebat & patrem crucifigi. Hac ratione erit aliquid & deo dificile, id ſcilicet quod non fecerit: non quia potuerit, ſed quia noluerit. Etenim poſſe, velle eſt, & non poſſe, nolle. Nothing is vnpoſſible to God: who knoweth not this? And things vnpoſſible to mē, are poſſible to God: who is ignorant hereof? And God hath choſen the fooliſh things of the world to confound the wiſe. Therefore ſay the heretikes (namely the Monarchians) it was not hard for God himſelf to make both the Father and the ſonne, againſt the preſcribed forme in humane things. For the barren to bring foorth againſt nature: as alſo a Virgin, was nothing hard vnto God. Truly for God there is nothing too hard.

But if in our preſumption we ſo abruptly vſe this ſentence, wee may faigne euerie thing to be of God: as though hee will do, becauſe he can doo. We muſt not beleeue, becauſe hee can doo all things, that therefore hee hath done what he hath not done: but wee muſt ſeeke if hee haue done it. God could (I am ſure) haue formed man to flye with wings, (as he hath appointed the kytes) he hath not forthwith done it becauſe he could. He could preſently cut off both Praxea, and likewiſe all heretikes together: yet hath he not therefore, becauſe he could. For it behoued there ſhould be both kytes and heretikes: It behoued alſo the Father to be crucified. By this reaſon ſhall ſomething be too hard for God, namely that which he will not do: not becauſe hee cannot, but becauſe he will not. For to be able, is to will: and not to be able, is not to will. By which text it is eaſily ſeene, that according to Tertullian, God can do many things which he will not do: as he can make a man to flye, and doth it not: deſtroy heretikes; neuertheleſſe he deſtroyeth them not, becauſe he will not, all that he may doo.

And touching the concluſion which the Miniſters draw from the ſaid place of Tertullian, (to wit) that the power of God is his will: and his weakeneſſe is likewiſe his vnwillingneſſe: The Miniſters ſhewe, that they haue not well examined the vnderſtanding of that place. For Tertullian of his owne iudgement ſaith it not; (ſo ſhould he haue concluded againſt what hee had ſaid before) but hee inferreth the ſame againſt the Monarchian heretikes, which ſaid: That what God could, he would do, and it was done. And for this reaſon Tertullian concludeth againſt them: that it behoued whatſoeuer God had not done, was to him hard and impoſſible. So that (after theſe heretikes) it was all one to be done, and to haue power to do it. And not to be done, as much as to be impoſſible to God. And hereof inferreth Tertullian, would follow, that the power, and the will, and the act of God, ſhould be all one. And contrariwiſe, that a thing not to be done, and to be impoſſible for God to do it, ſhould be all one: and ſo the power of God, and his wil, all one. And his weakneſſe, & his vnwillingneſſe be likewiſe all one. Which Tertullian concludeth for an abſurd thing, proceeding from the opinion of the ſaid Monarchians heretikes, and not of his owne iudgement, which was altogether contrarie. Wherein it appeareth, that the opinion of the Miniſters, is like to that of the Monarchian heretikes, refuted by Tertullian. And that the Miniſters maintaine ſuch an opinion, it is euident by that which is contained in the fift blaſphemie.

The Doctors for concluſion againſt the ſaid blaſphemies, do ſhewe that God can do much more then he will do, and then he hath eſtabliſhed in the order of the world. For otherwiſe, other blaſphemies would yet enſue: namely, that the power of God ſhould not be infinite, but limited. Alſo that all things of neceſſitie ſhould bee done in this world, becauſe God could not but maintaine the eſtabliſhed order in the world. Which Caluin himſelfe deteſteth, ſaying: That God of his omnipotencie, changeth and altereth the order eſtabliſhed (as ſeemeth beſt vnto him) and that otherwiſe to thinke, were to limit his power and prouidence. Where the Miniſters ſay in their ſaid former article, that the auncient Doctors of the Church haue denied the omnipotencie of God: it is a manifeſt falſhood, and they wrong them greatly. For denie it they doo not, but interpret the ſcripture, which ſeemeth to denie it: and giue to vnderſtand, how it ought to be taken. So that, ſo farre off is it, that by this ſcripture well vnderſtood, exception may bee giuen againſt the omnipotencie of God; that contrariwiſe the ſame is confirmed: as ſaith Saint Auguſtine in the fift booke, and tenth Chapter of the Citie of God. The power of God (ſaith hee) is nothing diminiſhed, although it bee ſaid, that hee cannot die, nor bee deceiued: for ſuch things he cannot do: becauſe, that could he do them, his power ſhould thereby be leſſened. And concludeth, that ſuch things which be of infirmitie he cannot do, beccauſe he is almightie.

The Miniſters in the end of the firſt article, vſe deceit towards the Doctors, in that they affirme theyr difference to be, becauſe the Doctors maintaine, that a body is in many places, for as much as God can ſo cauſe it to bee: and that the Miniſters on the other part hold, that it is not in the power of God to do it, becauſe hee will not doo it. The Doctors doo ſhewe, that they (for their part) neuer ſo concluded for truth, that one true body was in two places, becauſe God could ſo cauſe it: but that the queſtion was onely to knowe, whether God could doo it, to come afterwards by order, to proue by ſcripture that hee would doo it. And they haue alreadie heretofore cyted the ſcripture of the Supper and Aſcention. And further added the doctrine of Caluin touching the ſaid Supper: to ſhewe, that the will of God is, to make one body to be in two places, (as indeed it is) according to the expreſſe word of God. Moreouer, to this ſelfe-ſame end, the Doctors haue produced the ſcriptures of the cloſed doores: of the birth of our Lord: and of the reſurrection through the ſtone: which are made like: and by the ſame reaſon, to that of a body in many places. The Miniſters on the contrary part, to denie the wil of God, and depraue the holy ſcriptures (which declareth the will of God to be ſuch, that one body be in two places) alledge nothing more inſtantly, then the impoſſibilitie for God to doo this.

Now, to the end that all the world may vnderſtand the preſent difference, betweene the Doctors and Miniſters, the Doctors declare, that no other difference there hath beene hitherto touching this article, then to know whether it be in the power of God, to make one body to be in two places at one ſelfe-ſame inſtant or no.

And for the ſecond article, the Doctors ſay, that the Miniſters anſwere not to the purpoſe: for the obiection was not, whether quantitie were an accident of a Mathematicall body, Aut de praedicamento quantitatis, as ſpeaketh the Philoſophers) but to know whether it were of the eſſence and of neceſſitie to the quantitie of a body, to be circumſcript, and in one piace incloſed. And as touching S. Auguſtine, by the Miniſters alledged, he ſpeaketh expreſly according to the proprieties of the diuine and humane natures. And wel ſaith, that the diuine, is in all places, but not the humane: becauſe of it naturall proprietie, it requireth a place certaine. And of this make the Doctors no doubt, according to the ſaid naturall proprietie. But the queſtion is, to wit, whether aboue nature, by the omnipotencie of God, he cannot cauſe one body to be without place, proportionable to it greatneſſe, Which S. Auguſtine ſpeaking, de Ianuis clauſis: not hauing regard to the nature of things, but to the power of God, plainly confeſſeth. And the Doctors would deſire the Miniſters to alledge this Epiſtle of S. Auguſtine, againſt the doctrine of Caluin, and his Miniſters, for the deſcent of the ſoule of Ieſus Chriſt into hell, as often as they alledge the paſſage of the place of bodies, againſt the power of God, touching the body of Ieſus Chriſt in the Sacrament.

In the 3. article the Miniſters are deceiued. For after the ſayings of the Philoſophers, and according to the naturall reaſon of a body (which the Miniſters do follow) Locus est ſuperficies Corporis continentis. Place is the ouermoſt part of a containing body. Wherfore it ſhould behoue, that were the high and laſt heauen circumſcript of place, there ſhould be a body aboue the high and firſt heauen, A quo primum Caelum contineretur. Et ſic in infinitum. Of which the firſt heauen ſhould be cōtained. And ſo infinit. And moreouer the Miniſters anſwer not to the other obiectiōs made thē vpō this article.

And as touching the paſſages of ſcripture, which they alledge to proue that there are toomthes & places aboue all the heauens, they captiouſly conclude, and 〈◊〉 with doubtfulneſſe of the name of place. For in all their 〈◊〉 of the dimenſions of bodies (which they haue ſaid 〈◊〉 to require roomth and place equall and 〈…〉 their bigneſſe) it is meete they vnderſtand 〈…〉 roomthes and places, euen as the dimenſions and of 〈◊〉 do require the ſame.

And now, when they ſpeake of place • 〈…〉 meet they vnderſtand thē, others then 〈…〉 be not ſuch roomthes & places, as theſe wherein 〈…〉 now are: but incomprehenſible and vnimaginable places, where bodies and ſpirits indifferently are, without diſtinction for their greatneſſe, of certaine ſpaces and places corporall. And in ſuch places, the Miniſters rule is falſe, by which they maintaine, that a body cannot be in one place, if it bee not as ſpacious, as the greatneſſe of the body. Moreouer the Doctors ſay, that it is the manner of heretikes, to interpret the ſcriptures ſpiritually, when they are litterally to bee taken: and contrariwiſe, to expound according to the letter, that which ſpiritually and by figure ought to bee vnderſtood. As the Miniſters doo expound the houſe of Cod in the other world, litterally and corporally, wherein there are ſpaces, and corporall habitations, diuers and ſeperate one from an other: albeit it ought to bee ſpiritually vnderſtood, for the diuerſitie of degrees of bleſſedneſſe.

The ſaid Doctors cannot omit, a manifeſt contradiction of the Miniſters in this ſelfe-ſame article: wherein they pre • end, that the bodies and ſoules of the bleſſed, are lodged aboue all the heauens. And yet they place the body of Ieſus Chriſt within the heauen.

And touching the alledged article, condemned by the facultie of diuinitie at Paris: the Doctors anſwere, that the Miniſters do ordinarily alledge authorities, pared, or euilly applied: For the Article ſaith, that the Biſhop of Paris, hauing called the Facultie, condemned all thoſe, which would place two diſtinct heauens: one for the Angels, the other for the ſoules of men. Which nothing pertaineth to the preſent queſtion.

The Miniſters in the fourth article do charge the Doctors, who neuer attribute the proprietie of God to any creature: but haue often heretofore ſaid, that to bee euerie where, and incircumſcript, was not naturall to any creatures, but to God alone. And the Authors by the Miniſters alledged (as Saint Baſil, Didimus, and Ʋigilius, ſpeake no otherwiſe thē of the proprietie of nature, to be euery where, or not. And yet they neuer denie, but it is in Gods power to cauſe one creature or body, aboue it nature, to be in two, or many places: but (as aforeſaid) when they come to the power of God, many of the olde authors confeſſe, that it is poſſible with God, and that hee hath done the ſame in the Sacrament: the anſwere of the Miniſters is therefore to no purpoſe. For the whole contention is of the power of God, and not of naturall proprieties.

The Miniſters in the fift article haue not well conceiued the reaſon of the Doctors: who alledge, that the Angels are naturally circumſcript, as well as bodies: and hereby would inferre, that the circumſcription of place ſimply depended not as of the ſole and eſſentiall cauſe of the dimenſions of a body: as by all their ſaid reaſons, the Miniſters pretend. Albeit the Doctors are not ignorant that to put difference betweene the corporall and ſpirituall creatures, they haue accuſtomed to diſtinguiſh in ſchooles, that the Angels Sunt diffinitiue in loco, and the bodies Circumſcriptiue.

In the ſixt article to ſatisfie the Doctors, who made inſtance they ſhould produce one onely place of the auncient Fathers: where it was ſaid, that it is not in Gods power, to make one body to be in two places. The Miniſters for all the teſtimonies they could haue, do falſly alledge a place of S. Augustine, where it is ſaid (as it is cyted in Gratian De conſecra: diſtinct. 2. C. prima quidem) that the ſaid Saint Augustine hath written, that it behoued the body of Ieſus to be in one place: wherevnto ſay the Doctors, that it is not ſo couched in the proper text of S. Augustine, which is in the 30. tract vpon Saint Iohn. For ſuch is the tenour in all the auncient copies of S. Augustine: Corpus domini, in quo reſurrexit, vno loco eſſe potest, veritas eius vbi que diffuſa est. The body of the Lord, in which he roſe againe, may be in one place, his truth is ſhead into euerie place. Where is not this word [Oportet] as the Miniſters cyte it, hauing taken the ſame out of Gratian. And that men may knowe there is no great truſt to be giuen to the fragments of Gratian, without recourſe to the copies of Saint Augustine, in the tytle of Canon, theſe words are there extracted out of the expoſition of S. Augustine, vpon the 54 Pſalme. From whence hee draweth the onely beginning of his Canon: and yet doth he not truly cyte it. The • eſt of the ſaid Canon, is taken from diuers paſſages of S. Augustine. And although there ſhould bee Oportat. S. Augustine ſpeaketh after his wonted manner, according to the proprietie of a body, oppoſing the diuinitie to the humanitie: without touching the operation of Gods omnipotencie. Whereof when he maketh mention, and that he ſpeaketh of the Sacrament, he plainly affirmeth, the body of Ieſus Chriſt to be in diuers places; by the omnipotencie of God. As the Doctors hope in their reſolution to deduce as well out of him, as other auncients alſo.

The 8. artide containeth many errors, againſt Philoſophie and truth. Firſt, becauſe the Miniſters make no diſtinction betweene the body they cab Mathematicall (to wit, hauing dimenſion of breadth, length, and height) and the Phiſicall or naturall body: to wit, which is compoſed of a ſubſtantiall forme and matter: by the vnion whereof, it is made a naturall & ſubſtantiall body. Secondly, although the body ſhould bee without quantitie, yet ſhould it differ from our ſoules ſeperated, which bee not materiall ſubſtances: and conſequently ſhould it alſo differ from the Angells and ſpirits. Thirdly, the Miniſters by the concluſion of this article, doo manifeſtly declare, that they acknowledge not any ſubſtantiall body. And where they ſay, that although God might ſeperate the dimenſiōs from a ſubſtance, without corrupting the ſame, that ſuch ſubſtance ſhould remaine ſpiritually, as the Angels, they are deceiued. For ſuch ſubſtance ſhould not remaine immateriall, as are our ſoules, and the Angels which be not capable of dimenſions: and therefore ſhould it yet bee different from Angels and our ſoules.

Concerning the ninth article, the Miniſters anſwere nothing to the purpoſe. For the Doctors ſay not, that the maſſineſſe and waight bee eſſentiall in a body, but to preſſe downeward, is eſſentiall to the ſadneſſe and waight of a body. And by their obiection they demaunded to knowe, whether an earthly and maſſy body, abiding in it ſubſtance and natural waight, might not by the omnipotencie of God, be hanged in the ayre, without falling downward, albeit it were againſt it nature and inclination,

Moreouer, for anſwere to many articles which concerne the act of two bodies in one place, and the paſſages of holy ſcripture, and auncient Authors produced by the Doctors, (to proue that it was in Gods power to cauſe two bodies to bee in one onely place: and contrariwiſe, that by the ſame reaſon it was in the ſame power, to cauſe one body to bee in two places). Firſt the Doctors ſay, that the Miniſters doo wrong, to denie this conſequence. Two bodies by the power of God, may be in one ſelfe-ſame place. Then on the contrarie part, one body may be in two places, by the ſelfe-ſame power. For as great repugnancie there is to Gods eſtabliſhed order, in the one, as in the other: and as great contradiction in nature, founded vppon one ſelfe-ſame cauſe and reaſon: to wit, in the limitation, and circumſcription of a body. Which as it is naturall to be in place, ſo is it naturall for it, to bee in place proportioned and anſwerable to it meaſures. And if for the number of diuers places where a body ſhould bee, one may inferre, that it ſhould no more bee a body (as implying contradiction) by the ſame reaſon, according to one onely place, where many bodies ſhould bee, may alſo bee inferred, that they ſhould no more be many bodies: or that many bodies ſhould be one. Which would imply the contradiction as the former.

And where the Miniſters denie the antecedent, which is, that two bodies may bee in one place, the Doctors to proue it, haue produced the paſſages of ſcripture, of the cloſed doores: the birth of the body of our Lord of the Virgin: the going out of the Sepulchre: the paſſage of a Camell through the eye of a needle: and the piercing of the heauens made by Chriſt in his aſcention.

And for as much as the Miniſters denie theſe actes, contained expreſly in holy ſcripture, and expounded by the auncient Chriſtians, and depraue the ſame at their pleaſure. The Doctors eſtſoones vpō the texts of ſcripture do ſay as followeth. Firſt as touching the cloſed doores, Saint Iohn ſaith: That Ieſus came, meaning into the place where his Diſciples were. But hee came not there without entering thereinto. For to bee found in the middeſt of them without entring, there ſhould bee a much greater myracle, then that hee entred there ſimply. Secondly it is ſaid, Cum fores eſſent clauſa, or Ianuis clauſis. To wit, that hee there entered, the doores beeing ſhut. And there is no apparance that the ſcripture maketh mention of doores, rather then an other place, were it not to ſhewe the place by which hee entred. Thirdly, it is added not in vaine, that the doores were ſhut, without ſaying that any opening was myraculouſly made. For it is alwaies ſaid, Quod venit Ianuis clauſis. That hee came the doores beeing ſhut. And were it true, that the doores had bin opened by diuine power, this ſhould be falſe, that our Lord entred, Ianuis clauſis, for hee ſhould haue entered Ianuis apertis, howſoeuer they had bene opened.

And to ſhewe, that the common conſent of all the Auncientes haue bene, that Ieſus entered therein by the cloſed doores, the Doctors ſet forth foure foundations, drawne from the auncient Fathers. The firſt is, that all expreſly confeſſe the myracle of ſuch an entrie to haue bene wrought in the body of Ieſus Chriſt. The ſecond is, that ſuch myracle was there wrought by the power of God, aboue the nature of a body. The third is, that the Fathers eſpecially iudge, that herein conſiſteth the myracle, that the body paſ • ed through the cloſed doores: and that ſo it was with an other body. And for the fourth ground, they adde, that the Apoſtles by reaſon of ſuch entring, ſuppoſed that the body of Ieſus Chriſt was not a true body, but a ſpirit, or vaine viſion: which the Miniſters lightly paſſe ouer, without any anſwere. Now ſo it is, that if by the power of God (as the Miniſters will haue it) an opening was made of the doores, or any other part of the houſe, to giue entrie to the bodie of Ieſus Chriſt: then the myracle did not conſiſt in the ſaid body, but in the doores, or other part of the houſe, which was open: and nothing had beene there againſt the nature of the bodie of our Lorde: for it is not repugnant to any bodie whatſoeuer, to enter by an opening made by myracle, or otherwiſe.

Bee it, that Iustine was not Author of the queſtions againſt the Gentiles; yet can they not deny, but they are of ſome auncient Chriſtian, of the Primitiue Church. And the Doctors haue attributed them to him, in whoſe name they are intituled. And ſo much there is, that the ſaid Iustine in the place alledged, layeth the myracle to haue bene done in the bodie of Ieſus Chriſt: which (being groſſe and thick) entered through the cloſed doores by the power of God; contrary to the nature of a bodie. And therefore the Apoſtles ſuppoſed it a viſion: by reaſon of the entrie made without opening, as ſpirites doo wontedly enter. Let the text be ſeene.

S. Hillary ſaith not only, that he there entered in what ſort ſoeuer it were, by the omnipotencie of God, (as the Miniſters will wreſt his authoritie) but as if he had now to deale with the ſaid Miniſters, hee repulſeth & mocketh at all their euaſions and ſubtilties, which vpon this act they imagined. Nothing (ſaith he) gaue place, to open to ſuch a bodie, and that it loſt nothing of it ſubſtance: nor by it entry was ought diminiſhed. He addeth: That the doores and clefts were ſhut, and faſt barred. And in this neuertheleſſe lyeth the myracle, that the true naturall bodie of Ieſus Chriſt, contrary to nature, by the omnipotencie of God entered into a houſe, cloſe and couert, without any opening: wherein hee plainly ſheweth, that the myracle conſiſteth in the bodie of Ieſus Chriſt. And for this let the text be viewed, which the Doctors wiſh to be well examined by the Miniſters.

S. Ambroſe in the place cyted ſaith: That S. Thomas was abaſhed, ſeeing the bodie of Ieſus Chriſt to enter, Per in via ſepta corporibus. Et quod natura corporea per impenitrabile corpus ſeſe infuderit inuiſibili aditu. Through cloſures impaſſable for bodies: And that the corporeall nature powred it ſelfe by an inuiſible meane through an impenitrable bodie.

S. Chriſoſtome in the Homely of S. Iohn Baptist, and in his Cōmentaries vpon the Goſpell of S. Iohn, expreſly ſaith: Qui intrauit per ostia clauſa, non erat phantaſma, non erat ſpiritus, vere corpus erat. Quid enim dicit? Respicite & videte: quia ſpiritus carnem & oſſa non habet, quae me habere videtis. Habebat carnes, habebat & oſſa, & clauſa erant omnia. Quomodo clauſis octijs intrauerunt oſſa & caro? Clauſa ſunt omnia & intrat, quē intrantem non vidimus. Neſcis quomodo factum ſit, & das hoc potentiae Dei.

He that entred through the cloſed doores, was not a vain viſion, was not a ſpirit, it was truly a bodie. For what ſaith he? Behold and ſee: For a ſpirit hath not fleſh and bones, as you ſee me haue. Hee had fleſh, hee had alſo bones, and all thinges were ſhut. How entered bones and fleſh, the doores being ſhut? All thinges are ſhut, and hee entereth whome wee ſee not entering. How it is done thou knoweſt not, and attributeth this to the power of God.

Where S. Chriſostome without difficultie, as doth alſo S. Ambroſe, acknowledgeth the myracle to haue bin wrought in the body of Ieſus Chriſt; in that hee paſſed through the ſhut doores, by the omnipotencie of God.

S. Ierome in the places quoted by the Doctors manifeſtly writeth: that the body pierced the cloſed doores, euen as the Poets recount that the fight of Linceus pierced the walls, to ſee through without opening. S. Ierome then reaſoned of the nature of a bodie, which the Biſhop of Ieruſalem (infected with the hereſie of Origen) held not to bee truly in Ieſus Chriſt after his reſurrection: becauſe contrary to the nature of a bodie, he had paſſed through the cloſed doores: wherein Saint Ierome (as the other Auncients) declareth: that it nothing derogateth from the nature of the bodie: becauſe it proceeded from a ſupernaturall power.

And in the firſt Booke againſt Iouinian hee ſaieth as much: where he vſeth theſe words: Ieſus entered through the cloſed doores. Quod humanorum corporum natura non patitur. Which thing, the nature of humane bodies admitteth not. So that with others, he placeth the myracle in the body of Ieſus Chriſt.

There is no doubt, but S. Auguſtine in three places (at the leaſt) maketh expreſſe mention, that this body paſſed through the ſhut doores: and that this was done by the power of God, aboue the nature of bodies: and that therefore heretikes ought not to denie the true bodie of Ieſus Chriſt: beſides the paſſages De agone Chriſtiano, and of the Epiſtle Ad voluſianum, alreadie alledged in the booke De Ciuitate Dei, he ſaith ſo alſo.

Epiphanius in the firſt booke, vpon the 20. Hereſie, and in the 2. booke, vpon the 64. Hereſie, againſt the Origeniſts, declareth that it is but a ſpirituall body: to wit, which looſeth nothing of it corporall ſubſtance: but changeth & getteth new qualities and ſpirituall perfections, and meete for ſpirites: as to paſſe through the walles without opening. And giueth example of the body of Ieſus Chriſt, which pierced and paſſed through the cloſed doores after his reſurrection. And euen ſo iudgeth (as others do) the myracle to haue bene wrought in the body of Ieſus Chriſt: and that becauſe he pierced the ſhut doores, as a ſpirit, albeit hee were a true body.

Cirillus Alexandrinus determineth alſo (as the others) this myracle to haue hapned in the body of our Lord; which by the like myracle, walked vpon the waters, againſt the nature of a body, by the power of God; and reproueth all them, which ought ſuſpected by this deed, that the body of Ieſus Chriſt was not naturall.

By all theſe authorities, the foure grounds propoſed, are true. And therefore to corrupt the intention and faith of ſo many Auncientes and learned Chriſtians, to bring in a confuſion of new Interpretations, is ouer-great impudencie. For beſides the diuerſitie of Caluin and Beza, the Miniſters to that ende produce two others: to wit, that the Angell opened the doore: as though Ieſus had not power himſelfe to open it, or elſe had need of opening. And the other is, that the opening was made which way he pleaſed. And by ſuch diuerſities, the Miniſters ſufficiently declare, that they know not where to reſt. And (which is worſe) they could not alledge one only auncient Father, for author of their fictions, or that is contrary to all the others, from the Primitiue Church. And to alledge, that the Iron gate (in the Acts of the Apoſtles opened to S. Peter of it own accord, ſerueth nothing to the purpoſe: For the Doctors neuer denied the ſame: but haue well ſaide, that the ſcripture ſpake not of the gates of the priſon: and if at the entry of Ieſus Chriſt the doores had beene ſo opened, the Euangeliſt had as eaſily ſaid it, as he ſaid they were ſhut; and as S. Luke ſaith, that the Iron gate was opened of it ſelfe.

There is no doubt, but peruerſe ſpirits, which doubted of the truth of the bodie of Ieſus Chriſt in this world, were not of opinion touching the paſſage of the doores, with other Chriſtians. And although they thought to helpe and aide themſelues herewith, to ſupport their hereſies (as of all the other myracles hapned to the body of our Lorde aboue nature) the Fathers neuertheleſſe haue not denied this, nor others ſemblable acts: for feare to giue heretikes occaſion of error. But haue declared and diſtinguiſhed what was of the nature of the ſaid bodie, and what came vnto it by the omnipotencie of God. And the Chriſtians (for hereſies) neuer abandoned the truth: albeit heretikes thereby haue ſometimes abuſed the ſame. Sith then the bodie of Ieſus Chriſt paſſed through the doores without opening; ſure it is, that two bodies haue bene, and may be in one ſelfe ſame place. And hereby haue the Doctors well proued their propoſition: which without ſcripture, or teſtimony of any Father, the Miniſters deny.

Concerning the Birth of Ieſus Chriſt without fraction of the virgin, the Doctors ſay, that many of the Auncients produced for the paſſage of the doores, haue alſo held, that myracle to haue bene wrought in the bodie of our Lord, and not in the bodie of the virgin, but in as much as ſhe remained in her pureneſſe, without fracture or opening. And for their reaſon, the Fathers haue alledged the ſcripture: Exce virgo concipiet & pariet. Behold a virgin ſhall conceaue and bring forth. And out of Ezechiel: Porta haec clauſa erit. This gate ſhall be ſhut. As reciceth S. Ambroſe in the 80. Epiſtle, where a Councell is conteined, wherein S. Ambroſe was preſent: which determined againſt Iouinian and other heretikes, that the virginitie and puritie remained in her child▪birth, to the mother of God. Which thing S. Augustine in the place alledged by the Doctors in the firſt booke, and 2. Chapter againſt Iulian, repeateth. And where the Miniſters ſay, that the virgin had not loſt her virginitie, when our Lorde was borne as other men: in that they are condemned of hereſie by the Fathers: which declare Iouinian to derogate her virginitie, for the like opinion as the Miniſters do hold. Of whom the Doctors would willingly demaund, what myracle they acknowledge in the birth of our Lord, touching his bodie, and the virginitie of his mother, if he departed from her, as other childrē from their mothers, as the Miniſters do write. And as touching that which they alledge of Tertullian, Origen, S. Ambroſe, and S. Ierome; the Doctors ſay: that Tertullian & Origen held ſuch an hereſie, and many others, which were reproued before Iouinian. And for this, were condemned with him and his conſorts. And for S. Ambroſe, it is euident, that he beleeued the contrary; as well by the Councell where he was preſent: as by that which he wrote in the booke De Institutione Ʋirginis. And therefore, where hee ſaith: that Christus vuluam aperuerit, it muſt be interpreted, not that it was by rupture or fraction, but by effect of generation, and production of his true bodie, out of the wombe of the virgin, by myracle and ſupernaturall power. So that, as the conception was myraculous, ſo was his birth: Et aperire vuluam, is a phraſe and maner of ſpeaking in the ſcripture, to call and nominate the firſt borne: howſoeuer he had power to be borne. And as touching S. Ierome, he ſpeaketh nothing of the fracture, but only that the bodie iſlued out bloodie, as it was in the wombe of his mother: and to bee bloodie, there is no neceſſitie of fracture of the mother.

The Doctors for concluſion of this article, would willingly demaund of the Miniſters, whether they hold for an article of faith, the virginitie of the mother after the childbirth: & whether they could proue the ſame by the expreſſe and vnreproueable word of God written. For as much as Beza when hee pleaſeth, maketh doubt of theſe two points: and that the pretended reformed religion among the articles of faith, of his diuers imprinted confeſſions, recyteth ſometimes the virginitie of the mother of God after her child-birth, and ſometimes omitteth the ſame. And in ſome confeſſions inſerteth not that Ieſus was borne of the Virgin Marie, but onely that hee iſſued of the ſeede of Danid.

The Doctors employ for the reſurrection, and iſſuing out of the body of Ieſus Chriſt through the ſtone of the Sepulchre, the moſt part of the authorities alledged by them vpon the cloſed doores: as the whole lecture of the foreſaid authorities, with Gregorie Nazianzene, in his tragedie of the paſſion of our Lord, will witneſſe: which conioyneth (as do many other Auncients) theſe three myracles happened into the body of our Sauiour aboue nature: namely the birth without fracture of the Virgin: the reſurrection through the ſtone: and the entrance by the cloſed doores.

The Doctors adde, that Caluin and Beza make conſcience to ſay as doo the Miniſters, that our Lord aroſe not, the Sepulchre beeing ſhut and cloſed: and rather had the ſaid Caluin and Beza fall into friuolous abfurdities, and ridicclous expoſitions here afore alledged, then yeeld to the opinion of the Miniſters. Becauſe there is more appearance in the text of the Goſpell, that Ieſus Chriſt was riſen before the ſtone was rowled away by the Angell: as therein agree the moſt part of auncient Chriſtians. And by this meane alſo is there occaſion giuen, more eaſily to beleeue the reſurrection of our Sauiour, then if the ſtone had beene taken away before the reſurrection. For one might more eaſily ſay, that the body had bene tranſported and not riſen againe. And the text ſaith not, that the Angell rowled away the ſtone before the reſurrection, or when Ieſus aroſe, but rather afterwards: as there is great apparance in the ſcripture, in reaſon, and all antiquitie.

Pope Leo is euilly alledged by the Miniſters, which well knowe to conceale what is written in the Epiſtle by them cyted, touching the cloſed doores. And they euilly alledge that of the reſurrection. For it is not ſaid, that our Lord aroſe after the ſtone was rowled from the Sepulchre. But well is it ſaid againſt the Fantaſmatiques, that the ſubſtance put vpon the Croſſe, and that which reſted in the Sepulchre, and that which aroſe the third day (the ſtone of the graue beeing rowled away) is the true fleſh of Ieſus Chriſt.

By which words, Pope Leo meaneth not to ſay, that our Lord was not riſen, before the ſtone was remoued: but onely ſheweth, that the body of Ieſus Chriſt riſen againe; was a true, and not a phantaſtike body: of whoſe reſurrection it appeared by the opening of the graue. And ſuch is the common interpretation of old Authors touching the remouing of the ſtone.

For concluſion of all theſe auncient teſtimonies, the Doctors are abaſhed that the Miniſters (ſeeing them ſo manifeſt, and themſelues conuinced, that God cannot only cauſe two bodies to bee in one ſelfe-ſame place, but that hee hath alſo done the ſame) dare ſlaunderouſlye depraue the vnderſtanding of them, which euerie man of good and ſound iudgement, can by the onely reading finde out.

Notwithſtanding the Miniſters ſay, that the reaſons taken from ſuch and ſo euident teſtimonies, be impertinent. So that wiah like libertie (common to heretikes) they feare not, without any text of ſcripture, or any place of auncient Fathers, to interpret, that two bodies to pierce one an other, is no other thing, then one body to giue place to the other.

Of which falſe and licencious interpretation, the common phraſe of ſpeech among Philoſophers themſelues doth condemne them. And the feat example brought of them which walke through the aire beating vpon them, and of Birdes when they flye, is ouer ſubtill. And whereas they boaſt in the ſaid article, that in denying that two bodies may be in one place by the omnipotencie of God, or one bodie in two places, they aduance and magnifie the power of God. As true is that, as when in all their other errors, by which they reſiſt the truth of God, and blaſpheme him, they euer boaſt to aduance the glorie of God. And the Miniſters muſt paint and couer their filthineſſe and deformitie, with ſome colour of ſpeech, to blinde the ſimple and ignorant.

Good reaſon alſo haue the Miniſters not to excuſe the interpretations of Caluin and Beza, as too too friuolous and ridiculous: and preferre in the meane time their owne interpretation, though more ridiculous then thoſe of their Maiſters: wherein appeareth the concorde betweene the Maiſters and Diſciples; all vſing one foundation of their religion: which is, to truſt alwayes to their owne particular and priuate interpretation, and inſpiration: and to preferre the ſame to all others. Where the Miniſters ſay, that the bodie of our Lord was not inuiſible to the Diſciples, of whō mention is made in the 24. of Luke: but that his bodie only being nimble, he ſuddainly withdrew himſelfe: the Doctors obiect, that the ſuddaine departing (whereof ſpeaketh S. Ambroſe, and Lyra,) maketh not, but that the bodie was inuiſible: as ſignifieth the Greeke word Aphantos: which ſignifieth, not a ſuddaine departure, but an incapacitie to be ſeene and knowne. And ſo the text of the ſcripture is plainly for the Doctors. Ioyned neuertheleſſe, that when the olde and late Diuines wil giue examples that Ieſus was made inuiſible, they ordinarily alledge this paſſage.

The Miniſters alſo who boaſt, that they reſt vpon nothing, but the pure word of God, (for expoſition of ſcripture) bring their dreames, aboue their owne perſwaſion; as touching the cloſed doores appeareth. And with like libertie vſe they to expound the text of Saint Paul, which expreſly maintaineth, that our Lord pierced the heauens. And it is likely (ſay they) that the heauens claue a ſunder, and were opened. And if one demaund, whence they learned ſuch an interpretation, they anſwere, from the word of God, founded vpon their inward inſpiration: by which, they appropriate that which is written in Saint Mathew; that heauens were opened when the Doue deſcended vpon our Lord. As though all the heauens were cleſt aſunder, and the holy Ghoſt had not power to deſcend without the opening of them: not nothing that the ſcripture in many places taketh heauen for the ayre.

Concerning that they alledge of S. Stephen, who when he was ſtoned, ſawe the heauens open, more meete it were for the Miniſters, to interpret ſuch viſions, to bee made in ſpirit, as there is great likelyhood: elſe ſhould it behoue to confeſſe two myracles: the one in the diuiſion of the heauens: the other in this, that the ſight of S. Stephen, not onely pierced vnto, but alſo aboue the heauens: where the Miniſters confeſſe, the body of Ieſus Chriſt to bee at the right hand of the Father, whom Saint Stephen ſawe, which is againſt the order of God eſtabliſhed in the wold: whereby it is neceſſarie that there be a certaine diſtance betweene the eye ſeeing, and the thing which is ſeene. And no leſſe hard is it, that ſuch thing bee done, then that two bodies ſhould pierce one an other. Nor muſt they forget that the ſcriptures oftentimes in ſpirituall apparitions and viſions, vſeth this phraſe of ſpeech, that the heauens were opened: and yet in ſuch caſe was there but a ſpirituall viſion, and likewiſe but a ſpirituall opening. And euen as the Miniſters will take the rigour of the word [the opening of the heauens]: ſo ſhould they not thinke it ſtraunge if the Doctors with like rigour, take [the piercing of the heauens] eſpecially in the article of the Aſcention: where the queſtion is of the bodie of Ieſus Chriſt, which had alreadie pierced more impenitrable bodies then the heauens.

And the Doctors to auoyd tediouſneſſe, referre themſelues to more ample debating this point [of the piercing of the heauen] hereafter.

As touching the 28. article, where the Miniſters againſt expreſſe ſcripture, do obſtinately defend, that God cannot by his power, make a Camell (or Cable) to paſſe through the eye of a needle: the Doctors cannot ſufficiently ma • uel, either at the blindneſſe of the Miniſters, which ſeeme to ſee nothing at noone-day: or at their obſtinacie and boldneſſe. And that the Miniſters vnderſtand not their fault, the Doctors cannot thinke, but that impugning the truth, well knowne to themſelues, they ſinne againſt their owne conſcience. And God ſuffereth that (it ſeemeth) to happen vnto them, in this ſo manifeſt a place and text of the ſcripture: to the end, that by this article, one may perceiue how much more bold they are, to giue falſe ſences, to ſcriptures more obſcure then this, and to the ſayings of the auncient Chriſtians which make againſt them.

Now that the great wrong may be vnderſtood, which the Miniſters doo, in denying that our Lord can cauſe a Camell (or Cable) to paſſe through the eye of a needle: the Doctors do obiect, that it ſhould be impoſſible with God to ſaue a rich man: vſing ſuch argument, taken from the text of the Goſpell. More impoſſible or hard is it for God to ſaue a rich man, then to make a Camell (or Cable) to paſſe through the eye of a needle. But God by his omnipotencie cannot make (after the Miniſters) a Camell or Cable to paſſe through the eye of a needle. Therefore God by his omnipotencie cannot cauſe a rich man to 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 neceſſarie. And according to all Philoſophie, hee that cannot doo a more eaſie thing, cannot doo a thing more hard. So alſo without contradiction haue the Auncients expounded the preſent ſcripture: as doth Origen in the Homily vpon this place, ſaying: that it is poſſible for a Camell to enter through the eye of a needle: yet not poſſible with men, but with God. And the manner how ſuch thing may bee done, is knowne of God, and his ſonne Ieſus Chriſt, and of him to whom hee ſhall reueale it.

Semblably Saint Augustine in the firſt and fift Chapter of his booke of the ſpirite and letter, thus ſpeaketh to Marcellinus, whom hee wrote vnto: It ſeemeth to thee abſurd, when I ſay vnto thee, that a man may bee without ſinne: albeit that (Chriſt excepted) ſuch a one is not founde. Should it ſeeme abſurd vnto thee, that a thing may bee done, whereof no example can bee ſhewed? Seeing thou doubteſt not (as I thinke) but it neuer happened that a Camell paſſed through the eye of a needle. And yet is it ſaide, that with God ſuch thing is poſſible.

By the Miniſters anſwere vnto the 29. article, may eaſily bee ſeene, that they deceiue and abuſe their Diſciples, making them beleeue by faire words and writings, that they really receiue in the Supper, the true body of Ieſus Chriſt, the ſame which iſſued from the belly of the Virgin, and was faſtned vpon the Croſſe, for the reſtauration of mankind. And wil make them to vnderſtand, that they who place not with the bread and wine in the Sacrament, (as they call it) of the Supper, but ſome ſpirituall effect onely (as are the redemption, righteouſneſſe, ſanctification, life eternall, and other gifts, and benefites, which Ieſus Chriſt bringeth to his elect) diminiſh the excellencie and dignitie of the ſame Sacrament, and that they be Zuinglians. But that beſides ſuch ſpirituall effects, one muſt beleeue that hee receiueth truly the body of Ieſus Chriſt in the Supper.

They hold neuertheleſſe an other opinion. For when they are preſſed with arguments, and cannot defend ſuch an imaginarie and phantaſtike preſence, they confeſſe by their writings, they are become Zuinglians, and returne to the ſpirituall preſence of Ieſus Chriſt in the Supper: which is as much to ſay, as beſides the bread and wine, they receiue a certaine ſpirituall effect, and not really the body, as the Miniſters do in the preſent anſwere: which thing they make manifeſt, by that they cyte of the Apoſtle S. Paul: by which citation may bee gathered, what is their opinion concerning the Supper: to wit, that the body of our Lord Ieſus Chriſt is not really, but by ſpirituall effect onely in the hearts of the faithfull. For the Galathians by the hearing of S. Pauls preaching, receiued not really the body of Chriſt crucified, but had onely an imagination of the Croſſe and paſſion of Ieſus Chriſt, and receiued onely the fruite of their faith: that is to ſay, by this meanes they were iuſtified and ſanctified before God: alſo the allegation which the Miniſters make of S. Ciprian, tendeth to this ende, to ſhewe that in the Supper are receiued ſome ſpirituall effects onely: which neuertheleſſe by theſe words, to embrace the Croſſe of Ieſus Chriſt, to ſucke his bloud, &c. be allegorically ſignified. Wherein they denie (againſt the intent of S. Ciprian in the Sermon of the Supper) the reall prefence of the body of Ieſus Chriſt. The Doctors confeſſe that the argument they haue made, is addreſſed to Caluiniſts, and not to Zuinglians. And they ſuppoſed that the Miniſters would not otherwiſe haue thought of this Sacrament, then Caluin, Beza, and the other Miniſters, renowmed to be Miniſters of the Caluiniſt Church, which they call reformed.

An other maner of ſpeech vſed they, which exhibited the confeſſion touching that Sacrament, to the Biſhops at Poiſſy, who freely confeſſed the body of Ieſus Chriſt to bee really preſent in that Sacrament: which the Miniſters in conference with the Doctors, do now denie. And hereby the Miniſters in the iudgement of the Doctors, of Calueniſts, become Almanists. Wherewithall, they that maintaine the doctrine of the Church, which they call reformed, will not be greatly pleaſed: ſeeing their principall pillars (for not being able to anſwere an argument obiected by the Doctors) do leaue them in the buſineſſe: conſidering that in the anſwer they ſay themſelues to be ſo much enlightned with the holy ſpirit, which maketh them vnderſtand & know all things.

Concerninig the article following, they doo openly declare what their preſent opinion is, touching the preſence of the body of Ieſus Chriſt in the Sacrament, by ſaying that the faithfull receiue no more in this time of the Goſpell, then did the Fathers before, and vnder the lawe: But certaine it is, that the Fathers receiued not really the body of Ieſus Chriſt, which as then was not made. Therefore the concluſion muſt follow, that vnder the Goſpell the body of Ieſus Chriſt is not really receiued in the Sacrament, which the Miniſters call the Sacrament of the Supper.

To the 31. article they anſwere not: as alſo they neuer could anſwere the ſame: and they muſt neceſſarily confeſſe, that in the power of their faith, they do that which implyeth contradiction. For they maintaine one thing to be preſent, and not preſent, at one ſelfe-ſame time and place. And their ſpirituall (or rather phantaſticke) preſence, maketh nothing to the purpoſe. For (according to their doctrine) the body cannot be preſent but with it meaſures, locally, difinitiuely, and corporally: otherwiſe the body ſhould be wholly abrogate and corrupted. And the maner of it beeing there ſpiritually, would not make, that the body is not there: or otherwiſe they falſly ſay it is preſent in the Supper, and abuſe the world. Wherefore it is neceſſarie, if the body be there (yea ſpiritually) and their doctrine of the nature of a body be true, that the body of Ieſus Chriſt be corporally, difinitiuely, and locally in the Supper. Moreouer, for as much as it is abſent according to their confeſſion: it followeth, that it is not there preſent. And to conclude, the Miniſters ſay, that it is there, and not there. And for the full ſolution, (without entering into the principall of the Argument) they ſuppoſe to eſcape, by obiecting to the Doctors, ſome words of the breuiarie, which the Doctors haue not yet ſeene. The Miniſters (they thinke) haue found them in ſome breuiarie of Monkes, and remember when they were in the Couent, that they were ſo accuſtomed to ſing and ſay. But although ſuch things were found in the breuiaries, vſed in the Romane Church, ſuch maner of ſpeech might be defended, in the ſence which the Fathers haue giuen, whē they ſaid, that the Apoſtles Conficiūt corpus Chriſti: do make the body of Chriſt, as the ſcripture it ſelfe ſaith: that they baptiſe, forgiue ſinnes, and ſaue thoſe whom they conuerted: which is meant, as the Miniſters of God. Who of his owne authoritie, and as Maiſter, baptiſeth, forgiueth ſinnes, and iuſtifieth the faithfull perſons.

Where the Miniſters do maruell, that the Doctors call faith a humane vertue, (the great and maruellous effects it worketh conſidered): the Doctors ſay, that the Miniſters haue no great cauſe to maruell thereat: ſeeing that euerie worke, in as much as it is in man, and that he therein worketh together with God, is iudged and reputed humane. Alſo the ſcripture calleth the faith of man, the worke of man. The Doctors ſhewe vnto the Miniſters, that after their wonted maner, they dwell alwaies on ſmall things, and leaue that which is principall in the matter: being ignorant (or diſſembling ignorance) where lyeth the difficultie of that is handled. As they do in their anſwere vpon the argument propoſed by the Doctors: whereby they obiect, that the Miniſters by their faith (call they it diuine or humane) may doo more then God can do: wherevnto the Miniſters (without touching the point) do anſwere with ſongs.

In the 32. article, the Miniſters lightly paſſe ouer many obiectious made them by the Doctors. Whether there bee ſuperfluitie, or repetition in them, or whether they be impertinent, let the reader iudge. But for this cauſe the Doctors will not ceaſe, to require eftſoones the Miniſters, that they bring ſome paſſage of the ſcripture, to ground that God cannot make one body to be in two places: ſeeing that this conſequence is ouerfooliſh and ridiculous: God cannot lye. Therefore can he not make one bodie to be in two places. For ſo ſhould they make their aſſumption. Now God hath ſaid and ordained, that one body cannot be in two places: therefore can he not make it ſo to be. But neuer will they inſtruct by the truth of the Aſſumption or Minor Propoſition: the contrarie whereof hath bene ſufficiently verified by many teſtimonies of the ſcripture. The Doctors alſo require the Miniſters to produce ſome Father, yea ſome man, euer reputed Catholique, which hath dared to pronounce, that God could not make one body to be in two places. For full anſwere, the ſaid Miniſters can bring forth none which euer hath vſed ſuch a ſpeech, except S. Auguſtine, but by them falſly alledged, both touching the letter, & the ſence of the letter. The Doctors will not ceaſe to beate both into the Miniſters, and alſo all perſons; that there is no place of ſcripture found, nor booke of any auncient Father, that God cannot make one body to be in diuers places.

Concerning the laſt article, the Doctors haue reſolued to ſhewe by the pure and expreſſe word of God, expounded by common conſent of all antiquitie, that our Lord did inſtitute the Sacrament and ſacrifice of the Aultar, and will teach the effect and vertue of the Maſſe, according to the inſtitution and ordinance of Ieſus Chriſt. And will make it alſo to be vnderſtood, that the Miniſters haue polluted and defiled the Sacrament by Ieſus Chriſt inſtiruted. And that the Supper which the Miniſters maintaine, is no way the Sacrament, but a prophanation of holy things, containing execrable blaſphemie: whereof the whole world ought to haue horror.

Sunday, the 12. of Iuly, in the yeare aforeſaid.

The anſwere of the Ministers to the writing of the Doctors, ſent to them by my Lord the Duke of Neuers, the 22. day of Iuly, about fiue of the Clocke in the enening. Anno. 1560.

THe Miniſters, before they anſwere particularly to the obiections and ſlaunders of the Doctors, ſeeing that each way, and cauſeleſſe, they taxe them for blaſphemers: haue aduiſed to tell them in the beginning of theyr anſwere, that to bee wronged by them, they hold it not ſo great an iniurie, nor themſelues the more blaſphemers, for being ſo holden and reputed by them: no more then our Lord Ieſus Chriſt, becauſe he was Act. 7.ſo pronounced by Caiphas the high Prieſt, and S. St • phen, to whom the like crime was imputed by the enemies of 1. King. 21.truth: And Naboth who was likewiſe accuſed to haue blaſphemed God and the king, albeit he was innocent. For it is the manner of all them which hate the truth, and the light, to blaſpheme that which they vnderſtand not (as thereof 1▪ Pet. 2.write S. Peter and S. Iude) and to giue the raines ſometimes to their furie: ſo that they ſhameleſly denie things moſt apparant, and confeſſe others concerning the ſame, which bee ſtraunge and abſurd. Which thing is ſeene to haue befallen the Doctors about the Miniſters: whom they neither can heare attentiuely, nor iudge of rightly. And the full end of their purpoſe (it ſeemeth) is, to contradict them indifferently in all things, and to ſay without any examination or iudgement, that whatſoeuer they produce, is blaſphemy and lies. For the Miniſters ſpeaking of the omnipotencie of God, according to that they haue learned thereof, and is contained in the ſcriptures, haue euer ſaid, that God is almightie, in as much as he can do (without any exception) whatſoeuer he will: and that there is no power in heauen nor in earth, which is able to let, alter, or in any maner or wiſe hinder the full effect and perfect execution of his eternall & vnchangeable counſailes. But neuertheleſſe, that his omnipotencie muſt not be ſtretched without any diſcretion or diſtinction, to all the things generally which men can conceiue, or in their fooliſh phantaſies imagine: but to thoſe onely, which neither are, nor can be contrarie to his iuſtice, to his goodneſſe, to his wiſedome: nor conſequently to his holy and eternall will, wiſedome, and truth: which is, and euer ſhalbe, to doo all things well and wiſely, with number, waight, and meaſure: and without that there is any inequitie, diſorder, or contradiction in whatſoeuer he doth. All which things being well vnderſtood and conſidered, will diſcharge the Miniſters among all good and iuſt people, from the ſ • aunders which the Doctors impoſe vpon them, and fal • ly publiſhed, to make them odious to all the world, and ſtirre vp publike hate againſt them. Wherefore, to make their ſlaunders more like to truth: by adding and diminiſhing, they change and alter almoſt the whole meaning of the Miniſters: well knowing, that otherwiſe they could neuer haue meane to ground their ſlaunders, nor to giue any colour or likelihood therevnto: which thing ſhall now appeare by the deduction and particular confutation of the pretended blaſphemies, obiected to the Miniſters, by the ſaid Doctors.

Firſt the Doctors accuſe the Miniſters, in that they haue ſaid, that the omnipotencie of God ought not to be meaſured, but by the things onely which bee agreeable to his will, and are not derogate either to his wiſedome, his truth, his nature: nor to the order which hee hath eſtabliſhed in the world. And to verifie their accuſation and ſlaunder, they breake in two this whole ſentence, and take thereof but the laſt part onely, the which they haue ſeperated from thoſe going before, wherewith it was conioyned expreſly by the Miniſters; the more clearely to expound and ſhewe, how the omnipotencie of God ought to be knowne, beleeued, and adored of all the world. Moreouer, they haue not taken, nor vnderſtood the word [Order] as doo the Miniſters. Whereby the Miniſters haue willed to ſignifie the eſtate and diſpoſition, which God by his prouidence, and eternall, and vnchangeable will, hath eſtabliſhed, conſerueth, and entertaineth in all things: rightly to gouerne, and let that no confuſion happen in his workes, euen as S. Augustine hath defined it in his bookes De Ordine: and hee himſelfe hath vſed the ſame in the fift booke of his confeſſions. Which the Doctors not vnderſtanding, haue reduced that which the Miniſters thereof ſaid, to the ordinarie and wonted courſe of nature, and to the mouing of creatures which bee in the world.

And to giue exception to the doctrine aforeſaid, they obiect the myracles which God doth aboue nature: and thereof inferre, that God doth, and can doo many things againſt the order by him eſtabliſhed and decreed.

Whervnto the Miniſters anſwer; that myracles, albeit they be done beyond & aboue the ordinary courſe of nature, yet are they not done againſt the order aforeſaid. For as much as all things reduced to the prouidence, and ordinance of God, are well done and ordained, although that the reaſon and order therein, be oftentimes vnknowne to men: which Eccleſi. 3. Salomon wrote ſaying: God maketh all things good in their ſeaſon. Wherevnto may be alſo applied, that which is read in the booke of Sentences of S. Auguſtine. Sent. 283. and 284. God who is the Creator and conſeruer of nature, doth nothing in his myracles which are againſt nature. And it followeth not, that that which is new to cuſtome, is contrary and repugnant to reaſon, &c. If the Doctors will know more thereof, let them reade the two bookes of Order; which this holy man compoſed: and that which he wrote concerning myracles, in the fift and ſixt Chapter of his third booke of the Trinitie. This anſwere ſhall ſerue for confutation of two other pretended blaſphemies, which follow in the obiection of the Doctors.

Concerning the fourth, the Miniſters for anſwer ſay, that the will of God (after the doctrine of Diuines) may in two ſorts be cōſidered: to wit, according to that which by words, ſignes, and effects, is declared to men: and according to that which is reteined & hidden in himſelfe. The one is called the will knowne by ſignes: and the other the will of the good pleaſure of God. For the firſt conſideration the Miniſters do confeſſe (as heeretofore they haue to the Doctors) that God can do many things, which he will not do. But as touching the other, they ſay: that it is equall to his power: as is alſo his power (in this reſpect) equall to his will. According to which conſideration, the ſentence of Tertullian alledged by the Miniſters, and to the Monarchians ill applied by the Doctors, ought to be vnderſtood and expounded: As all thoſe may iudge, which attentiuely ſhall read the paſſage by the Miniſters produced. Who to anſwer one ſlaunder of the ſaid Doctors, which accuſe them to haue wronged the auncient Fathers, in ſaying that they excepted ſome cauſes of the omnipotencie of Cod: are yet conſtrained here to repeate, that which Theodoret ſaith thereof in the 3. Dialogues who writeth as followeth. It muſt not be ſaid without any determination, that all things are poſſible to God. For who ſo abſolutely ſaith this, comprehendeth all things, as well good as bad, which no way ought to be attributed to God: whereby it appeareth, that this good author, and the other, before alledged by the Miniſters, haue not indifferently ſubmitted all things to the power of God: but excepted from the ſame, whatſoeuer is contrary to his will and eſſence.

To be briefe, but one meane there is to appeaſe the difference between the Miniſters, who ſay that it is impoſſible for one body to be in diuers places at one inſtant: and the Doctors, which affirme the cōtrary, to wit, that the Doctors (without taking ſo long circuit) looſing ſo many words, and alledging ſo many ſuperfluous things, do proue briefly by one only paſſage of ſcripture, that God willeth the ſame.

Whether the Miniſters haue well or euilly alledged Saint Augustine, to proue that a body cannot be without place and meaſures: and alſo whether they haue well or euilly ſaid and defended, that quantitie is eſſentiall to a body, and not accidentall (as hold the Doctors) they leaue the iudgement to the Readers of the Actes of this Conference.

Touching that which followeth in the writing of the Doctors: to wit, that there is no place aboue the heauens, that Ieſus Chriſt is not therein compriſed nor conteined, that bodies and ſpirites bee indifferently there, without any diſtinction or diſtance of place: the Miniſters ſay, that touching all theſe points, they rather beleeue the ſcripture, and expreſſe word of God (by them alledged) then all the ſubtilties & ſophiſtries of vaine Philoſophie, which the Doctors, or others can propoſe. Ioyned herevnto, that it is expreſly cōteined & taught in one of the articles of our faith: where it is ſaid; Frō whence he ſhall come to iudge the quick & the dead. Wherevpon muſt bee noted, that there is [Vnde] an Aduerbe ſignifying place.

As touching the 4. and 5. articles, to know whether the Miniſters haue ought impoſed vpon the Doctors which is not true, they ſend backe the readers to the precedent conference. And alſo to know in what ſence, and to what end, the auncient Fathers haue bene alledged by the ſaid Miniſters; which they may eaſily perceiue by the reading, and diligent obſeruation of the paſſages and ſentences of the ſaid Fathers there inſerted.

For the 6. article, wherein the Doctors had rather confeſſe their Canons to be falſe, then (accuſing their authoritie) to auouch that the body of Ieſus Chriſt is a true dody, and that to be ſuch, it ought neceſſarily to bee in one certaine place: the Miniſters anſwere, that by the obſeruation of the place of S. Auguſtine, (whence the ſaid Canon is taken) it is eaſie to iudge, that the word [Oportet] is there much more conuenient, then that of [Potest].

To the 8. article, the Miniſters anſwere, that a ſubſtance is not without quantitie, and whiles it is ſuch, and ſo remaineth, it cannot any waies be a body. And the reaſon is, becauſe that of the ſubſtance, and that of the quantitie, are two diuers predicaments: vnder which, one ſelfe-ſame thing, for one ſelfeſame reſpect, cannot be any way compriſed. Moreouer, Ieſus Chriſt alledged no other reaſon to ſhewe that his body was not a ſpirit, but that hee had members and parts, which in reſpect of their meaſures, might bee handled and touched. Whence it followeth, that without this, a ſubſtance cannot be a body. And as touching the difference which by the Doctors opinion ſhould remaine betweene our ſoules and our bodies exempted from quantitie, (if that were poſſible) the Miniſters ſay, that although they were ſubſtances both in number and different, they ſhould neuertheleſſe be like, as touching the kinde: and that the one and the other ſhould be contained vnder the kinde of an incorporeall ſubſtance.

The Miniſters paſſe ouer the 9. article, becauſe it is but a repetition, and that they haue largely anſwered what the Doctors there repeate.

To the 10. article, the Miniſters anſwere, that the conſequence whereof is the queſtion, cannot bee otherwiſe defended by the Doctors, but by the rule which ſaith: that of one abſurditie may all things be inferred. Moreouer, they complaine of time, which the Doctors make them looſe, by reading ſo many things wherevnto they haue alreadie anſwered, and which it ſeemeth they repeate not for any other ende, then to fill vp paper, and to make men thinke they ſay ſomething.

For firſt the Euangeliſt ſaith not (as the Doctors pretend) that Ieſus Chriſt entered by the ſhut doores: but onely that he came, the gates beeing ſhut. So that he ſpeaketh nothing there of the maner of his entry, nor how the doores were opened, or other place about the houſe by the which he entered. And all that which the Doctors ſay, cannot be grounded neither vpon the ſcripture, nor vpon any authoritie of all the auncient Fathers by them alledged: which bee more againſt them, then with them. And for concluſiō, they haue no other foundation of their ſaying, then their owne coniectures and imaginations, and the falſe interpretations which they giue to the writings of the Fathers. To the faith wherof they would gladly conſtraine & ſubiect the Church: to the end, that hauing laid that foundation, they might afterwards build therevpon, all the abſurdities and errors they ſhall delight in touching the ſame. And where they preſuppoſe when Chriſt entered the ſhut doores, walked vpon the waters, and went out of the Sepulchre: that ſuch myracles were done rather in the perſon, then in the other things. Iustine writeth the contrarie, ſaying: that without any change happened, either in his body, or in that of S. Peter, he made by his diuine power the Sea againſt nature, to ſerue him to walke. As alſo S. Hillary to the ſame purpoſe ſaith: That by his power hee made all things paſſeable. Wherevnto likewiſe agreeth S. Iohn Chriſoſtome, attributing all that to diuine power, and freely confeſſing that hee knew not the maner and the faſhion thereof. By meanes whereof, the Miniſters are much abaſhed, that the Doctors are ſo preſumptuous to determine a thing which by the ſcripture and Fathers hath bene left vndecided: and wherein (as S. Hillary ſaith wiſely) ſence and words do faile, & the truth of the deed, exceedeth the capacitie of humane reaſon. How dare then the Doctors ſo boldly ſay, that the body of Ieſus Chriſt paſſed through the doores; that there was penitration of dimenſions; that two bodies were in one ſelfe-ſame place? Seeing that of all that, neither in the ſcripture, nor in the auncient Fathers, there is not one onely ſillable: and that (as is ſaid) the Fathers do confeſſe, that their vnderſtanding and ſence were too feeble to comprehend or declare the reaſon of ſuch a my ſterie.

As touching the birth of Ieſus Chriſt, the Miniſters repoſe themſelues vpon the ſcripture, which ſaith clearly, that the Virgin was with childe, that ſhe brought forth, that ſhee gaue ſucke, and that Apertaest vulua, the wombe is opened in the child-birth. They adde, that the ſame doth nought derogate nor preiudice her virginitie and pureneſſe, which conſiſteth in this point onely, that ſhee knew not, not was knowne of any man, Moreouer, they ſay that in beleeuing the ſame, they follow the ſcripture: and conſequently they cannot erre, nor bee heretikes: nor they likewiſe which ſubiect and ſubdue their ſence to the word of God: as in this haue done the Fathers which are by them alledged.

In the following article propoſed by the Doctors, touching the manner of the reſurrection of Ieſus Chriſt, there is nothing but coniectures, ſlaunders, & repetitions, troubleſome and ſuperfluous, which the Miniſters by their former anſweres haue largely ſatisfied.

All that which afterwards followeth in the writings of the Doctors, are but iniuries and ſcoffes, in ſtead of reaſons and arguments: which is the laſt recourſe of contentious ſpirits: who ſeeing themſelues deſtitute of reaſon, and vnable to giue place to the truth, defend themſelues by clamours and ſlaunders.

Some reaſon ſhould the Doctors haue for that which they ſay concerning the word Aphantos, if there followed Autois: but that which the Euangeliſt ſaith Ap'auton, ſheweth clearely, that the interpretation of the ſaid place, and vnderſtanding of S. Ambroſe, (where vnto the Miniſters agree) is better then that of the Doctors.

As touching the opening of the heauens, the Miniſters anſwere, that (vſing the language of the ſcripture, which ſaith clearely, that in the baptiſme of Ieſus Chriſt, the heauens were clouen aſunder, and then opned, when S. Stephen was ſtoned) they cannot faile. And to apply to the ayre the ſignification of heauen, is a humane imagination. This alſo ſeemeth, ſhould diminiſh the Maieſtie of God, and of Ieſus Chriſt, who is lifted vp aboue all the heauens, to eſtabliſh ſo lowe as the ayre, the Throne of his Maieſtie. And there is no likelyhood in that which the Doctors ſay, touching the being of two bodies in one ſelfe-ſame place; and that which the Miniſters ſay of the ſight of Stephen, which extended euen to the heauens: for as much as the one is a myracle of the power of God in nature, and the other a wonder againſt nature, and the will of God.

The Doctors in the article following, do falſly impute to the Miniſters, that they affirmed, it was a thing impoſſible for God to make a Camell to paſſe through the eye of a needle: for they neuer touched this point in theyr former anſweres, but that part of the ſentence onely, where it is ſpoken of rich men. Now to anſwere too, and reſolue their obiections, the Miniſters ſay, that euen as God can ſaue a rich man, by chaunging him, and emptying his heart of ſo much vaine truſt and preſumption, as is therein, and whereof beeing groſſe and filled, hee is vncapeable to enter into the Kingdome of heauen: ſo to him it is alſo eaſie, to make a Camell paſſe through the eye of a needle, hauing circumciſed and pared off the groſſeneſſe thereof, and other things which might hinder the ſame to paſſe. * * * * * *

Firſt, that the Supper which is celebrated in the reformed Church, is the true inſtitution and ordinance of the ſonne of God.

Afterwards, that the end for which it was inſtituted, is to aſſure the faithfull of the true participation which they haue in the fleſh of Ieſus Chriſt, crucified for their ſaluation, and in his bloud ſhead for the remiſſion of their ſinnes; and for the confirmation of the new couenant, which God hath made with his people.

Thirdly they ſay, that it is neceſſarie that the bread and wine abide in their proper ſubſtance, and that after conſecration: otherwiſe they cannot be Sacraments of the body and bloud of Chriſt.

Laſtly the Miniſters ſay, that the vnbeleeuers preſenting themſelues at the Supper, by meanes of their vnbeliefe, can there no other thing receiue, then the outward ſignes of bread and wine, and that to their iudgement and condemnation.

The Miniſters on the other ſide propoſe vnto them touching the Maſſe, that ſuch as it is, and now celebrated in the Romance Church, it is nothing but a humane inuention and tradition.

Alſo, that it is a corruption and prophanation, as well of the holy Supper of our Lord Ieſus Chriſt, as of the true and lawfull vſe thereof.

Alſo, that it is an abuſe of the Prieſthood of Popiſh Prieſts, and that there is no other Prieſthood in the new Teſtament ordained, to get and obtaine remiſſion of ſinnes; nor alſo to make interceſſion, and by prayers and merits to obtaine the fauour of God, then the onely Prieſthood of Ieſus Chriſt.

They ſay moreouer, that it is a blaſphemie and ſacriledge, but of the ſacrifice of the Romiſh Prieſts, and that there is no other oblation, then that which Ieſus Chriſt once made with his body vpon the Croſſe; by which the wrath of God could be appeaſed, his iuſtice ſatisfied, ſinners reconciled to God, ſinnes pardoned, and the hand-writing of eternall death cancelled and aboliſhed.

Alſo they ſay, that the ſeperation of the Prieſt in the Maſſe, from the reſt of the people, is an aboliſhment of the Communion of the Supper: and conſequently damnable before God.

And to be briefe, the adoration of bread and wine, (be it in the Maſſe, or out of the Maſſe) is an intollerable Idolatrie.

Two points yet remaine in the writing of the Doctors, whereof the Miniſters will admoniſh them. The one is, that the ſaid Miniſters haue neuer found in the ſcriptures, Iohn, 6. Epheſ. 1.that faith is a humane worke, but that it is the worke of God, and a gift which hee beſtoweth vpon his elect. The other point is, that they confeſſe they cannot bring forth one auncient Author, which hath ſaid in expreſſe termes, that one body could not be in diuers places at one inſtant: for ſo much as the contrarie thereof ſeemed ſo abſurd and ſtraunge vnto them, and ſo much againſt the reaſon and faith which all faithfull people ought to haue, that they neuer thought ſuch an opinion had found place in the heart of any man that was called a Chriſtian.

The Miniſters to ende this anſwere, ſay that it will much more pleaſe them, to handle the queſtions aforeſaid, then to diſpute of the opening of doores, of the Sepulchre, or of the heauens; as to their great griefe, they haue done theſe dayes paſſed: and that for two reaſons. The one, becauſe that the decyding and reſolution of ſuch queſtions, cannot bee drawne nor gathered out of the ſcripture. And the ſecond, becauſe it cannot much ſerue either to the aduancement of the honour and glorie of God, or the edification and inſtruction of his Church.

Thurſday the 25. day of Iuly, in the yeare aforeſaid.

The Doctors reply to the writing of the Miniſters, ſent vnto them by my Lord the Duke of Neuers, the 25. day of Iuly, about 8. of the clocke in the euening, the yeare, 1566.

WHere the Miniſters ſay, that they doo great wrong to call them blaſphemers, ſeeing thereof they are innocent, as Ieſus Chriſt, S. Stephen, and Naboth, to whome men falſly imputed ſuch like crime. The Doctors ſay, that the Miniſters therein doo imitate the good perſonages, the Donatiſts: who ſtill complained of the great iniuries and ſlaunders which they endured (ſaid they) of the Catholikes; and yet men know by the hiſtories how it was, and how much they were like to Chriſt, S. Stephen, and Naboth: as may alſo be knowne the conformitie of the ſaid Miniſters, to ſuch holy examples. As much might the Anabaptiſts ſay to them of the Church called reformed, when they call them heretikes. And as much might and did Seruetus ſay, who for his blaſphemies was burned at Geneua: reputing himſelfe happie to be iudged by Caluin a blaſphemer, and to ſuffer for his doctrine, the paines of death. We muſt not therfore beleeue that the Miniſters are not blaſphemers, becauſe more boldly then all other heretikes, they reiect the name of blaſphemer: but meet it is to examine whether their doctrine importeth blaſphemie or not. Now the Doctors ſay, that there is no blaſphemie worthy of more great execration, then to denie the omnipotencie of God: and no leſſe it is then ſimply to denie that there is a God. So that ſuch deniall importes an Atheiſme. For to take from God, that which is proper to his nature, is as much to ſay, as there is no God. As it well pleaſeth S. Baſil, writing in one of his Homilies, intituled, That God is not the Author of euill. That it is no leſſe blaſphemie to ſay, that God is author of euill, then to ſay that God is not God. In ſo much as to take away from God his goodneſſe, which to him is naturall, is wholy to take away his diuinitie. The like alſo may be ſaid of the omnipotencie, that whoſoeuer denieth or diminiſheth the ſame, he denieth alſo his diuinitie.

The queſtion then is, to knowe whether the Miniſters will aboliſh the omnipotencie of God, not in proper termes (for they ſeeme to confeſſe it) but in affirming that the power of God is meaſured according to his will, ſo that he cannot, but that which he will: and other like propoſitions contained in the precedent anſwere of the Miniſters. Whether the Doctors haue proued ſuch propoſitions to containe blaſphemies or no, they refer them therin to euery man of ſound iudgement, who ſhalbe any thing conuerſant in holy ſcriptures, and the bookes of auncient Chriſtians: which ſhall alſo be knowne by the Miniſters friuolous anſweres in their laſt writing to the Doctors obiections. Who nothing maruel that the Miniſters are deceiued in the nature of the omnipotencie, ſeeing they erre in the foundation, and know not wherein it lyeth, and why God is called almightie. For they haue learned of the ſcripture (ſay they) that God is almightie, becauſe hee can doo whatſoeuer he will doo: and that nothing can reſiſt him, which is rather as a ſigne of the power of God. But it is not that (vnder correction) wherein it conſiſteth; for knowledge whereof, it muſt be conſidered according to it obiect: that is to ſay, according to the things poſſible to be done: ſo that there is nothing poſſible which God cannot do. Now all without any exception, is eſteemed poſſible, wherein is found no contradiction to be, and not to be: and that commeth not by default of the power of God (which can do all things) but of the repugnancie of the thing which cannot be. Which the Miniſters from the beginning had well ſaid in euery anſwere: but for that they had anſwered vpon ſome Interrogatories that the omnipotencie of God muſt bee meaſured by his will, ſuppoſing to ſalue that error, they are plunged in many other errors, out of which (for not conſeſſing to haue erred) they cannot rid themſelues, without falling into an infinite number of abſurdities.

Moreouer, the Miniſters deceiue themſelues when they will limit the power of God, and not extend it to all things generally, that humane ſpirit can conceiue or imagine. For contrariwiſe, it is doubtleſſe that the power of God is great aboue all conceit, and imagination of the humane ſpirit, that it is infinite and incomprehenſible, as ſaith S. Paul: God can do more then we demaund or vnderſtand. And where the Miniſters ſay, that God onely can doo all things which are not contrarie to his iuſtice, wiſedome, goodneſſe, and truth, and therefore cannot doo generally all things. It hath alreadie beene ſhewed them, that to bee able to doo things contrarie to the iuſtice, wiſedome, goodneſſe, and truth of God, was not power, but weakeneſſe. And by the ſelfe-ſame reaſon (as ſaith Saint Augustine, in the place by the Doctors in theyr former obiection alledged) that he cannot do ſuch things, it is an argument of his omnipotencie, and not of reſtraint thereof.

And where the Miniſters inferre, that becauſe God cannot do ſuch things, he can (by conſequence) do nothing; which is contrarie to his wiſedome, and eternall will, which is, and euer ſhall be, to doo all things well and wiſely, with number, waight, and meaſure, and without that there is any iniuſtice or contradiction in all that which he doth. Men may ſee how the Miniſters diſguiſe the matter in controuerſie, concealing haue couched in their former writing, touching the order eſtabliſhed in the world, againſt which (ſaid they) God could doo nothing: and the other words of blaſphemie, whereof the Doctors rebuked them, and which they durſt not inſert in their laſt anſwere, becauſe their conſcience accuſed them, and made them know, that ſuch affirmations could not be maintained; and from which, they cannot eſcape, but in denying to haue written them, and in accuſing the Doctors of ſlaunder: as if by adding or diminiſhing, they had altered and chaunged the words of the Miniſters. To be purged of which crime, the Doctors pray, that recourſe be had to their laſt obiection, where theſe words are inſerted in the firſt article.

The which blaſphemies are drawne out of the proper words of the Miniſters firſt article. And the Doctors referre them to the conference may bee made of their laſt writing, with that of the Miniſters. So that if it bee found (as certainly it ſhall be found) that the Doctors haue faithfully cyted the proper words of the Miniſters writing, which the Miniſters themſelues will not auouch; it ſhall be knowne at the leaſt, that the Miniſters haue hitherto maintained blaſphemous propoſitions, and that the Doctors therein haue no way wronged them: hauing pardoned their perſons, being content (of the doctrine) to ſay their ſimple opinion.

The Miniſters to ſhewe that they haue iuſt cauſe to accuſe the Doctors of ſlaunder, ſay firſt that the Doctors haue broken in two their propoſition: which was ſuch, that the omnipotencie of God ought not to be meaſured, but by the things onely which be agreeable to his will, and be not derogate either to his wiſedome, truth, nature, or to the order which he hath willed to eſtabliſh in the world: and that the Doctors haue not taken but the laſt part onely. Who for their purgation, ſay that they haue alwaies conſidered what was put in difference: to wit, whether God could make one body to be in two places. And to examine the truth of this queſtion, before they put it in writing, they haue reduced the whole to euery part of the Miniſters propoſition, and haue thus reaſoned. God can do all things which are agreeable to his will: the which is knowne (as the Miniſters doo hold) when there is nothing that derogateth, either to his wiſedome, his truth, his nature, or the order by him eſtabliſhed in the world. Now one body to bee in two places, derogateth not from the wiſedome of God. For God ſhould therefore not leaue to be wiſe. Alſo it derogateth not from his truth: for he hath neuer ſaid, that he could not do it: nor from his nature. For although he ſhould do it, hee ſhould not ceaſe to be God. If then there be any repugnancie, it ſhould be, becauſe it ſhould derogate from the order by God eſtabliſhed in the world. Which was the cauſe that they ſtayed not but on the laſt article. The Miniſters alſo would not ſay as the Doctors ſuppoſe) that to be able to make one body to be in two places, was a thing repugnant, either to the wiſedome, truth, or nature of God: if not, in that they thinke it to repugne the order by God eſtabliſhed in the world. Ioyned heerevnto, that the Miniſters hauing put this propoſition aboue ſaid, for a rule to knowe what God can doo; when they would apply this rule to the matter in controuerſie, then ſhould they thus ſay: To which things, that which the Doctors put foorth (namely that one body, at one ſelfe-ſame inſtant, may be in diuers places) repugneth. But the Miniſters haue only ſayd & written, to which, (that is to ſay) order &c. For ſuch relatiue cannot agree, but to the next antecedent. Wherein is clearly ſeene, that the Miniſters runne into the cryme of ſlaunder, which they falſly obiect to the Doctors.

And whereas the Miniſters ſay, that the Doctors take not the terme of the order eſtabliſhed in the world, in the lyke ſence, as they vnderſtand it: The Doctors ſay, that they haue taken the terme according to the vnderſtanding which the Miniſters haue therof giuen: euen as they haue knowne by their words, which they haue heretofore vſed. For when the queſtiō was to ſet forth ſome myracle done by Ieſus Chriſt, againſt, or aboue the nature of things created the Miniſters haue had alwayes recourſe to the common order of nature. As when ſpeech hath bene of the cloſed doores, of the going out of the Sepulchre, of the wombe of the virgin, and of one body in diuers places; No other reaſon to contradict it haue the Miniſters alledged, but that it was all againſt the order eſtabliſhed in the world, touching the nature of a body: which cannot be vnderſtood, but of the common order which is ſeene in nature. Therefore the Doctors (ſo taking the ſame, as the Miniſters haue ſufficiently declared in their former anſweres, againſt the order of nature▪) haue well inferred againſt the Miniſters, that God could not then do a myracle, againſt the order eſtabliſhed in the world. The Doctors know, that the auncient Fathers obſerued not this difference, aboue or againſt nature: as by the teſtimony of Tertullian here before alledged, appeareth: Where it is ſaid, that God againſt nature, can make a man flye as well as a byrd. But they will not ſtay vppon the rygor of wordes, but apply themſelues to the Miniſters with whome they conferre. Who call it a worke againſt the order eſtabliſhed in the world, one body to be in diuers places, foras much as it withſtanſteth the common diſpoſitiō and proprieties of bodies. And by ſuch reaſon (ſay the Doctors) that all other myracles ought alſo to be eſteemed againſt the order in the world eſtabliſhed: becauſe they be againſt the common diſpoſition and proprietie of nature.

And yet following the vnderſtanding which the Miniſters now giue of the order eſtabliſhed in the world, for the eſtate and diſpoſition which God hath eſtabliſhed, conſerueth and maintaineth all things, by his prouidence and eternall and immutable will, to gouerne all things rightly, and hinder any confuſion to happen to his workes. Here againe do the Miniſters commit a new blaſphemy againſt the omnipotencie of GOD: for hee can wholly chaunge, vnchaunge, and deſtroy ſuch order as hee hath eſtabliſhed in the world (albeit hee will neuer do the ſame) and make a new world more perfect then this. And were it ſo, that hee could do nothing againſt this order, his power ſhould be ſtinted and limitted. For hee could not do but certaine effects, according to the order which hee had eſtabliſhed in the worlde. Which ſhould not happen by the repugnancie of the nature of Creatures: but in as much as God himſelfe ſhould bee tyed. And ſo (againſt the ſcripture) ſhould his hand be ſhortened, and his power forced and limitted: From which blaſphemy, infinite others iſſue, as the Doctors when occaſion ſhall ſerue, haue purpoſed to ſhewe.

To the 2. & third blaſphemies which the Doctors haue noted, the Miniſters ſay, by the new interpretation of the order of the world, in one word they haue fully anſwered. Which (to diſſolue the argumēts produced by the Doctors) commeth nothing to the purpoſe.

And the Miniſters paſſe ouer the alledged places of ſcriptures, which declare the blaſphemie, and diſſemble the contradiction of their doctrine, and of that of Caluin, touching the prouidence of God, in reſpect of the order eſtabliſhed in the world. And the Miniſters anſwere not to the Doctors obiectiō, that from the third blaſphemie flow many others; leaſt in confeſſing the ſame, they might heape blaſphemie vpon blaſphemie, and make their doctrine by this meane, odious toall the world.

For anſwere to the fourth blaſphemie, vſe the Miniſters a diſtinction of the will of God, which may two wayes bee conſidered. The firſt is called the will knowne by ſignes: and the other, the will of good pleaſure. The Miniſters confeſſe, that according to the firſt, God can doo more then he will; and not according to the ſecond, which is (as they ſay) equall to the power of God, & is hidden and vnknowne to men. The which diſtinction if it ought to haue place, the Doctors obiect, that the foundation of the Miniſters, wherevpon they ſtay the pretended truth of this propoſition: God cannot make one body to bee in diuers places, is wholly deſtroyed. For the Miniſters will haue the power of God to be meaſured according to his will, not according to the ſecond, which is hidden vnto men. It behoueth then, that this be taken according to the firſt, by the which they confeſſe that God can do more then he will do. Whereof it followeth, that the rule by them giuen to meaſure Gods power, is falſe. For it cannot be meaſured by his will, ſeeing he can do more then he will.

Moreouer the Doctors ſay, that the Miniſters ſhould not require thē to proue that God hath willed that one body ſhould be in two places, to declare that he could do it. For the Doctors might obiect, that to teach that God may doo ſomething, it needeth not to proue, that he hath formerly willed it. For (according to the Miniſters confeſſion) God can do more then he will.

The Doctors adde, for as much as the will of God appeareth not to vs, but by ſignes, words, and effects: and that the order eſtabliſhed in the world, according to his prouidence (as the Miniſters agree) is hidden vnto men: that the Miniſters cannot affirme, and ſhewe, that God hath eſtabliſhed ſuch order in the world, that one body may not bee in diuers places. For meete it were they ſhould teach ſuch an ordinance of God, and declaration of his will. Oft times haue the Miniſters bene required, to bring one onely place of ſcripture, where ſuch a will of God is manifeſt: and where it is ſaid, that hee cannot make one body to bee in diuers places.

As touching the place of Tertullian, the Doctors for vnderſtanding thereof, refer themſelues to euery man of ſound iudgement: and ſay, that the Miniſters haue ill to the purpoſe alledged Theodoret: and it maketh more againſt them, then with them. For when he writeth that it muſt not be indeterminately ſaid, that God can do all things, comprehending therein good and euill; in that he maketh no reſtraint of the omnipotencie of God: but contrariwiſe, doth amplifie the ſame: in ſo much, that not to be able to do euil things, is both a vertue and power, as before hath beene largely declared.

Where the Miniſters do inſtant the Doctors to ſhewe, that God hath willed one body to bee in two places: the Doctors anſwere, that theſe are two different queſtions, whether God can do it: or whether he hath willed it. And when it ſhall be confeſſed (as it ought to bee of all Chriſtians) that the power is in God, very eaſie ſhall it be to ſhewe the will, by the word, of the Supper, and of the Aſcention: which they of the pretended reformed religion haue accuſtomed to depraue, and diſſwade men from, by the impoſſibilitie which they faigne to bee in God, to put one body in two places.

Alſo the Doctors leaue it to the readers iudgement, whether S. Augustine haue bene cyted by the Miniſters to the purpoſe or no. And to that which concerneth whether ihe quantitie be eſſentiall to a body, or not: the Doctors (ſpeaking of a body as doth Philoſophers, namely, In predicamento quantitatis) haue neuer doubted but it is eſſentiall. But the difficultie is to know, whether to be circumſcript in a place certaine, be eſſentiall to a body? And the Doctors ſuppoſe they haue ſufficiently proued that it is not eſſentiall, but that it is an accident naturall to a body. And they verifie their ſaying, by the definition of a body, wherein all eſſentiall reaſon is compriſed: and ſuch it is, that a body is a kinde of firme quantitie of three dimenſions, length, breadth, and deepeneſſe: where no mention is made of the circumſcription of place in the ſaide definition.

What pertaineth to the queſtion concerning places aboue the heauen, the Miniſters (as they are wont) do lightly paſſe ouer. And for want of good anſwere, they wrong the Doctors, calling them Sophiſters. And that which they bring to confirme that our Lord is in one place aboue the heauen, is ouer friuolous. For by the ſame reaſon might one conclude, that the diuinitie is circumſcript. And Aduerbes ſignifying place, ſhall be found in the ſcripture, when it ſpeaketh of the diuinitie, as well as when it ſpeaketh of the humanitie of Ieſus Chriſt.

Where the Miniſters impute to the Doctors that they confeſſe their Canons to be falſe, it is a manifeſt ſlaunder. For the Doctors acknoweldge not any Canons, but in as much as they are taken out of the Councels, & other bookes authenticke: and not according as they are extracted of any particular perſon: as is the polinge of Gratian: wherevnto they giue no credit, but as much as that which hee cyteth deſerueth.

For reſolution of the 8. article, the Doctors ſend the Miniſters to the ſchoole of Philoſophers, to vnderſtand, that in a predicament of ſubſtance, there is a body, which is a kind of ſubſtance: and in a predicament of quantitie, an other body, which is a kinde of quantitie. And to learne them alſo, that the body which is of quantitie, is accidentall (and not eſſentiall) to a body of predicament of ſubſtance.

Moreouer, the Miniſters do erre againſt all Philoſophie, calling a materiall ſubſtance, incorporall. But the Doctors will not reſt vppon ſuch things, and are much grieued that they haue not to do with people better grounded in Ppiloſophie. For that, being ſuch, they could better touch the reaſon then the Miniſters do.

The Doctors doo maintaine the conſequence of two bodies in one placle, to infer it for neceſſarie, that one body may be in two places: for there is like reaſon, and like inconuenience in the one, as in the other. And therefore if the one be to be done, the other is poſſible: and ſo they referre it to the readers iudgements.

Where the Miniſters complaine of the time they haue loſt in reading the reaſons, arguments, and allegations, touching the cloſed doores, and other articles. The Doctors ſay, that in the matter in queſtion, the Miniſters haue no cauſe to complaine of ouer-great prolixitie, for feare of looſing time. And that there is matter ſufficient to ſpend the time withall, would they with patience (bringing with them good will, and all paſſion excluded) examine the teſtimonies of the Auncients, and reaſons drawne from the ſame. But the Doctors do wel proue, that when there is any thing which preſſeth the Miniſters, then ſet they a good face on the matter, and make ſemblance to haue right on their ſide. Moreouer, the Doctors are much amazed, how the Miniſters are ſo bold to ſay, that Iustin and all the Auncients haue not placed the myracle of the paſſage of the doores, in the body of Ieſus Chriſt: ſeeing that Iustin expreſly propoſeth the queſtion, how it is poſſible that a thicke bodie is not hindered to paſſe through the cloſed doores. In the anſwere of which queſtion, they conclude the ſame: that for as much as ſuch myracle was done in the nature of the body of Ieſus Chriſt, the Apoſtles eſteemed it was not a true bodie, but a ſpirite: as if the bodie had beene transformed into a ſpirite: which Iustin ſaith did not happen: but that without any chaunge of nature, ſuch an operation, to paſſe through the cloſed doore, was giuen to the body of Ieſus Chriſt by the omnipotencie of God: and Iustin ſaith not, that any myracle was wrought in the ſea, when Ieſus walked therevpon: but that by the almightineſſe which was in him, he made it walkeable, without any chaunge of the nature, either of his body, or of the ſea: although that the myracle were in his body, which againſt it nature ſo walked. It is not ſufficient to alledge out of S. Hillary, that the power of God made paſſage to the body of our Lord. For he ſaith not that onely; but addeth the manner of the deed▪ to wit, that the body paſſed without change or diminiſhing of it nature, and without hauing any opening. But that by the operation of the almightineſſe, he paſſed notwithſtanding, which wrought in his body, piercing the ſhut and cloſed places: Nihil (inquit) ceſſit ex ſolido parietum: nothing ceaſed (ſaith he) of the firmneſſe of the walles: and other like words which he bringeth: of which can no other thing be vnderſtood, but a piercing of many bodies. S. Chriſoſtome expreſly diſputeth of the body, which againſt it nature paſſed through the cloſed doores, as through the wombe of the virgin, without fraction. And he ſaith not ſimply that hee knoweth not wherein the worke conſiſted (for he deſcribeth it) but he amplifieth the power of the worke: and ſaith, that he cannot comprehend the reaſon and greatneſſe thereof, for as much as it proceeded from the power of the incomprehenſible Cod. Concerning this whole point, the Doctors refer them to the reading of the bookes, without more debating thereof againſt the Miniſters: who think alwayes to abuſe the ignorance of thoſe which beleeue thē, denying or affirming what they thinke good. And it troubleth and grieueth the Doctors, that they are conſtrained to repeate the former reaſons ſo familiarly, and clearly deducted: But the Miniſters euaſions ſo often repeated, enforce thē eftſoones to inculeate that, which of theſe articles ought to be beleeued by the common conſent of the Fathers.

The Doctors are abaſhed at the maner of the Miniſters anſwere: who without regard of that hath bene obiected to them, ſay what they pleaſe, without anſwering to the arguments of the matter propoſed: As they do in the article of the byrth of Ieſus Chriſt: In the deductiō wherof the Doctors haue brought many teſtimonies of the Ancients, which hold, that our Lord (as he was alſo there conceaued) myracuculouſly iſſued from the wombe of his mother: And that the ſaid Fathers did witneſſe, ſuch byrth to haue bin made without any fraction in the body of the virgin, and condemned of hereſie all thoſe which held the contrary. Which thing the Miniſters will yet maintain, and for full anſwere, affirme the ſame: relying (as they ſay) vpon the ſcripture, and not daring to ſay openly, that to cleaue to their proper ſence, they reiect the determination of the ancient & primitiue Church. Which is very cleare notwithſtanding by their anſwere to this article: wherein they falſly cyte the ſcripture, as though it contained, that in the byrth of our Lord, Aperta fuerit vulua virginis: The wombe of the virgin was opened. And where they ſay, that ſuch an opening repugneth not the corporall virginitie, (whereof is the queſtion) they belye the reſolution of the auncient Fathers, which haue determined of that deed.

Whether in the Article of the Reſurrection there be but coniectures, the reading of the Doctors obiection will witneſſe. The which they may ſee, that deſire to know the truth thereof.

Where the Miniſters do complaine in the end of the article of the Reſurrection, that the Doctors do wrong and ſcoffe them; the Doctors doubt not, but the Miniſters are ſore troubled, that their ſubtilties and maner of dealing are diſcouered: the which, did men well vnderſtand, they would not ſuffer themſelues ſo eaſily (as heeretofore) to be deceiued.

The ſolution which the Miniſters pretend to giue, becauſe it is not Aphantos autois, but Ap'auton is impertinent. For howſoeuer it was, our Lord was inuiſible to his Diſciples, were it by ſuddaine vaniſhing, or otherwiſe; the which vaniſhing, in a body preſent to perfect ſight, cannot be done, except the body be made to them inuiſible. And howſoeuer it be, the Greeke Text beareth inuiſible and vnapparant.

As touching the article of the opening of the heauens, the Miniſters as they are wont, anſwere not to the purpoſe: For it is not ſaid, that the heauens were clouen aſunder, or opened, when he aſcended thither: as at the baptiſme of Ieſus Chriſt, and when it is ſpoken of the viſion of S. Stephen. But the ſcripture ſaith expreſly, that Ieſus Chriſt pierced the Heauens, and not that the Heauens were opened vnto him. And the Miniſters cannot forbeare to ſlaunder the Doctors, in deprauing the vnderſtanding of their writings: as is ſeene in this preſent anſwere, where the Miniſters faineto haue vnderſtood, in that place of the ſcripture, mencioning Ieſus Chriſt to haue pierced the Heauens, that the Doctors by the name of Heauen, will haue the ayre to be ſignified: which the Doctors neuer thought: but haue oft times ſayd, that when it mencioneth the opening of the Heauens, by the Heauens it vnderſtandeth the aire: which ſo ought not to be applyed, when our Lorde is ſayd to haue pierced the Heauens.

By ſuch manner of anſwere do the Miniſters thinke, to cauſe the force of the Doctors reaſon to be forgotten. Who ſaid thus: If when it is ſaid in the ſcripture that the Heauens were opened, the words ought ſtrictly to be taken, and truly to be vnderſtood, that the heauens were opened: It likewiſe behoueth, when the ſcripture ſaith, that Ieſus Chriſt pierced the Heauens, that the word [pierced] be taken in it proper ſignification and ſtrictly: which thing directly repugneth the diuiſion or opening, as things oppoſed one to another. To which reaſon, there is no anſwere giuen, more then ordinarily is to the other arguments of the ſaid Doctors.

Touching the differēce which the Miniſters put, between the ſight of S. Stephen, which ſtretched euen to the height of Heauen, and the being of two bodies in one ſelfe-ſame place: and that the one is a myracle in nature: and the other a wonder againſt nature, and the will of GOD. The Miniſters (good Secretaries of Gods Counſaile and will) ſhould do much, if they could teach the Doctors, that God hath willed the one, and that hee cannot will the other: and then ſhall there bee reaſon for their ſaying, to ſhewe the difference they haue aſſigned betweene theſe two.

The inconſtancie of the Miniſters is knowne in the article where the Camell is mentioned: to wit, whether God can cauſe him to paſſe through the eye of a needle. For in the Miniſters firſt anſwere, made without any diſtinction, haue they anſwered, that to make a Camell (or Cable) to paſſe through the eye of a needle, was a thing impoſſible with God. And in the ſecond anſwere do they alledge, that Ieſus Chriſt, (in ſaying, that what was impoſſible with men, was poſſible with God) no other thing pretended, but to anſwere the queſtion which his Diſciples had propoſed: namely, who could be ſaued: anſwering wherevnto, he ſaid: that it was impoſſible with men: and that ſuch ſentence of Ieſus Chriſt, ought not to be vnderſtood, but of the ſaluation and conuerſion of rich men onely: which excluſiue ſpeech (when the Miniſters affirme, that our Lord ſaying, that what is impoſſible to man, is poſſible with God; muſt not be vnderſtood, but of the ſaluation of the rich) clearely ſheweth, that the Miniſters intent was to ſay by their anſwere, that our Lord ment not to comprehend vnder this propoſition; [That which is impoſſible with men, is poſſible with God]: the poſſibilitie to make a Camell paſſe through the eye of a needle. As if this propoſition were not to be generally vnderſtood, whereof our Lord inferreth this particular. It is poſſible with God to ſaue a rich man. And hee himſelfe by expreſſe words ſpeaketh generally: Omnia apud Deum poſſibilia ſnnt. With God are all things poſſible. The Doctors deſire, that they which can read this preſent writing, would note the ſtarting holes of the Miniſters, who wontedly auouch, and denie the errors they maintaine, when they are thereof by the trueth conuinced.

Now the Miniſters (not daring to perſiſt in defence, that God cannot cauſe a Camell to paſſe through the eye of a needle) haue inuented a very fooliſh interpretation, in confeſſing that God can do it, but that the meanes ſhould be in this, that God might pare off and diminiſh the groſſeneſſe of a Camell, and all other things which might hinder it paſſage there. But that gloſe the Text cannot brooke: For our Lord ſpeaketh of a thing wholy impoſſible to men: which ſhould not be. For although to make and bring forth a Camell of ſo little ſtature and bigneſſe, that he might paſſe thorow the eye of a needle, were a thing impoſſible with man, yet if God brought forth ſuch a one, or if he did ſo much diminiſh the greatneſſe and groſſeneſſe of a Camell, and that man might hold the ſame, he might well cauſe it to paſſe. But the queſtion is not of the production of a Camell, or of making him great or ſmall; but of cauſing him to paſſe. The which (were hee ſo little) ſhould not be a myracle as touching the paſſage, but onely touching the production of ſuch a liuing Creature, or the chaunging of his quantitie. Alſo in taking this name Camelus, for a Cable (as Caluin thought beſt) the abſurditie of this new expoſition ſhall better appeare. For well may man ſo much leſſen a Cable, by the detraction of it matter, that in the ende he may make it paſſe through the eye of a needle. Moreouer it ſhould be eaſie for a man to make a needle, whoſe eye ſhould be ſo large, that a Cable, (yea a Camell) might paſſe there through. But the ſcripture ſpeaketh of things impoſſible with man, and as they are in their owne nature. Therefore as the eye of a needle muſt be taken in it little and ſtraight quantitie: ſo alſo muſt a Camell or Cable, be taken in it naturall groſſeneſſe. And neuer were the Auncients ſo ſubtill, to int uent ſuch ingenious interpretations, as one could not reade without laughter. But the Miniſters cannot eſcape with this goodly expoſition, that one ſeeth not clearly, they deny the power of God can ſtretch ſo farre, that it can make a Camel in his crookedneſſe and thickneſſe, to paſſe through the eye of a needle: but only when hee ſhall by the power of God, be brought into quantitie proportionable to the eye of a needle, which is againſt the expreſſe Text of the ſcripture, and againſt the expoſitiō of auncient interpreters: although that beſides the litterall ſence, the Camel be ſometimes allegorically expounded by them. But the allegorical expoſition of that place, taketh not away the truth of the litteral ſēce, no more then the acts of Ieſus Chriſt ceaſe to be true acts, albeit the interpreters expound them allegorically. Wherin the Miniſters are deceiued, ſuppoſing, becauſe they haue read in S. Ierome ſome interpretation beſides the litteral, that Li. de vera Circonciſione ad finem.the compariſon which our Lord in this behalf hath vſed, was a parable, which is falſe. For a true argument it is which our Lord deduceth, to ſhewe his power to ſaue a rich man: becauſe this is a thing more hard, thē to cauſe a Camel to paſſe through the eye of a needle.

The Doctors to conclude vpon this article, do eftſoones ſhew vnto the Miniſters, that of the deniall of the ſtretching forth of Gods almightineſſe, many other abſurdities, which cannot otherwiſe be termed then blaſphemies, do follow. Namely, that two bodies cannot be in one place by the almightineſſe of God: that GOD cannot make a bodie without circumſcription of place: that Ieſus Chriſt entered not, nor could enter through the cloſed doores: aroſe not, nor could a ••• e, without the ſtone were rowled from the graue: that hee went not, nor could goe out of the Virgines wombe, without fraction in the bodie of his mother: that hee pearced not, nor could pearce the heauens, without opening of them: that he made not, nor could make a bodie (no not his owne) inuiſible: that he could not cauſe a Camell (or Cable) retaining it groſſeneſſe, to paſſe through the eye of a needle. Which things do follow the deniall of his almightineſſe, and is an execrable blaſphemie, and very Atheiſme. Behold the enormious abſurdities which they are conſtrained to confeſſe, that denie the real preſence of Ieſus Chriſt in the Sacramēt of the Aultar; which the Doctors pray to be well conſidered by the readers of this preſent writing.

Concerning that which the Miniſters make queſtion of in the laſt article of their anſwere, that the Doctors doo call faith a humane worke, ſeeing that it is of God: they ought no more to wonder thereat, then infinit other truthes, which ſeemeth ſtraunge to them becauſe their doctrine is founded on the grounds of error: among which, one of the principall is; That man hath not free will: that man to thinke well, will well, and doo well, worketh not together with God: againſt many places of ſcripture which ſetteth downe man co-working with God: and for his faith and workes, hath of him reward and recompence. The which, without wandring from the purpoſe, ſhall more aptly be handled in an other place. The Doctors like well, that the Miniſters do confeſſe that the anciēt Fathers haue neuer ſaid, God could not cauſe one bodie to be in diuers places: which thing is true. But the reaſon which they yeeld, why they haue not ſo ſayd, is of the Miniſters owne forge and inuention. It remaineth, that they ſhewe vs ſo much by the teſtimony of the Scripture concerning the ſame: For no more is it therein found, then in the writings of the Fathers. Whereof the ſaid Miniſters haue bene oft admoniſhed, who ſay they build all their doctrine vpon the word of God.

Had the Miniſters in the beginning confeſſed the truth of the Omnipotencie, or elſe had they ſaid, that they acknowledged that Ieſus Chriſt could cauſe his body to be aboue, and here belowe in the Sacrament, really and truly, if he ſo would: than had it bene needleſſe to handle theſe former queſtions, which neuertheleſſe, are not of ſmall conſequence, as the Miniſters do eſteeme them. Which thing appeareth by the writings of the Fathers, who haue diligently handled theſe places, and ſtrengthened themſelues therewith againſt heretiques: But becauſe the Miniſters would not agree, that God can make one body to be at one ſelfe-ſame inſtant, in diuers places; And that if the Doctors had begunne to declare his will to haue bene ſuch, that he had ordained the body of Ieſus Chriſt ſhould be in Heauen, and in the Sacrament. The Miniſters might haue ſayd (as they of theyr ſect doo ſay) that God hath not willed it, becauſe he could not. The Doctors had rather firſt intreate of the Almightineſſe, then of the will. And ſeeing the matter of the Omnipotencie hath bene ſufficitntly toſſed, they are determined to prooue, that Ieſus Chriſt hath willed and ordained, that his bodie ſhould bee in diuers places. In the probation of which thing, when they haue vnderſtood the Miniſters opinion, of that they holde in theyr Churches touching that matter, they will enter into the former Conference, to the ende that theyr trauell be not in vaine. For that they follow not (it ſeemeth to the Doctors) that which Caluin and Beza holde concerning the ſame. For which cauſe (ſay the Doctors) that the Miniſters abuſe the people: fayning to teach that, which in the reformed Church they haue wontedly done: and yet their anſwere addreſſed to the Doctors, ſheweth the contrary.

In that the Miniſters repute themſelues happie, to endure ſuch reproaches, to be eſteemed ſeducers by the Doctors, let them remember, that all ſects may ſay as much therof as they: whether by right or wrong, it wil appeare by examination of their doctrine.

The Doctors reſolution touching the article of the Almightineſſe of God, in regard of foure questions by them propounded to the Ministers: which ſerue to the vnderſtanding of the reall preſence of the body and blood of Ieſus Christ in the Sacrament.

EVery man which can patiently cōſider by the ſcriptures, beginning at Abraham, the Father of the faithfull, vnto the laſt writing of the Apoſtles: ſhall finde, that the well ſpring of all infidelitie hath ordinarily beene, to haue regarde to the proprietie of creatures, and common order of nature, to contradict, doubt of, and diſtruſt the word of God. For which reaſon, Tertullian and other former Chriſtians ſayd well: that Phyloſophers, and they that ſtayed vpon things naturall, were the Fathers of Hereticques: becauſe the contemplation of Nature, engendered almoſt all hereſies: On the contrary ſide, ſhall one perceiue the almightineſſe of God, to be propoſed by the ſcriptures, as a ſharpe ſword, cutting in peeces all arguments which might come of naturall reaſons: for a certaine and finall reſolution to beleeue whatſoeuer is couched & borne by the ſaid word of God, albeit impoſſible & incomprehenſible to euery creature: and faith to be ſtaied on that ſame power in all doubts, which might be offered or propoſed.

All the difficultie which Abraham made vppon the promiſes of God to him, did proceed of certaine impoſſibilities of nature, which he ſawe in himſelfe and in his wife. And it ſeemeth hee had alwayes regard therevnto, vntill God vſed his authoritie, and ſaid vnto him: I am God all ſufficient. Is any thing hard to the Lord? After this rebuke and remonſtrance of God, Abraham did then forget all conſideration of the proprieties of his nature, and laid hold on this ſhield of faith: which is to knowe, and to bee fully perſwaded, that God is almightie, to whom nothing is hard or impoſſible. And after that, when queſtion was of killing his onely ſonne; albeit hee had great apparance of contradiction in nature, and in the word of God, which had beene giuen him: to wit, that of the ſeed of that ſonne ſhould hee proceed, which ſhould giue bleſſing to all Nations, and notwithſtanding hee muſt kill him before hee had any lynage of his bodie iſſued. Neuertheleſſe hee made not proteſtation, oppoſing that contradiction of nature, and of the word of GOD, to maintaine, that that which had beene ſaid and promiſed vnto him was impoſſible: but hee had recourſe to the ſtay of faith, and of the faithfull (ſaieth Saint Paul to the Hebrewes) that is to ſay, to the omnipotencie, eſteeming that God had the meane to make true both the one and the other: namely, to cauſe his ſonne to die, and riſe againe, to drawe from him afterwards lynage and poſteritie: although as yet there had beene no example of the reſurrection.

Likewiſe the conſideration of creatures, and the order of nature which Moſes ſawe before him, made him fall into Infidelitie. And God ſhewed him his fault, in that he would deny him the power, long time with fleſh to nouriſh his people: becauſe the nature of the wildernes did not afford it: and did admoniſh him to lift vp his ſpirit to the omnipotency againſt nature, and there to aſſure his faith. Moſes ſaid: Sixe hundred thouſand people there are, among whom I am: and thou ſaiſt, I will giue them fleſh, that they may eate therof a month long: Shall the ſheepe and beeues be ſlaine to find them? Either ſhall all the fiſh of the ſea be gathered together for them to ſuffice them? God anſwered Moſes, Is the hand of the Lord ſhortnea? thou ſhalt now ſee whether my word ſhall come to paſſe, or no. In like maner, as often as one ſhall reade in the ſcriptures, that the people, or other particular perſons, fell into vnbeliefe or diſtruſt of Gods helpe and ſuccor, he ſhall know, that the cauſe hath ordinarily bene, for ſtaying vpon the nature and diſpoſition of humane things: without ſufficient apprehenſion of the power of God. And contrariwiſe, to confirme them, that this power was ſet before their eyes: diuers examples therof haue heretofore bene brought out of Eſay and Ieremy.

In the new Teſtament, the Virgin hauing regard to the naturall maner of conceauing, ſeemed to doubt of the mean of her conception. And ſhe ſaid: How ſhall this thing be, ſeeing I know not man? And the Angell anſwering, ſayd vnto her: Nothing ſhall bee impoſſible with God. Drawing her backe from the cogitations of naturall proprieties, which is the roote of Infidelitie, and exhorting her to thinke vpon the Almightineſſe of God, which is the chiefe ſtone and rocke, wherevpon true Religion is builded.

Which thing conſidered: The Doctors for their reſolution of this conference with the Miniſters, do ſay: that with good right hath the omnipotency of God very expreſly obtained the firſt place, among the articles of the Apoſtles Creed: as being that, by which all the other articles of faith, and the workes of God aboue nature, are belieued and maintained, againſt all contradiction and repugnancy of nature, or reaſon, which may be pretended or alledged: And without the which, any article of faith, or any the workes of God ſurpaſſing nature, and contained in the ſcriptures, could not be defended and maintained, againſt the aſſaults of malice, and depriuation of humane ſpirit: which alwayes tendeth to infidelitie, and diſobedience towards his God: and from his byrth is prompt and ſubtil to depraue and ſlaunder his word and commandement. By meanes whereof (ſay the Doctors) that ſo much the more ought euery Chriſtian to inforce himſelf, to hold and keep that article entire, without ſuffring any to make any exceptiō therof, or to reſtrain it at his pleaſure, vnder any pretexts of (I know not what) repugnancies of creatures; which humane ſpirit propoſeth, for want of vnderſtanding and comprehending the greatneſſe of God. For the ſcriptures do euer preſent vnto vs this omnipotēcy generally without any reſtraint, in regard of creatures, or of the workes of God. And teacheth vs, that the creatures is in his hands, as the clayin the hand of the Potter, to receiue ſuch change and forme, as ſhall ſeeme good vnto him: without that Eſay 45. Iere. 18. Rom. 9.they can ſay, Why haſt thou made or chaunged mee thus! Such ſimilitude and words the Prophet Eſay, Ieremy, and S. Paul do vſe.

Moreouer, the Doctors ſay: that men muſt yet leſſe be lycenſed to limit and bound the foreſayd power, according to the contradictions which in theyr writings they imagine of the nature, wiſedome, or eternall will of God: Seeing that the ſcripture ſaith plainly, that God can doo more then wee vnderſtand, and mocketh at them which will entermeddle with the nature, wiſedome, and eternall will of God: as though they had bene of counſell with him to know thereby the deciſions and ordinances, more then his owne word pronounceth thereof. And S. Paule in the end conſtraineth with himſelfe euery ſpirit created, to cry out, confeſſing his ignorance of the power, wiſedome, Rom. 11.and workes of God: Oh the deepneſſe of the riches, wiſedome, and knowledge of God, how incomprehenſible are his iudgements, and his wayes past finding out. For who is he that hath knowne the minde of the Lord? Or who hath bene his Counſailor? And an excellent ſaying of S. Auguſtine vpō this point is to be noted, who in an Epiſtle Advoluſianum ſaith: We confeſſe, that God can doo ſomething, the which in ſearching, wee cannot finde. As if hee would ſay: to wit, if God can doo ſomething, albeit in our naturall iudgement wee thinke it impoſſible: wee eſteeme it neuertheleſſe that it is poſſible: but that the capacitie of our ſpirit cannot comprehend the ſame.

The Doctors ſay aſſo, that by ſuch libertie and meanes that any will exempt what hee liketh from the power of God, vnder colour of ſome impoſſibilities of nature, or of repugnancie, after his owne iudgement, to the nature, wiſedome, and will of God: each one will ſtudie to faine the like, in all matters of faith: wherein ſuch cauſes may bee eaſily inuented, and well diſguiſed. And that it is ſo, from the firſt article of the Creed vnto the laſt, let all the hereſies which haue bene there contradicted, be from time to time obſerued, and it will appeare, that all haue held this way and method, to fight againſt euery article of faith, as impoſſible to God: reſpecting the impoſsibilitie of the worke according to nature, and ſome pretended inconueniences, againſt the nature, wiſedome, will, and glorie of God.

The Doctors employ to this effect, the two firſt bookes of Tertullian: one whereof is, of the incarnation of Ieſus Chriſt: and the other, againſt the Marcioniſts of the reſurrection of the fleſh: In which the Chriſtian reader ſhall perceiue the like arguments of thoſe Marcioniſts, endeuouring to exempt from the omnipotencie of God, the incarnation of our Lord, and the reſurrectiō of the fleſh.

Then to conclude this point, the Doctors do forewarne euery Chriſtian, that they adde not ought to the ſcriptures, which ſpeake alwaies without any limitation of the power of GOD towards the creatures: and to the ende, to praiſe the infinite power, wiſedome, and eternall will of our Creator and Redeemer: and to the end to preſerue the cloſet of Gods ſecrets from euery ſhameleſſe and impudent perſon, which of his own folly wil make a law, not only to mē, 〈2 pages missing〉 of heretikes. Credendo non credunt. To wit, that in beleeuing Gods omnipotencie, they beleeue it not. For after they haue ſaid that no exception is to be put vnto it, on the other ſide they returne to declare, that it ought not bee extended to euery thing, which humane ſpi • t can conceiue. And indeed, they will not apply vnto it, but what ſeemeth good vnto them: and ſhrowd themſelues with the nature, wiſdome, and eternall will of God: which to them are vnknowne, and incomprehenſible, as that of the Omnipotencie. The Doctors therefore do admoniſh all men to beware of beeing abuſed with the words of Caluin and his Miniſters: but to regard the works which they denie to be in the power of God. The Doctors haue propoſed to them theſe foure queſtions: to wit, whether God can make one body to be in two places: and (contrariwiſe) two bodies in one place: whether hee can lodge one body in a leſſe ſpace then the greatneſſe thereof: and whether he can make it inviſible. And ſuch queſtions haue beene ſpecially choſen: becauſe the principall arguments of the pretended reformed Religion againſt the true preſence of the body and bloud of Ieſus Chriſt in the holy Sacrament, are founded vpon the ſame.

The Doctors beleeue ſimply (as all other things) that the foure queſtions are poſſible to God, and haue proued the ſame by the infiniteneſſe of his power, by the ſcriptures, which attribute vnto him all power without exception, ouer the creatures: and by written examples and ſtraunge my racles wrought vpon their bodies, againſt the nature of them. Tertullian in his booke of the Reſurrection, ſaith: To the end wee may beleeue, that our God is more mightie then all lawe and nature of all bodies: And addeth: that they knowe God amiſſe who thinke that is not in his power, which they in their braine cannot comprehend. From whence it commeth (as ſaith S. Cyrill) that ſuch wicked ſpirits doo reiect and condemne all things as impoſſible, becauſe they themſelues do not vnderſtand them.

Moreouer the Doctors ſuppoſe they haue ſufficiently ſhewed, as well by expreſſe ſcripture, as by the expoſitions thereof, taken from auncient Chriſtians, that it was not onely in the power of God to make two bodies in one place, and one body without place equall to it greatneſſe, but that alreadie it was truly done in the birth of the body of our Lord Ieſus Chriſt: in his reſurrection: in the entrie through the cloſed doores: and in the aſcention aboue all the heauens. And the Doctors haue ſhewed, that there was like and ſemblable repugnancie in theſe deeds, as in the other: that is, of one body in two places: which is not exempted by the ſcripture, from the power nor will of God, more then the others, to iudge it impoſſible to bee done: and that there was neuer Chriſtian before our time, which dared to affirme that thing to be impoſsible, • nd out of the power of God, although occaſion was often offered to ſay it, had they any way thought it impoſsible: as the Miniſters of the pretended reformed Religion do pretend. Contrariwife, the moſt part of the auncient authors of the Primitiue Church, haue held it expreſly to be in Gods power to place one creature in many places: as held Saint Ierome againſt the heretike Vigillantius, that the ſoules of the Saints might be preſent in many places, with the immaculate Lambe our Lord Ieſus Chriſt. And the queſtion was, whether the ſaid ſoules, and ſpirits of the Saints, were ſometimes preſent in the Churches where their Sepulchres and monuments were. And ſo much thereof holdeth S. Auguſtine in the 16▪ Chap. of the booke which he wrote of the due care of the dead: where he writeth, that ſoules by the power of their owne nature, cannot be here belowe, and in heauen, or in many places: but that it may be done by the power of God: and will not reſolue whether they vnderſtand our affaires by ſuch a preſence in many places, or by the reuelation of Angels, or other meanes by the power and grace of God.

Alſo it is certain, that in the matter of the holy Sacrament, the auncient Fathers of the Church haue acknowledged and maintained, that the bodie of Ieſus Chriſt was in many places by the almightie power of God. As doth S. Ambroſe vpon the tenth of the Epiſtle to the Hebrewes: and Saint Chriſoſtome in his 17. Homily vpon the ſame Epiſtle. Where both two as it were in like words do write, that although in many places there are many actions and oblations of the body of Ieſus Chriſt: neuertheleſſe (hauing regard to the thing which is offered, to wit, the true lambe and body of Chriſt Ieſus) that this ſacrifice in many places offered is but one, for ſo much as it is but one ſelfe-ſame thing: to wit, the true lambe, and the true body of Ieſus Chriſt, which is but one, and abideth whole in all places where it is offered. They adde alſo, that the oblations of him in diuers places, is not an iteration of the ſacrifice of the Croſſe: but in commemoration of him. So that in the ſacrifice of the Maſſe, they acknowledge and diſtinguiſh two points. The one which concerneth the realtie of the thing offered: and they ſay, that this is the true lambe, and true body of Ieſus Chriſt: which then remaining intierly one, is neuertheleſſe in many places. And the other concerneth the action and oblation of ſuch thing by the Prieſt, which is no iteration, nor like action or oblation as that of the Croſſe: but diuerſe, in remembrance notwithſtanding of that was made vpon the Croſſe. S. Chriſostome in the third booke of Prieſthood, cryeth out ſaying: Oh myracle and power of God! He which ſitteth on high at the right hand of his Father, is held betweene the hands of each one in the Sacrament. S. Augustine vpon the 33. Pſalme ſheweth, that the body of Ieſus Chriſt in the Supper was in two places: that is to ſay, in it viſible place among his Apoſtles; and neuertheleſſe betweene his owne hands. So that he himſelfe did beare himſelfe. And before he concludeth the ſame, Saint Augustine debateth how it was poſſible that one perſon ſhould beare his body betweene his hands. And after he had ſhewed that it was impoſſible for Dauid, and cuerie creature, he deſcended at laſt, to the diuine power which was in Ieſus Chriſt: by the which, to him alone among all men, ſuch myracle was poſſible. And to the ende that men ſhould not depraue, nor wreſt the meaning of S. Augustine, (becauſe there is ſomething which after a ſort is carried as though it diminiſhed the truth) let them note that the purpoſe of S. Augustine is, to ſhewe that Ieſus by his almightineſſe did carrie himſelfe, which to any creature was impoſsible. Now had he onely in the Supper borne betweene his hands the figure of the Sacrament, and ſigne of his body, and not his true and reall body, hee ſhould haue done nothing, but what the leaſt man might do. For each man can carrie betwixt his hands, the figure, Image, ſigne or Sacrament of his body, or ſticke it in his hat, without myracle or ſupernaturall power. It be houeth then, that the certaine maner which S. Auguſtine vſeth, doth nothing diminiſh the truth: and this it is, that betweene his hands he was inuiſible, and in a ſupernaturall maner of being; reall neuertheleſſe and true. S. Baſil in his Liturgie with the others, auoucheth the body of Ieſus Chriſt to be in heauen, and by his almightineſſe notwithſtanding to bee preſent in the Sacrament: although the Miniſters to proue it impoſsible for one body, or one other creature, to be in many places, do chiefly build vpon S. Baſil: but the ſaid S. Baſil, in the place by the Miniſters alledged, doth expreſly proteſt, not to ſpeake but according to the naturall proprietie. And in his Liturgie he declareth, that it is not onely in the power of God to cauſe the body of Ieſus Chriſt to be in heauen, and vpon the Aultar; but that it is ſo truly done.

The Doctors to end this queſtion of one body in many places, ſay: that ſuch matter is not onely in the power of God, but that it muſt ſo be beleeued to bee done in the holy Sacrament, that God be not found a lyar and deceiuer in his word: whereby Ieſus affirmed to his Apoſtles, that that which he gaue with his hands, was his true body, deliuered for vs. This is an argument which Tertullian in his booke of the Reſurrection maketh, after hee had diſputed againſt them which denied the ſame to be poſſible with God. And it ſeemeth they then ſaid (as the Miniſters haue formerly ſaid) that there was ſomething by the ſcriture impoſſible with God: to wit, that he could not lye, nor deceiue: and that thereof they tooke occaſion to goe further, and to diſpute that the reſurrection was to him alſo impoſſible. So that the Miniſters, becauſe God cannot lye, haue endeuouted • o inferre, that to put one body in two places, was impoſſible for him, as well as to lye and deceiue. Tertullian in the end accordeth with the Marcioniſts, and ſaith: Rather had I confeſſe that God cannot deceiue, and that hee is onely weake and impotent in deceit: to the end, that thereby hee ſeeme not to haue taught and ſpoken one way, and to haue otherwiſe diſpoſed of the deed contained in his word. Then if hee cannot (concludeth Tertullian) deceiue and abuſe, the reſurrection muſt be beleeued, as it is carried in his word, and not otherwiſe, leaſt deceit be found in the word of God.

The Doctors ſay alſo, they willingly confeſſe, that God cannot lye, nor deceiue: and that it muſt therefore be beleeued, that ſo he hath willed and ordained the truth of the Supper, in ſuch ſort, and not otherwiſe, as his word ſoundeth and beareth. Now ſo it is, that his word plainly and expreſly beareth, that he affirmeth that what hee gaue with his hands to his Apoſtles to eat, was his body, deliuered for vs: we muſt therefore beleeue that his word ſaith not otherwiſe then his will is, leaſt he be eſteemed a lyar. And that as he ſaith, This is my body: This is my bloud: that it is ſo indeed. The which the Doctors (by Gods aſſiſtance) will declare in the next Conference, to ſhewe that he hath not onely power to eſtabliſh his body in the holy Sacrament: but alſo that he hath willed it, and ſo hath done it.

Artictles propoſed by the Doctosr for the next Conference, and others following, according to the order of the ſaid Articles.

ALthough, following the order of Conference touching the Apoſtles Creed, they ought ſecondly to entreate of an other article (as the Miniſters themſelues in the beginning of the Conference not onely accorded, but demaunded: offering the imprinted Articles of their confeſſion, bearing date the 1564. yeare, from the firſt vnto the laſt, to be examined by the Doctors.) Neuertheleſſe, the Doctors ſeeing it will not be much from the purpoſe, after they haue intreated of the omnipotencie of God (which extendeth to bee powerfull to cauſe the body of Ieſus Chriſt to be in heauen, and in the Sacrament) in continuing that matter, to enter into the probation of his will: they are content to ſhewe, that he hath not power onely, but that alſo he hath wil: and are conſequently determined to refute all the blaſphemies and hereſies contained in their Supper, which are called reformed: to the end alſo they be not deemed to flye the liſt, touching the Supper and the Maſſe, as the Miniſters haue reproached them. Neuertheleſſe they proteſt, that their meaning is, after the concluſion of this matter, and reſolution giuen, to returne to examine the wonderfull errors of the Miniſters, which in number are many againſt the other articles of the Creed: which thing the Miniſters (vnwilling that the Doctors ſhould purſue the order begun, do greatly feare, as one may ſee, and iudge: foreſeeing, that in the next Conference, an other blaſphemie would be ſhewed them, which the Church (calling it ſelfe Reformed) againſt the goodneſſe of God, after Caluins doctrine) maintaineth: to wit, that God worketh in the reprobate, the euill and ſinne they commit: which is an execrable Atheiſme, and no leſſe then the deniall of the omnipotencie of God. And they that can read theſe Conferences (continuing to the ende of the diſcuſſion of the Miniſters errors, and of their religiō againſt all the articles of the Creed) ſhall bee likewiſe abaſhed to vnderſtand the abſurdities and blaſphemies iſſuing from the ſame.

An other point there is yet, which inuiteth the Miniſters to demaund tractation of the Supper: which is, that they haue the whole matter alreadie ſquared, by many of their Sect, who haue written of the ſame: And chiefly the great booke of Peter Martir will not faile them. Wherby they ſhalbe furniſhed with I know not what infamous obiectiōs, & of ſome paſſages of the Fathers, broken & depraued, or euilly applied, to impugne in ſhew, the truth of the body in the Sacrament. But for defence of all other their errors, the Miniſters are meanely armed: and their conſcience doth ſufficiently witneſſe, that by the ſcripture, deciſion of generall Councells, and common accord of the writings of all the auncient Fathers, (no apparance to the contrary) they are conuinced and condemned of their errors againſt the ſaid Creed.

Now, to enter into the examination of the Supper of the Miniſters, the Doctors do maintaine, that it is a prophane eating and drinking, not differing from common eating and drinking, but in that it is worſe: that they abuſe the holy inſtitution of the Supper of Ieſus, and pollute and defile ſuch their banket with all impietie, & blaſphemie. They alſo maintaine, that the Miniſters do great iniurie to the Sacrament of Ieſus Chriſt, falſly to attribute to ſuch, their prophane and polluted banket, the name of Sacrament. And to the end that the proofe thereof be more cleare, the Doctors demaund of the Miniſters, whether they receiue one common doctrine, receiued not only in the Church Catholique, but alſo almoſt in all Sects which are ſeperated from it: That is, that in the confection of the Sacraments, there be two eſſentiall and neceſſarie things: the matter (or element) and the word?

Secondly, what word, with the Element, is neceſſary to make a Sacrament: and namely, that which the Miniſters do call the Sacrament of the Supper: and whether it behoueth to vſe certaine words or no?

Thirdly, whether the word haue ſome power or effectuall working in the Sacrament? & what, & whether it worke vpon ſomething in the matter of the bread and wine?

Fourthly, whether by the ſame word, conſecration bee made of the matter of the Sacrament or no?

Fiftly, whether by the word conſecration, be not made of the matter? to wit, how the ſame conſecration is made? and by what vertue the ſame is made?

Sixtly, whether beſides the bread and wine, and the ſpirituall graces and benefites of Ieſus Chriſt, the true body and bloud of Ieſus Chriſt in their proper ſubſtance, and not in ſpirituall effect onely, be really receiued in the Supper? And the Doctors do demand vpon this article, a plaine confeſſion of the faith of the Miniſters.

They demaund further, whether in receiuing the bread, before taking of the wine, they receiue not by the eating of the bread, the body and bloud of Ieſus Chriſt: or the body onely. Briefly, whether they admit that which Diuines call a Concomitance of the body and bloud of Ieſus Chriſt.

They demaund alſo, whether the Supper (ouer and beſides the aſſurance which it giueth them of the participation they haue in the fleſh of Ieſus Chriſt, for their redemption) doth worke in them remiſſion of ſinnes?

Laſtly they demaund, whether one receiueth any thing by the Supper, which he could not receiue without the Supper? or whether without paine taking to go the Supper, or beeing preſent thereat, one may as well receiue the bodie and graces of Ieſus Chriſt, as if hee were preſent at the Supper?

The Doctors will afterwards debate the other articles, contained in the Miniſters laſt writing: for as much as the precedent demaunds ought to be firſt examined, as grounds of other articles propoſed by the Miniſters.

Moreouer, after the confutation of the Supper of the Miniſters, and the confirmation of the reall preſence of the body and bloud of Ieſus Chriſt in the holy Sacrament, the Doctors by order, and without confuſion, will clearly teach by the pure and expreſſe word of God, that the Maſſe was inſtituted and ſaid by Ieſus Chriſt, and that he commaunded his Apoſtles to ſay it: which thing, then following the ordinance of their Maiſter, they afterwards performed.

That the Maſſe is a true ſacrifice of the lawe Euangelique.

That they which reiect the Maſſe, and admit in the Church no externall ſacrifice, nor Prieſthood, are without the true lawe, without true Religion, and therein worſe then Idolaters themſelues.

That the Maſſe auaileth to obtaine remiſſion of ſinnes, fauour, and grace of God: and that it auaileth both for the quicke and the dead.

That it is not an abuſe in the Church, if the Prieſt in the Maſſe do communicate alone, when they that are preſent will not communicate.

That they commit an horrible blaſphemie, which call the adoration of the body and bloud of Ieſus Chriſt in the Sacrament, adoration of bread and wine, and falſly call ſuch worſhip of the body of Ieſus Chriſt, Idolatrie.

To be ſhort, that there is nothing in the Maſſe, at this day ordained and celebrated, which in it ſelfe is not good, and holy, and agreeable to the word of God.

The Doctors do admoniſh the Miniſters to anſwere to the demaunds here aboue written, to purpoſe, plainely, and by order.

Sunday, 28. of Iuly, in the yeare aforeſaid.

The Miniſters anſwere to the writings of the Doctors, ſent to thē by my Lord de Niuernois, the 28. day of Iuly, about ſeuen of the clocke in the euening, in the 1566. yeare.

THe Doctors reproach the Miniſters in the beginning of their writing, that in their former complaint againſt thē, they immitate the Donatiſts: wherein they verifie that, which the Miniſters heretofore haue oftentimes ſhewed them: to wit, that the moſt part of their writings are imployed in repetitions, iniuries, ſcoffes, and inuectiues, rather then in good arguments and reaſons: And they ſay, that the example of the Donatiſts is much more proper to bee applyed to them, then to the Miniſters: for as much as the Donatiſts would reſtraine the name of the Church, (which vniuerſally comprehendeth all the elect and faithfull, that are, and euer were): and attribute the ſame to the ſole company of them which follow their cuſtomes and errors: as the Doctors at this day approue not others for the Catholike and vniuerſall Church, then they which follow the traditions and abuſes of the Romane Church. Moreouer, the Donatiſts did perſecute them which were contrarie to their doctrine, and vſed violence and all crueltie againſt them, that they could deuiſe: as Saint Auguſtine in many places doth recyte. Now what in time paſt hath bene the rage and furie, as well of the Doctors, as of their complices, Prieſts, and hypocriticall Monkes, againſt poore Chriſtians, each one knoweth. And there is not he, which knoweth not now, both by their Sermons, writings, and conferences, what is their hate and ſpight againſt the children and ſeruants of God: and what pleaſure ſhould they haue to roote them out, were theyr power anſwerable to their will: whereby one may iudge, whether they or the Miniſters come nearer to the likeneſſe and example of the Donatiſts.

And whereas the Doctors adde, that the Miniſters ceaſe not to bee blaſphemers, becauſe they reiect and deteſt the name thereof. The Miniſters anſwere, that the Doctors alſo leaue not to be falſe accuſers, becauſe they diſauow, and denie the name. And that the effects do ſhewe of the one ſide and the other, to whom ſuch crimes and names may appertaine, and be attributed.

And touching that which the Doctors in the ſame article ſay, that it is blaſphemy againſt the goodneſſe of God, to impute vnto him, that hee is the author of vice, and of ſinne. The Miniſters confeſſe it: and do adde, that it is blaſphemy alſo againſt his truth, to ſay, that with him there is yea, and nay: as doo they, which vnder a colour and falſe pretext to eſtabliſh the omnipotencie of GGD, doo propoſe, that hee can cauſe one bodie at one ſelfe-ſame inſtant to bee in diuers places: to wit, that it is, and is not.

Touching that which the Doctors afterwards ſay, that the Miniſters erre in the grounds of Gods omnipotencie: for as much as they haue ſaid, that he was almightie, becauſe he doth whatſoeuer hee will: and that nothing can hinder, or with-hold the execution of his counſailes. The Miniſters anſwere, that therein they haue followed Saint Auguſtines definition of the omnipotencie of God, in the 96. Chapter of his Enchiridion: where word for word hee thus ſaith: For other cauſe is hee not truly called omnipotent: but for as much as hee can do all whatſoeuer hee will: and that the effect of the will of the Almightie, is not hindered by the will and effect of any creature.

In that they conſequently impute to the Miniſters, that they haue ſaid the omnipotencie of God ought not to bee generally extended to all things which men may conceiue and imagine in their mindes. The Miniſters ſay (vnder the Doctors correction) that they ſaid not ſo: but that the almightineſſe of God, ought not to be extended without any diſcretion or diſtinction, to all things generally, which men in their fooliſh phantaſies might forge or imagine. Wherein to each one it may eftſoones appeare, how they curtall and falſifie the Miniſters words and ſentences, to haue meanes and colour for their ſlaunder.

Afterwards, where they affirme that it is blaſphemy to ſay that God can doo nothing againſt order: the Miniſters on the contrary part maintaine, that to thinke and ſay that hee can doo ought which is not well ordered, is to blaſpheme the wiſedome, and eternall prouidence of God.

The Doctors pretend in the article following, that one body to be in diuers places at one ſelfe-ſame inſtant, is not a thing derogatorie to the truth of God. The Miniſters doo maintaine the contrarie, that it ſhould be derogate both to his truth; for as much as there ſhould be in him, (as is ſaid) yea and nay: and to his wiſedome, for as much as in his words there ſhould be diſorder and confuſion: and by conſequence to his almightineſſe, becauſe in his deeds there ſhould be imperfection.

And they further ſay, that it ſhould not be onely againſt the diſpoſition and ordinary courſe of nature, (as the Doctors faigne to haue thought and vnderſtood) but alſo againſt the eternall and vnchangeable will of our God.

And as touching that which the Doctors, to proue that God can do ſomething againſt order, do propoſe that he can chaunge and alter the order eſtabliſhed in the world. The Miniſters confeſſe the ſame: but they denie that in ſo dooing he ſhould do any thing which were diſordered. As (for example) all faithfull and Chriſtian men doo beleeue, beleeue, that God will renew at the laſt the eſtate of the whole world: wherein there is nothing in the meane time which is not well ordained, perfect, and in all points accompliſhed.

The Doctors in the following article, confound the diſtinction propoſed by the Miniſters, in their anſwere betweene the will of God manifeſted, and that he hath hidden in himſelfe, and is equall to his power: as the Miniſters before haue at large declared. And the Doctors do falſly preſuppoſe touching the reuealed will of God; taking that generally, which the Miniſters haue graunted in ſome particulars onely: to wit, that God can doo more in ceraine things, then he hath declared to will: which none doubteth. As ſaith S. Augustine in the booke of perfect Iuſtice, that he cannot make a man to be perfect in this world, and ſanctifie him in ſuch ſort, that there remaine no more in him any infirmitie or imperfection; although hee hath neuer declared vnto vs by his word, that hee would do it: but contrariwiſe, that the fleſh in all the regenerate will alwaies refiſt the ſpirit: ſo that all the time of their liues, they ſhall be in many points imperfect. But albeit in that, and ſome other like caſes, God can do more then his will declareth, which he hath manifeſted to vs in his word: yet neuertheleſſe can it not be ſaid but that there be other caſes, wherein God hath reuealed his will vnto vs, againſt which he can do or ordaine nothing.

Things impoſſible with God. yet in theſe As (for example) hee hath declared vnto vs, that hee is one, that he is immutable, incomprehenſible, wholly good, wholly iuſt, wholly perfect, and wholly true: Againſt all impoſſibilities is his omnipotencie eſtabliſhed. which things, (which to vs are manifeſted and clearly propoſed in his word) impoſſible it is for him, euer to thinke, ſay, do, or ordaine.

Now the thing propoſed and debated by the Doctors, touching the being of one body, at one inſtant in diuers places, is compriſed in that ranke, beeing (as is ſaid) contrarie to the truth of God. Which ſhall ſerue for anſwere to the Doctors ſlaunders, and to all that they haue propoſed in this article. Likewiſe in an other following article, where they ſay that God not onely can, but will alſo cauſe, that one body occupie diuers places at one ſelfe-ſame time. That ſhall be yet more impoſſible for them to proue, then the power aforeſaid, for which they haue hitherto ſo much trauelled in vaine.

In their definition of one bodye in the Article following, they contradict themſelues, when they ſay that the meaſures are eſſentiall vnto it: and that it may neuertheleſſe bee incircumſcript: for if it bee needfull that the dimenſions whereof it is compoſed, bee finite; of neceſſitie it followeth therevpon, that then it is finite, limited, and circumſcript.

To that which they afterwards ſay, that the reaſon which the Miniſters haue taken of the Creed, and alledged to proue that the body of Ieſus Chriſt is in heauen in a place certaine, is friuolous. The Miniſters ſay; that the Doctors ſhewe therein what reuerence they beare to the word of GOD, and his ſpirite, who hath reuealed the ſame vnto vs, and to the Apoſtles, which declare them vnto vs.

To iuſtifie Gracian and the Canon, which the Miniſters alledge of S. Auguſtine, by which they proue that the bodie of Chriſt muſt neceſſarily be in a place certaine, the Miniſters bring yet for more ample confirmation, the 4. booke and 10. diſtinction of the Maiſter of the Sentences: who recyting the ſelfe-ſame paſſage of S. Auguſtine, vſeth the verbe [Oportet] and not [Poteſt].

As touching that of Iuſtine which the Doctors alledge, to proue the myracles which were then done; that Ieſus Chriſt appeared in the middeſt of his Diſciples, the gates being ſhut: and that hee walked vpon the waters, were done in his perſon. The Miniſters are amazed how the Doctors doo yet repeate the ſame. For as much as the ſaid Iuſtine (as they haue before beene anſwered) expreſly ſaith: that when the ſaid myracles were done, there was no chaunge of the body of Ieſus Chriſt: which thing, had the myracles bene done in his perſon, had bene neceſſarie. In the meane time, the Miniſters confeſſe (as they haue done often) that the cauſe of the ſaid myracles, and the diuine power whence they proceeded, abode in Ieſus Chriſt. As when hee healed the diſeaſed which touched him: and did the other myracles recyted in the Euangelicall Hiſtories: the which were done by him, but not in him, but in the perſon of them that we •• healed. And there is great difference betweene ſuch myracles, and thoſe of his transfiguration, and reſurrection, which were wrought by his onely power, and in his proper perſon.

Vpon the importunate repetition which the Doctors make, as well of the meanes of the birth of our Lord Ieſus Chriſt, as of the word Aphantos: The Miniſters for ſparing of time, and not troubling the readers, ſend them back to their former anſweres.

The Miniſters much maruel that the Doctors to proue their pretended penetration of two bodies, and of their meaſures, wil ground their proofe and principal argument vpon the proper ſignification of the terme [Penetrer]. For be it ſo, that they will by this French word interpret the Greeke word Diercheſtas, or the Latine word Penetrare. It ſhall bee euer impoſſible to proue their pretence. And as it is alſo in the Acts of the Apoſtles, Chap. 12. 10. It is ſaid of the Angell and S. Peter that they paſſed the firſt and ſecond watch. And in S. Luke. 4. 30. But they paſſed through the middeſt of them, and departed. And in S. Io. 4. 4. Now it behoued him to paſſe by Samaria.

In all which paſſages the Doctors ſhall not find, that the word Dierchestai (in the ſaid paſſages alledged) can bee any way applied to the penetration of dimenſions. And no more ſhall they proue that the word [Penetrare] which the old Tranſlator hath vſed in the 2. Tymo. 3. can be reduced to their ſaid penetration.

The Miniſters do adde, that the Doctors ought not to hold it more ſtraunge, that Ieſus Chriſt aſcending into heauen in his finite and limited body, an opening were made for his entrance therin: then when he deſcendeth betweene the hands of the Prieſts ſinging their Maſſes: For then (as ſaith S. Gregorie) the heauens do open to giue him paſſage. Although after their imagination, his body is then ſeperated from it meaſures and dimenſions.

The Doctors ſhould haue contented themſelues with the Miniſters anſwer vpon the ſimilitude & word [Camell]. For firſt, they can no wayes proue, that that ſaying of Ieſus Chriſt vpon the end of that ſpeech, ought elſe-where to be applied, then to the neareſt member of the ſame: where ſpeech is made of the conu • ſion and ſauing of a rich man. For the Pronowne demonſtratiue [Hoc] doth clearly ſhewe it: Afterwards, although that the generall propoſition in the end and concluſion of the ſaid ſentence (where it is ſaid that all things are poſſible to God) extendeth (as the Doctors will haue it) to the Camell, as well as the rich man: yet rightly to apply the two patts of the compariſon, it behoueth they confeſſe, that as the change is neceſſary for the rich man to be ſaued: ſo is it alſo for the body of the Camel, to cauſe it paſſe through the eye of a needle. Howſoeuer that might in ſome ſort be done, the Doctors ſhal not proue, nor euer thence conclude, that two bodies can the one pierce the other. For as much as the Doctors by their thriſeſtrong & powerfull arguments haue not bene able to conclude any of all their abſurdities, nor by force of their reaſons to conſtraine the Miniſters to confeſſe the ſame: they do nought elſe but exclaime, Blaſphemy, Blaſphemy; which is the laſt recourſe of all perſons, who deſpite and gnaſh the teeth againſt the truth, and them that maintain it, when they cannot ouercome them. Would the Miniſters ſubſcribe to the errors end abuſes of the ſaid Doctors, they ſhould bee good and Catholike people: but becauſe they gainſay and reproue them, they be (in their opinion) heretikes, ſeducers, blaſphemers, and Atheiſts: and in ſo great horror doo the Doctors hold them, that it is maruel they pull not (like Caiphas) their horned caps and hoods in peeces, in deteſtation of the word of God, propoſed and defended by the ſaid Miniſters, and condemned as blaſphemy by the Doctors.

The Doctors haue diſſembled the paſſage of the ſcripture alledged by the Miniſters, to proue that faith is a worke of God, which he bringeth forth in the heart of the faithfull, when he will worke his regeneration: and incidently ſpeake of free will, and the merit of workes. Wherevnto the Miniſters are well reſolued to anſwere; and by the grace of God, to maintaine the truth of theſe two points, againſt the enemies of his glorie, when they ſhall be propoſed to be debated and diſcuſſed. And for the ioy which they receiue (ſay they) that the Miniſters haue confeſſed, they haue not read in any auncient Author and expreſſe termes, that God cannot cauſe one ſelfe-ſame body to bee in diuers places at one inſtant: they haue no great cauſe thereof to reioyce: for albeit the ſaid Fathers haue not in expreſſe termes ſaid it: yet in termes equiualent, in infinite places haue they ſaid and written the ſame.

A ſhort Reſolution of all the Anſweres and diſcourſe which the Miniſters haue made vpon the matter of Gods omnipotencie in the Conference which they haue had with the Doctors.

THe craft and ſubtiltie of Sathan from the beginning of the world hath alwayes beene, to transforme himfelfe into an Angell of light, and to ſearch ſome faire pretext, to ſhrowd and diſguiſe himſelfe, and vnder that ſhadowe, to inſinuate himſelfe into the Church of GOD, and there to broach his lyes and trumperies.

As we all ſee, that vnder pretence to honour God, he hath eſtabliſhed all the Idolatrie which hath euer beene in the worlde: referring the adoration of Images, the Inuocation and interceſſion of Saintes, the worſhipping of Reliques, and other lyke impieties to the honour of God, and perſwading the ignorant that all that was done to aduance the ſame. Lykewiſe vnder pretext of his ſeruice, hath he brought in all the traditions and inuentions of men, and chaunged with the time, the true and lawfull ſeruice of God (which conſiſteth in the obedience of his holy will, declared vnto vs in his lawe and word) into the obſeruation of theyr commaundements, and theyr inuented ceremonies. Vnder ſhadowe and colour of the Sacraments ordained by God, for the confirmation, exerciſe and nouriſhing of the faith of the Church, there hath crept in the Maſſe: which is not only the ruine and totall ſubuerſion of the Supper: but alſo an aboliſhment of all the benefite of Ieſus Chriſt: and conſequently of the faith and all true Religion. Vnder colour and ſhadowe of holineſſe, and of chaſte, ſhamefaſte, and honeſt conuerſation, which is chiefly required in the Miniſters and Paſtors of the Church, he hath eſtabliſhed ſingle life, and taken away from them the libertie of marriage: which hath bene the occaſion of all filthineſſe, and of infamous, ſtinking, and execrable whoredomes and luxuritie, which is ſeene in the Papacie. Vnder the ſhadowe of prayers, which men are commaunded to make one for an other: and of Charitie, whereby we are bound to ſuccour all the needie poore: hath hee brought in all the ſuffrages which men ſing for the dead, the merites and workes of ſupererogation, and other lyke abhominations. Vnder colour of the Saboth, which God had choſen and deputed to the ſanctification of his holy name, to the contemplation of his workes, in the remembrance and preaching of his benefites and fauours. He hath ſet forth an infinite number of prophane Feaſtes, in which the name of God is blaſphemed, his ordinance deſpiſed, his couenant violated. But who can recount the wickedneſſe and abhominations which are committed in theſe dayes? Vnder pretext of the keyes and diſcipline of the Church, the adminiſtration and vſe whereof was giuen to the Miniſters lawfully called, for a meane to conſerue the doctrine in it puritie, and keepe and entertaine good order in the Church, and to hinder the ſlaunders which by the inſolencie of ſome might happen: hath hee eſtabliſhed a tyrannie, whence is proceeded the whole diſſipation of the Church of God, the corruption of all eſtates: and the diminiſhing of the lawfull authoritie which God hath giuen to Kings, Princes, and Magiſtrates. Some whereof, haue bene wholly ſpoyled, as well of theyr goods, as dignities, by the Pope, and the Biſhops: and others ſo weakened, that they are in many places conſtrained to bowe the necke, and ſubmit themſelues to theyr yoake and puiſſance. To be ſhort, this may be noted and obſerued in all the purpoſes and actions of the diuell: that as he is a Serpent, ſo hath hee alwayes ramped, and ſecretly crept (as it were) vnder the leaues and appearance of ſome pietie, into the houſe of God, to place therein, his pretended diſorder, confuſion and ruine. And we ſee, that now continuing and following his wonted practiſes, hee ſetteth foorth the omnipotencie of God (which to all the world is a plauſible and fauourable tytle) to the ende, that vnder the luſtre and brightneſſe of ſuch an occaſion, hee might dazell the eyes of the ignorant, and hold them ſtill in the opinion and perſwaſion of theyr errorus; which haue no foundation in the word of God. The Miniſters beſeech the Readers, and all thoſe that haue the feare of God, or any zeale of his honour, to be wiſe, and attentiue, to weigh and diſcouer the ſayd ſubtilties and practiſes of the Diuell: and not to beleeue all ſpirites before they haue well ſounded and tryed them: and that they alſo approue not all the things, which vnder the name of God, may be propoſed vnto them; and which at the firſt, may ſeeme to tende and appertaine to his honour and glorie: but that they remember the Apoſtles admonition, to try the ſpirites: 1. Ioh. 4. 1.and that they verie carefully regarde the ende, and ſcope of thoſe, which propoſe vnto them ſuch doctrine. And if there be any thing wherin heed muſt be taken of ſuch coſonages and fraudes, which are layd to ſurpriſe the ſimple; it is needfull, chiefly in this matter of the Omnipotency of God: whereof is the preſent queſtion. For the Miniſters do confeſſe, that it ought to be knowne, beleeued, and vniuerſally adored of all creatures, in heauen and in earth. Moreouer they confeſſe, that the faithfull cannot haue a better foundation, nor better rampert to leane vnto, and ſuſtaine themſelues againſt all the endeuours, as well of the diuel, the world, and their other enemies: as alſo (to be ſhort) of all the temptations wherewith they might bee aſſayled and befieged.

This Omnipotency (they confeſſe) is the hinge of the axeltree (as it were) wherevpon the world, with all it parts is turned and ſuſtained. They confeſſe moreouer, that the ſame Omnipotency is not only venerable to the Angels, and bleſſed ſpirits in heauen, and to the elect and Saints vpon earth: but alſo terrible to the reprobates and diuels in hell. So that the one doth willingly embrace and ſubmit themſelues vnto it: and the others are conſtrained to bow vnder it, and yeeld vnto and obey the ſame.

Laſtly they confeſſe, that it is infinite, and of incomprehenſible greatneſſe, to all creatures, as the wiſedome, goodneſſe, Iuſtice, truth, and the other vertues and proprieties of our God.

This is that which the Miniſters beleeue and confeſſe of the Omnipotency of God: and that which they thinke, all Chriſtians ought thereof to beleeue and hold. Now to make good vſe of this Almightineſſe, and to apply it as is meete: we muſt iudge thereof, according to his will: and of his will, according to his word: So that we ought not to attribute indifferently to the power of God, all things good and euill, ordered and diſordered, agreeable and contrary to his nature, falſe and true: But to well rule and order the thoughts and cogitations of Gods Omnipotencie, preſenting themſelues in our hearts: we muſt (for our part) meaſure the ſame according to his holy will: and beleeue that it cannot be limitted, letted nor hindred by any other will or power, which wil or may be oppoſite vnto it. Which thing S. Augustine well teacheth in many places; as in the fift booke and 10. Chapter of the Cittie of God: where ſpeaking of God, hee ſaith: That he is called almightie: becauſe he doth all whatſoeuer he will, and ſuffereth nothing if he will it not. Alſo in the ſeuenth Chapter of the 21. booke. For no other reaſon but this onely, is he called Almightie: that he can do all whatſoeuer he will doo. Alſo in the firſt Chapter of the booke De Symbolo ad Catec: Our God (ſaith he) doth all that which he will do: and that is his Almightineſſe. Alſo in the 119. Sermon De tempore; He is Almightie, to do all things that he will do, and ordaineth to be done. Theſe ſentences, and many other lyke, found in the writings of that good Father, and other Auncients, do clearly teach vs, the maner how we may well make profit of the faith we haue of the omnipotency of God: That is in bringing vs backe to his will, and iudging of his will, by his word, and not by the falſe imaginations which therof we may conceiue in our minds: or that others would propoſe vnto vs: As did Sathan to Ieſus Chriſt, whom he would haue induced to caſt downe himſelfe headlong, vnder a vaine truſt of helpe from the omnipotencie of God. Euen ſo alſo, the Monarchians, who vnder colour and pretext of Gods omnipotencie, which of ſome myracles they gathered, would proue and eſtabliſh their hereſies, and take away the perſonall diſtinction which is betweene the Father and the ſonne, ſaying: That God being Almightie, could therefore make himſelfe Father and ſonne together. Of the Anabaptists in theſe laſt times, is it alſo found, that for a vaine aſſurance, which they put in the omnipotency of God, hoping he could nouriſh them, as he did the byrds, would not labour.

Many ſuch lyke more great inconueniences may happen to all thoſe, that hauing ſuch wandering and ſtragling thoughts of the Omnipotency of God, wil not reſtraine nor reduce them to his will. And this we ſee is beſalue the Doctors: who willing to apprehend and meaſure the omnipotencie of God by their owne imaginations, rather then by his will and word, are (as ſaith S. Paul) become vaine in their imagination, and their fooliſh heart is filled with darkneſſe. And willing to behold the Maieſtie of God out of the limits and bounds which hee had ſhewed them in his word, haue bene intrapped and ouerwhelmed of his glorie. And that is befalne them, which in their reſolution, they themſelues haue touched: to wit, that for not hauing taken the word of God for their guide, nor followed the ſteppes and pathes of his holy ſpirit, they do erre from the faith: which (contrarie to that which the Doctors doo thinke) is not deſtroyed nor ouerthrowne by the conſideration of the creatures and workes of God (which are as a myrror of his glorie and diuinitie): but in as much as by them wee were turned away from the promiſes of God: by the which we are aſſured of his will, and almightineſſe; which doth warrant and aſſure vs of the effects, and accompliſhment of this holy will. Which may bee ſeene and clearly obſerued in them that were ſent by Moyſes to eſpie out and know the Land of the Cananites. Two of which, (namely Ioſua and Caleb) could neuer be withdrawne from the truſt they had in theyr God. For as much as turning their mindes from the conſideration of all things which could make them doubt thereof, (as of the Fortreſſe and munition of Cities, the number, force, weapons, and experience of the countrie Inhabitants) they ſtayed their minds in the ſole conſideration of the promiſes which God had made vnto thē. Cōtrariwiſe, the others forgetting the ſame promiſes, & nought cōſidering, but that which they ſaw before their eyes, they fell, and cauſed all the people to fall with them, into that curſed and damnable infidelitie▪ for which they were ſo grieueuouſly puniſhed in the wilderneſſe, and excluded from enterance therevnto, and enioying of that thing, which God had promiſed to theyr Fathers. And in the example of Abrahā, whoſe faith abode firme and ſtable, by the conſideration chiefly of the promiſe and will of God, as S. Paul declareth. So that the conſideration of Gods Almightineſſe, came after, to maintaine & ſecond that which he had of the promiſe. One may ſee by theſe examples, what daunger there is, to depart and draw backe, although neuer ſo litle, from the word of God: by which we are guided to the knowledge of his will. And by the knowledge of his will, conducted to the conſideration and iudgement, which we ought to make and haue of his Almightineſſe.

For want whereof, the Doctors are fallen into errors and raylings, which they propoſe to the Miniſters by their writing and concluſion of their reſolution. That is to ſay: that the body of Ieſus Chriſt may be in diuers places at one ſelfe-ſame inſtant: which is againſt the faith we ought to haue, and conſtantly retaine of the wiſedome, prouidence, and euerlaſting truth of our God: and againſt that likewiſe, which wee ought to haue and keepe of our Lords true humanitie.

And that which they firſt alledge of S. Ierome againſt Ʋigilantius, nought ſerueth for the proofe and confirmation of their error. Where no other thing he ſaith: but that the ſoules of the Saints are not incloſed in a certaine priſon (as dreamed Vigilantius) but do follow the Lambe whitherſoeuer he goeth. Nor that which they alledge of Saint Auguſtine in the booke which he made of the pure care of the dead. For in that booke hee himſelfe confeſſeth, that he is incertaine of that which the Doctors doo propoſe, and are aſſured. And nomore doo the three authorities they alledge, of Saint Iohn Chriſoſtome, Saint Ambroſe, and Saint Augustine: whoſe ſentences ought to be taken, and vnder ſtood of the Sacrament, and not of the thing ſignified by the Sacrament: As in the next conference the Miniſters well hope to ſhew.

The Miniſters do much maruel, that the Doctors ſo draw backe, and will not (but vnwillingly) enter into conference for defence of their Maſſe: and to gainſay the Supper celebrated in the reformed Churches. For ſeeing they hold it for the principall foundation of theyr Religion: and propoſe the ſame for a meane of ſaluation to the whole world: (That they be not ſeene ſeducers, nor ouer credulous to beleeue or teach an incertaine and vnaſſured thing): they ſhould alwayes be prouided and furniſhed with reaſons, to the end they might approue, and readily defend that which they beleeue and ſay: and might conuince them alſo, that would deny the ſame: But in this, it appeareth to proceed of of an euill conſcience, which being timerous and fearefull, flyeth alwaies the combat, and the light. It is long time ſince the Miniſters haue importuned them to enter into the deciding and conference of theſe two points, and to bring them thervnto, they haue propoſed vnto them, that it was the end for which the conference was appointed: which Madame de Buillon, (in whoſe fauour it was made) once or twiſe hath publikely required: and that they alſo had often proteſted, that they were not for other ende aſſembled with the Doctors, then to ſatisfie therein the ſaid Lady of Buillon: and not to be examined by them, as they do falſly pretend. For the Miniſters haue no deſire to be examined of ſuch Doctors, being Prieſts: Ioyned, that to be taught in the points of religion, and to know the truth, they would not chooſe ſuch Maiſters, nor repaire vnto them, and frequent theyr ſchooles for that purpoſe. And yet notwithſtanding all the foreſayd remonſtrances often made and repeated by the Miniſters, the Doctors haue alwayes vntill now, deferred to conferre of the foreſaid points: awayting (as it is likely) that ſome occaſion ſhould be offered, to breake off, and determine the ſayd conference, before they had begunne to ſpeak thereof. Albeit, had they any zeale to th • honour of God, and to the edification of his Church, they ſhould by all meanes haue procured that the ſayd two points ſhould haue beene fully cleared and reſolued: be it that they would confirme and ſtrengthen them of their part: or withdraw (as they pretend) thoſe of our ſide from their errors. For it is not much needfull hereafter to diſpute of the Saints, of Purgatory, Pilgrigrimages, and other like points: In regard of which, the moſt part of the world is at this day cleared. By meanes whereof, as well the Doctors, as the Miniſters, ought chiefly to inſiſt vpon theſe two points, and to endeuour (with them) to make them cleare and to be vnderſtood of each one, and not to vſe Sophiſtries and cauils to make them obſcure, and retaine thereby the ſimple in their ignorance: as the Doctors endeuour to do. Who (hauing left of ſet purpoſe the Theſes & Articles propoſed to them by the Miniſters, with order & good methode in their laſt anſweres) do confuſedly propoſe certaine queſtions culled out of their ſchoole diuinitie: euer more and more to fold vp this matter: And in ſo doing they withſtand (as euer hitherto they haue done) what ſo, and ſo often they haue proteſted: to wit, that they would examine the confeſſion of the reformed Churches: whereof notwithſtanding, they haue not handled one only point in all the conference. Wherein they haue ſhewed, and yet plainly do ſhewe, the diſtruſt they haue to be able to withſtand ſo cleare and apparant trueth; as that which is propoſed in the ſaide confeſſion.

Anſweres to the Preface of the Doctors Questions.

THe Doctors, before they propoſe their Queſtions, in their Preface do call the Supper celebrated in the refor-Churches, a prophane and polluted banquet. And in ſo ſaying, they neither ſhame, nor feare, firſt to blaſpheme Ieſus Chriſt, who inſtituted the ſame, and is the authour therof: and then to condemne the Apoſtles of Impietie, which ſo haue celebrated and taught it: together with all the auncient Churches which followed and obſerued (whiles it reremained in it puritie) the forme and maner which the Euangeliſts and Apoſtles had taught, and left by their writings. But the Miniſters would willingly demaund of the Lordes our Maiſters, that they particularly note vnto them, wherein they can violate the inſtitution & ordinance of Ieſus Chriſt, and leaue his example, and that of his Apoſtles in the celebration of the Supper? For when they will celebrate the ſame, they firſt aſſemble the whole Church together: as Ieſus Chriſt did his Apoſtles and Diſciples: where after their publike confeſſion of ſinnes, and vnderſtandingly made in the name of all, they make a Sermon to the people: wherein according to the grace and power which God hath giuen them, they declare the cauſes, and occaſions, the end, the vſe, the points and effects of the holy Supper: to lift vp the hearts of the people to the conſideration of the incomprehenſible loue which the Father hath ſhewed towards his Church, when in fauour thereof, and for the ſaluation of the ſame, he hath not ſpared his owne ſonne, but expoſed him to a cruell and curſed death: to the end, that each one calling to minde ſo great a grace and mercie, be kindled and inflamed in the loue of God: and tremble at the ingratitudes and rebellious offences and ſinnes which he hath committed againſt his Maieſtie: and that with the ſorrow and diſpleaſure he hath for the ſame, he caſt himſelfe betweene the armes of his ſonne, ſtretched out vpon the Croſſe, to haue thereof a generall and full abolition. And that euen ſo, with ſuch a faith and repentance hee be prepared to preſent himſelfe worthily at the table of the Lord, and to receiue the good things which are there adminiſtred. The Sermon ended, the Miniſter recyteth with an high and audible voyce, and his face turned towards the people, the words of the inſtitution and ordinance of the Supper, together with a briefe and ſhort declaration of the ſame.

That done, he denounceth to all thoſe, not fully inſtructed and Catechiſed, that they depart: and to all them which are excommunicated, or attainted with ſome ſinnes or ſcandalous crimes (whereof they haue made no ſatisfaction to the Church) that they abſtaine therefrom, and pollute not the table of the Lord. After that, the Miniſter goeth to the table: where hauing taken the bread, and giuen thankes to God, he breaketh it, and giueth it to the people there aſſembled. And alſo preſently the Cup to all them that communicate: which being ended, he giueth thankes to God, and diſmiſſeth the people.

The Miniſters, following in all theſe things the example and rule, which Ieſus Chriſt hath giuen them, cannot imagine wherevpon the Doctors haue grounded that their ſaying of the Supper, calling it a prophane and polluted banquet. And they cannot perceiue, what they could or would reproue in all theyr action: vnleſſe peraduenture they will taxe them for not hauing Aulbes, ſtoles, fanets, Croſſes, holy water, banners, Chiſibles, tunicles, lights, Incenſe, belles, ſinging in a ſtraunge and vnknowne language, Muſicke, and Organes, holy napkins, Aultars, Clearkes to anſwere: Et cum ſpiritu tuo, nor words addreſſed to the bread and wine (which haue no eares) after the maner of Inchanters, nor the Croſſe & ſignes, nor any eleuation of the bread and wine, to cauſe them to be adored: nor other like aperies of mans inuentiō, and drawne part from Iudaiſme, and part from Paganiſme. The obſeruation of which things the Miniſters would make great conſcience of: becauſe they be but Idolatries and ſuperſtitions, whereby the puritie & integritie of Chriſtian Religion, is wholly waſted and corrupted.

Anſweres to the questions propoſed by the Doctors touching the Supper.

FOr anſwere to the firſt queſtion, the Miniſters ſay; that the Sacrament in perfection conſidered, conſiſteth in three things. One whereof is the Element, which Ireneus calleth a thing earthy: the other, the thing ſignified; called by the ſame author, a thing heauenly. And the third is the word, by which the earthy thing is deputed to ſignifie the heauenly, and aſſureth them of the exhibition thereof, that with faith do preſent themſelues to receiue it.

For anſwere to the ſecond queſtion, the Miniſters ſay; that the ordinance of God, contained in his word, and declared by his Miniſter, according to his commandement, is this word word neceſſary with the E • ment, to conſtitute the Sacrament: and not the onely lowe and ſecret pronunciation of certaine vnkowne words, addreſſed to the elements, nor any vertue which is hidden in the ſame.

For anſwere to the third queſtion, the Miniſters ſay, that by the word aforeſaid the ſignes bee chaunged, not as touching the nature: or as touching the ſubſtance: but as touching the vſe onely: and that only during the action, whervnto they ſerue.

For anſwere to the fourth queſtion, the Miniſters ſay, that the bread and wine which before the action of the Supper were common, are conſecrated in the Supper: that is to ſay, deputed by the ſaid word and ordinance of God, declared by the Miniſters, to a holy and ſacred vſe: which is, to repreſent and exhibit the things by them ſignified.

The anſwere to the fourth queſtion ſufficeth for the fift.

For anſwere to the ſixt queſtion, the Miniſters ſay, that the faithfull receiue not onely in the Supper, the gifts and graces of Ieſus Chriſt, (as his tighteouſneſſe, life, and the other fruites of his ſacrifice) but that they alſo receiue and poſſeſſe himſelfe: and are made one with him, no leſſe truly and ſtraightly, then the members are conioyned to the head. And they ſay moreouer, that this coniunction is the ſpring and meane of all the benefites, which flowe from the grace of God, by him into vs: but they adde, that this reception muſt bee wholly attributed to the free operation of the holy Ghoſt, which maketh vs fit and capable to knowe our Lord Ieſus Chriſt, with all his vertues and properties: and in knowing him, to truſt in him: and in repoſing our truſt in him, to poſſeſſe and wholly enioy him.

For anſwere to the ſeuenth queſtion, the Miniſters ſay, that they reiect and reproue the word Concomitance, and more alſo the thing thereby ſignified: for as much as that hath beene the cauſe, for which the common people hath bene depriued and excluded from one of the eſſentiall parts of the Sacrament: namely, from the participation of the Cuppe. And they ſay, that it is an attempt againſt the diuine Maieſtie, to ſeperate what the ſonne of God hath ioyned together: and to deny to ſome of his members, that which he hath willed and commaunded to be common to all. Ioyned, that the reaſon of the Sacrament requireth it: which was inſtituted for our ſpirituall nouriſhment. The which (as doth the corporall) conſiſteth in drinke & meate. To the ende then, that there be ſome correſpondency betweene them two, it behoueth, that as we are fed with the fleſh of Ieſus Chriſt crucified: So be we alſo watered with his blood ſhead, for the remiſſion of ſinnes. To be ſhort, ſeeing that the Supper was chiefly inſtituted to ſhewe foorth the Lords death: and that in his death, his blood was ſeperated from his bodie: Meete it is, that the bread and wine be there adminiſtred, to repreſent the one and the other, and more clearly to propoſe vnto vs, all the miſtery of the death of Ieſus Chriſt.

For anſwere to the eight queſtion, the Miniſters do acknowledge no other cauſe, nor meane of remiſſion of ſinnes, then the grace of God, the blood of Ieſus Chriſt, and faith; whereby the effect of Gods grace, and the fruit of the death of Ieſus Chriſt are applied vnto vs.

For anſwere to the ninth queſtion, the Miniſters do ſay: that the faithfull comming to the Supper, do not come thither to receiue there a new Ieſus Chriſt, with whom they had not bene formerly conioyned: nor a new righteouſnes, which had not bene communicated vnto them. And they adde, that if ſome one did preſent himſelfe there without faith, (for want whereof he ſhould not be vnited, incorporated and engraffed into Ieſus Chriſt, to bee partaker of his righteouſnes, life, and all other his gifts and bleſſings): that the holy Supper in that caſe, ſhould be as vnprofitable to him, as is meate vnptofitable to a dead man. But, if liuing by the meanes aforeſayd (namely the grace of God, the blood of Ieſus Chriſt, and faith) he preſent himſelfe there in ſuch an eſtate: that then the graces of God be multiplied, increaſed, and more and more confirmed in him.

So that Circumciſion, brought not vnto Abraham a new righteouſneſſe: but ſealed and ratified that, which by the promiſe was communicated before vnto him. Which the faithfull, knowing in what degree of vertue they bee, yet ought they not to contemne the holy Supper, nor any way to abſtaine from it, when occaſion and meanes ſerue them to be there: Conſidering, that they cannot be ſo promoted nor aduaunced in the knowledge and feare of God, and in the faith of his promiſes, that they may not yet growe and profit (in what eſtate ſoeuer they be) by the meanes which God hath therefore left and ordained in his Church. And impoſſible it is, for a man hauing true faith in his heart, to do otherwiſe; ſeeing hee hath the commoditie thereof: For as much as the nature of faith is not to apprehend the promiſes of God onely: but alſo to engender, and bring forth in the heart of the faithfull, a will to obey him, and keep his commaundements and ordinances.

For anſwere to the firſt Article which the Doctors propoſe touching their Maſſe, the Miniſters ſay: that the Doctors do openly blaſpheme Ieſus Chriſt, to authoriſe with his name, and by his example, ſuch an abhomination. And that they alſo mocke the Church & the world, in preaching and writing ſuch Impieties.

For anſwere to the ſecond Article of the Maſſe, the Miniſters ſay: that there is in the Church no other ſacrifice, by which men are reconciled to God, and which maketh him mercifull and fauourable towards them (by appeaſing his wrath) then that onely and alone, which Ieſus Chriſt hath once offered vpō the Croſſe to his Father. The vertue wherof being eternall, to ſanctifie all beleeuers, and to obtain vnto them for euer, remiſſion and aboliſhment of ſinnes: there is no need of any other, nor that which he hath once offered, be euer reiterate.

For anſwere to the third Article, the Miniſters ſay: that they which approue the Maſſe, and other Prieſthood, then that of Ieſus Chriſt; and wil eſtabliſh for remiſſion of ſinnes an other ſacrifice, then that he himſelfe, with his body vpon the Croſſe offered, are Antichriſts: and aboliſh (as much as in them lyeth) all the vertue and fruite of the death & ſacrifice of the ſonne of God.

For anſwere to the fourth Article, the Miniſters do alledge, what S. Paul writeth, to wit: That where remiſſion is, Hebr. 10. there is no more offering for ſinne. Now ſo it is, that by the death of Ieſus Chriſt, remiſſion hath bene obtained for vs: as by infinit paſſages of ſcripture appeareth. It followeth then, that there is no more oblation for ſin, neither in the Maſſe, nor out of the Maſſe. And if there be none for the liuing, leſſe is there for the dead.

For anſwere to the fift, the Miniſters maintaine, that the Communion is of the eſſence of the Supper, as S. Paul ſheweth in the firſt of the Corinthians, 10. and 11. Chapters. And as it is carried by the Cannon it ſelfe, and other things about the Maſſe.

For anſwere to the ſixt, the Miniſters ſay three things: Firſt, that the Popiſh Maſſe is no Sacrament: then that the body of Ieſus Chriſt is not there. And therof conclude, that then the bread and wine there remaining, ought not to be adored: which being creatures cannot be adored, but that they which adore them be Idolators.

For anſwere to the ſeuenth and laſt Article, the Miniſters ſay contrary to the Doctors, that there is not any thing in the Maſſe, which is not either directly, or indirectly contrary to the word of God.

The Miniſters for concluſion admoniſh the Doctors, & entreat them, not to depart (as they haue formerly done) out of the bounds of the matter, now propoſed for diſputation. To the end, that theſe two points which are now in debate betweene them, may be wholly and perfectly decyded, to the content and edification of them that ſhall reade the Acts of this conference.

Tueſday the 30. of Iuly, in the yeare aforeſaid.

A briefe Reply of the Doctors, againſt the laſt Anſwer of the Ministers to them, ſent by my Lord the Duke de Niuernois, the first of August, about ſeuen or eight of the clocke in the euening. 1566.

THe Doctors, after their reſolution giuen vpon the Artice of Gods Omnipotency, were not determined to returne any more therevnto: as hauing ſufficiently handled that matter. But the horrour they haue of the new blaſphemies, contained in the laſt writing of the Miniſters, hath incyted them (contrary to their purpoſe) although not to reply, at the leaſt to admoniſh the Miniſters and the reader of this preſent Conference, of the ſaid execrable blaſphemies: which they are conſtrained to confeſſe, that will not acknowledge the Reall preſence of the body of Ieſus Chriſt in the Sacrament of the Aultar: but dare therby deny the power of God himſelf. The conſideration wherof (as the Doctors hope) wil not only cō firme the Catholikes in the faith of the ſaid article: but alſo (by Gods aſſiſtance) wil bring back many which are ſtrayed, ſeparating themſelues from the Church Catholike: whē they ſhall vnderſtand the deteſtable errors & blaſphemies which do follow the contradiction of the reall preſence of the body and bloud of our Lord in the Sacrament. Which alſo ſhould ſerue for the conuerſion of the Miniſters themſelues: would they without paſſiō examine the reaſons & acts which haue bene propoſed vnto them, touching the power of God: and ſincerely iudge therof: as reſiſting the holy ſpirit, in ſtead of acknowledging their errors, they are turned to all maner of reproach and iniury againſt them, which of good will would admoniſh them; and haue taxed them, that they tended not but to roote them out. Which thing the Doctors neuer minded: and deſire not but the ſaluation of the Miniſters, & of all thoſe that are ſeperated from the true Catholike Church. Of which, their preachings ſhall beare witneſſe: wherein they ordinarily exhort the people to pray vnto God for them. True it is, that they require the extirpatiō of the kingdome of Sathan▪ and the rooting out of all hereſies and peruerſe doctrine, rather by the preaching of Gods word, then by all other meanes. And they wonder why the Miniſters are ſo pricked againſt them in their two laſt anſweres: ſeeing they haue giuen them no occaſion thereof, but haue taken it lightly, for no other reaſon, but becauſe the Doctors haue written, that many propoſitions ſet forth by the Miniſters, contained blaſphemies, which they ſhould content themſelues to denie, or to proue that there are none, and leaue the iudgement thereof to the readers: without entering into ſuch hotte coller, ſeeing they profeſſe to bee ſo much mortified, patient, and modeſt, that albeit one ſhould reproach them, they would not reproach againe. They ſhould alſo well remember the faire tytles with which they honour the Catholique doctrine: as with the name of ſuperſtition, Idolatrie, impietie, abhomination, and many other like: yea not ſparing the perſons: calling the Popes, Biſhops, & Prieſts, Antichriſts, & Miniſters of Sathan: againſt which reproaches, the Doctors content themſelues to ſhewe by the word of God, when occaſion ſerueth, that ſuch tytles agree neither with the perſons, nor yet the doctrine by them preached. Now although that the Miniſters and their furie deſerue a ſharpe reply, yet to mittigate their ſo inflamed hearts, the Doctors will not anſwere to the iniuries which touch their perſons and eſtates: referring the whole to the iudgement of the vnpaſſionate readers: and will only touch the points which concerne the doctrine.

Firſt, the Miniſters do great wrong to the Doctors and their like, in comparing them to Donatiſts, and falſly to impute vnto them, that they tie the Church in a certaine place, (as did the Donatiſts) which placed it onely in Affrike. For it is manifeſt to all, that the Doctors know not, nor confeſſe any other Church, then the Catholique: which (as it name importeth) hath bene viſible ſince the Apoſtles time, and hath her ſpreading through the world, in what region, country, or place ſoeuer, the faithfull beleeuing in Ieſus Chriſt are. Although they reuerence the Church of Rome, as chiefe and principall among others: as Ireneus, Tertullian, S. Ciprian, S. Augustine, and other the auncient Fathers, haue giuen it this honour, to confeſſe it to be principall and mother (as it were) of other Churches; with more iuſt reaſon, may ſuch obiection be retorted againſt the Miniſters: who cannot ſay their Church to be Catholike: hauing taken it beginning in our time, ſeene & known at Geneua, founded vpō the priuate opinion of one man: without that in former time one could ſhewe ſuch opinion to haue beene holden in any Nation whatſoeuer. Which thing ſhall be handled in it order, when they ſhall examine the errors by the Miniſters maintained againſt this Article; I beleeue the holy Catholique Church.

Moreouer, the Miniſters ſhould not haue alledged the violence, crueltie, and furie of the Donatiſts, againſt the Catholiques: for ſuch example doth condemne them, and their like. But becauſe it doth not but bring freſh to memorie the paſſed euils, which Fraunce hath endured by the inſtigation of the Miniſters, for feare to incyte them further to ſay new iniuries: the Doctors will not dwell long vpon this matter. Neuertheleſſe, they ſhewe vnto the Miniſters, that the Donatiſts reproached the Catholiques, that they endured perſecution by them, and that to roote them out, they ſollicited the Emperours and Magiſtrates euen as the Miniſters doo blame the Doctors. Who confeſſe: firſt to deſire the conuerſion of all Sects, and in caſe they will not come to repentance, that the Magiſtrates by good and holy lawes may execute ſuch puniſhment therefore, as God bee not ſo outragiouſly blaſphemed, and the people grieued. And therein they follow the doctrine of Saint Augustine, expreſſed in an Epiſtle, ſent Advincentin contra Donatistas. Where he confeſſeth, that the Catholiques did perſecute the Donatiſts: and that contrariwiſe the Donatiſts alſo afflicted the Catholiques: but that the perſecutions were different. That thoſe of the Catholiques were not executed but by the Magiſtrate, and came of charitie, to roote out the euill, which hindred the peace and tranquilitie publike. And contrariwiſe, the perſecution by the Donatiſts, was made without authoritie of the Magiſtrate, and proceeded of malice: which pretended but miſchiefe and ruine: and S. Augustine declareth that the firſt was good, and of God: and the ſecond wicked, and by inſpiration of Sathan. And to this purpoſe he bringeth many excellent examples of holy ſcripture.

This hath bene ſomewhat largely handled, to purge the Doctors of the ſlaunder impoſed on them by the Miniſters: where they reproach them, that in their preachings, writings, and conferences, they ſearch but onely to roote out the Miniſters: whom they haue alwayes perſecuted. And they interpret the ſame as therefore proceeding from a particular hate of the Doctors againſt them: and not of charitie, and zeale of truth, and of the conuerſion, as well of the Miniſters, as of thoſe which are ſeduced and abuſed by them. The Doctors therein call God to witneſſe, and doo proteſt the contrarie, and pray the Miniſters to beleeue them, attending therevpon the iudgement of God, who is the onely ſearcher of the hearts and affections of men.

As touching the Article where the Miniſters ſay that God is almightie, becauſe he can do whatſoeuer he will, had they liſted to read the writings of Saint Thomas (whoſe doctrine they diſdaine) well had they knowne, that this reaſon is no reaſon. Becauſe the Angels, and they which are bleſſed, conforming themſelues alwayes to the will of God, can doo all things that they will doo: and there is no creature which can hinder the effect of theyr will, and yet are they not almightie. And as touching the ſaying of S. Auguſtine, in taking it ſo as the Miniſters do take it; The reaſon of Gods omnipotencie is ouer-weake and falſe. But to haue the true vnderſtanding of this ſentence, it behoueth to conſider, that there is a difference betweene the actuall will of God, and the power of will.

For God can wil many things which he willeth not, nor euer will. And euen ſo can he will more then he actually willeth: whereby they ought rather to meaſure his omnipotencie, then to meaſure it according to his actuall will. And thus muſt be interpreted the text of S. Auguſtine, that the almightineſſe extendeth to all things which he can will, and not according to that he actually willeth. And S. Auguſtine is cyted by the Miniſters, being deſtitute of teſtimonie of ſcripture, albeit they vaunted in their former anſwere, to haue learned this reaſon by the ſcriptures.

In the article following, the Miniſters by ſlaunder doo falſly taxe the Doctors, to haue cut off ſome words of theyr laſt writing: which will not be found to bee true. For the text of the Doctors beareth theſe words. It is not to bee doubted, but that aboue all conceit and imagination of humane ſpirit, the power of God is great, infinite, and incomprehenſible. Where it clearly appeareth, that the Doctors ſpeake generally of all conceit and imagination, without any exception thereof, be it of wiſedome or folly. Therfore was it not needfull to expreſſe the words of the Miniſters, ſeeing that the Doctors ſpake generally. And that which goeth before doth ſhewe the ſame: as the Miniſters haue cyted it: where it is ſaid, that the Doctors reproued the ſaid Miniſters, becauſe they gaue ſome reſtraint and limitation of the omnipotencie of God. For as much as they would not ſtretch it generally to all the things which men can conceiue, and in their mindes imagine. Where the words generally, and all things do ſufficiently declare, that the Doctors haue willed to comprehend end the fooliſh phantaſies and imaginations themſelues, which men may apprehend according to humane iudgement, and haue willed to cut off nothing from the writing of the Miniſters: who peraduenture haue thought, the Doctors would not ſay, that God can doo all that which a fooliſh braine can imagine: as fearing they would inferre againſt them, that God then ſhould commit ſome folly. Which would not follow: For albeit that ſome things be eſteemed follyes in the iudgement of men, neuertheleſſe ſeeing they be in themſelues poſſible, they may bee done of God; but wiſely, although humane ſence do iudge the contrary: euen as in many iudgements man is deceiued: eſteeming that folly, which (as ſaith Saint Paul) is wiſedome to wards God. The Doctors then ſay, that 1. Cor. 5.all things imaginable to man, are without exception to bee done as touching God: the things excepted, which imply contradiction to be, and not to be. Which cannot be done in regard of the repugnancie comming on their part, and not by default of the power of God. The Doctors pray them that ſhall bee able to reade theſe Conferences, to note, that the Miniſters are alwaies found falſe accuſers, whē they taxe the Doctors with ſlaunder: as in the former writing they remaine thereof conuinced.

The Miniſters ſhall finde themſelues alſo falſe accuſers in the article following: there where they cut off the ſaying of the Doctors, and falſly impute vnto them, that they haue written, God can do ſomething againſt order. The Doctors haue well ſaid, that it is blaſphemy to ſay, that God could do nothing againſt the order by him eſtabliſhed in the world. Where appeareth the ſlaunder of the Miniſters, who haue clipped the ſentence, and taken away theſe words [Establiſhed in the world]. In that they inferre, it is blaſphemy to ſay, that God can doo a thing which is not well ordained. It is doubleſſe, but to doo ſome matter againſt the order eſtabliſhed in the world, importeth not ſome thing diſordered: but onely a mutation and chaunge of order, without any diſorder, which the Miniſters confeſſe in their article following.

The Doctors haue in great execration the blaſphemies contained in the next article. Of which the firſt is, that one body to bee in diuers places, is a thing derogatorie to the truth of God: for as much as in God there ſhould bee yea and nay. So that the Miniſters doo ſay, that God ſhould not be true, if hee cauſed one body to bee in diuers places. And yet teach they not, nor can teach, that God hath euer ſaid, that one body could not bee in diuers places. It impugneth the wiſedome of God: becauſe that in his workes ther • ſhould be diſorder and confuſion. Wherin they likewiſe confeſſe, that God ſhould not be wiſe, if he cauſed one body at one inſtant, to be in diuers places.

The third is, that ſuch a thing repugneth the omnipotencie of God. For in ſuch a worke there ſhould be imperfection. So that, ſo farre off is it (after the Miniſters opinion) that God in ſo dooing ſhould bee almightie; that contrariwiſe he ſhould be imperfect and weake.

The fourth is, that were ſuch a thing done, it ſhould bee againſt the eternall and vnchangeable will of God: and therefore God ſhould bee mutable: which blaſphemies doo neceſſarily diſgorge a manifeſt Atheiſme: to wit, that God ſhould not bee God, if hee made one bodie to bee in diuers places at one ſelfe-ſame inſtant: For God cannot be but true, wiſe, almightie, and vnchangeable: which blaſphemies the Doctors doo content themſelues to quote and marke onely: and to admoniſh what ſimple ſtuffe iſſueth from the doctrine of them, which denie the reall preſence of the body of Ieſus Chriſt in the holy Sacrament, without dwelling vpon further confutation of them: as beeing too manifeſt, and hauing regard to that which Ireneus ſaith: that ſome hereſies there be: which to diſcouer, is to refute them.

In the article following, do they gaineſay that which ſo often they haue ſaid, that God could not cauſe one bodie to be in diuers places at one inſtant: becauſe it repugneth the order which he hath eſtabliſhed in the world. As if God could not do otherwiſe, then according to the order alreadie by him eſtabliſhed. In the preſent article they confeſſe, that God can change and vnchange the ſaid order. From which confeſſion the Doctors drawe ſuch an argument: God can chaunge and alter the order which hee hath eſtabliſhed in the world: and that without preiudice to his truth, wiſdome, power, and vnchangeable will. Therefore can he chaunge the order, by which he hath eſtabliſhed (as the Miniſters wil ſay) that one body ſhuld be but in one place; & cauſe contrariwiſe, (the order being chaunged) that one body ſhall bee in diuers places: without that the ſame is any way derogatorie to his truth, wiſedome, power, and will. And that by conſequence, God of his omnipotencie can cauſe one body to be in diuers places.

As touching the article of the diſtinction of the will of God, the Miniſters do confound the whole: vnderſtanding nothing in the ſaid diſtinction, no more then in that which they ſay, that one body to be in two places, is in the ranke of things which God hath declared by his word, againſt the which he can do nothing. The queſtion is firſt of the omnipotencie of God, which is reduced to his power, and not to his eſſence, and to that which he is in himſelfe: as to be one, wiſe, good: which things belong not to the matter of the omnipotencie, but of the eſſence in himſelfe. Secondly, what reaſon is there to confer the being of one body in one place: or to know whether God can cauſe it to be in two or many places: with the eſſence of God, which is one, incomprehenſible, &c. ſeeing that ſuch things of number, pertaine to the eſſence of God, and power to make one body in many places, doth nothing properly belong vnto it, and is not referred vnto the ſame. Thirdly, the Miniſters ſay, that God by his word haih declared his will, becauſe he was one: which nothing ſerueth to the preſent matter. But (pardoning the Miniſters ſuch follies) how dare they cōpare with the matter of Gods eſſence, that which is in queſtion of the being of one body in one, or in diuers places? ſeeing God hath neuer ſaid that he could not do it: as he hath manifeſtly ſhewed all the other perfectiōs, which pertaine to the diuine eſſence. Wherby it appeareth, that it ſufficeth the Miniſters to fill vp paper, without founding their ſaying vpon ſolid reaſon.

For as much as they repute it ſlaunder, when one cutteth off ſome of their words, albeit the full ſence abide: the Doctors do wonder, that the Miniſters haue not feared the like obiections to them. But they are ſo accuſtomed therevnto, that they cannot beware thereof. As in the article where mention is made of the definitiō of a body, they paſſe that ouer in ſilence, which giueth ſolution to theyr difficultie. The Doctors haue defined a bodie to be a kind of firme quantitie, of three dimenſions, length, breadth, and deepeneſſe: which definition comprehendeth the whole eſſence of one body, which is of the predicament of quantitie: and no mention is any way made of the circumſcription of place. The Miniſters ſay, that the Doctors by their definition, doo limit the body, and therefore it is circumſcript. But they haue maliciouſly omitted (as it is to bee ſuppoſed) this little word [place]. For the queſtion is not, whether a body be lymited, or no, ſeeing that no man doth call it infinite. But the queſtion is, whether it bee eſſentially circumſcript of place, ſo that it cannot bee a body, if it bee not in place: for as much as the Miniſters could not anſwere to the argument of the Doctors, they haue cut off that which annoyed them.

The foure next articles deſerue no new reply: and therefore the Doctors ſend backe the readers to that which heretofore hath bene ſaid. They onely admoniſh, that it is a great matter which the Miniſters do hold, that a myracle could not bee done in the body of Ieſus Chriſt, without chaunge of his nature: and ſuch an opinion do they impoſe vpon Instine, who hath ſaid and maintained (with the other Auncients) that the body of Ieſus Chriſt paſſed through the doores without chaunge of nature, albeit that the operation of the myracle, was wrought in the nature of the body, without changing the ſame: but in giuing it a ſpirituall qualitie and perfection, to wit, ſubtiltie, aboue the natural qualities of a body.

With like boldneſſe, call the Miniſters the ſcripture of the Camells paſſage through the eye of a needle, a parable and ſimilitude: as they doo that of the Supper, and all others which withſtand their errors. And the better to eſcape, they ſay that God ſaueth not, but changeth and conuerteth the rich man: and ſo cannot make a Camell to paſſe through the eye of a needle, without diminiſhing and changing of his groſſeneſſe. But the Miniſters will not conſider, that when our Lord ſpake of the rich man his entrie into the kingdome of heauen, he put not the difficultie in the entring of the kingdome properly, but in the conuerſion of the rich man: by which, hee ſhould obtaine the entrie and poſſeſſion of heauen. Therefore when our Lord ſaith, that it is more eaſie for God, to cauſe a Camell (or Cable) to enter through the eye of a needle, then a rich man the kingdome of heauen: hee intendeth to compare the conuerſion of a rich man (which is vnpoſſible with men) to the paſſage of a Camell abiding in his groſſeneſſe: otherwiſe, there ſhould bee no apparance of difficultie: and our Lord would not haue ſaide, that ſuch a thing had beene impoſſible to men.

The Doctors ſay moreouer, that they haue not produced this place, to proue and inferre properly the penitration of dimenſions: but to ſhewe, that God can make a body to occupie place, not proportionable to it greatneſſe: which is as well contrarie to the nature of a groſſe and thicke body, as that one body be in diuers places.

Where the Miniſters do boaſt, that they are not conſtrained to confeſſe any thing of Gods workes, alledged by the Doctors out of the ſcripture: it followeth not that the Doctors out of the ſcripture: it followeth not that the Doctors haue brought forth vaine reaſons to conſtraine and conuince them. And for the ſame referre them to the Acts of the Conference. And as touching the knowledge, whether God could do ſuch myracles alledged, aboue the nature of a body, the Miniſters cannot eſcape whatſoeuer euaſion they pretend, vnconuinced (if not openly, yet ſilently at leaſt) to haue denied, as well the power as the deed: For, affirming that God canot cauſe one body to be in diuers places, becauſe it repugneth the order by him eſtabliſhed in the world, and his wiſdome and wil, which diſpoſeth all by good order; and that it was againſt the nature of a body: albeit as much may bee ſaid thereof, as may truly bee ſaid of all the other things▪ mentioned touching one body: and that there are like reaſons: in confeſſing the one, they muſt neceſſarily confeſſe all the others, that there is the like reaſon.

The Miniſters vnable to giue any difference, and ſhewe why God cannot do the one, and that he can doo the others, haue ſilently conſented thervnto. And although they would neuer confeſſe the debt, and yeeled themſelues vanquiſhed, as they do boaſt, it is no maruell: for it is the nature of heretikes, to be obſtinate, and reſiſt the truth, what reaſons ſoeuer are propoſed vnto them. The Scribes and Phariſies neuer confeſſed to be ouercome of our Lord, albeit his arguments were vnreproueable. And albeit they that withſtood S. Stephen, had nothing to anſwere, yet left they not to reſiſt the holy Ghoſt, which ſpake by him: as the Miniſters doo reſiſt the ſame ſpirit, which ſpeaketh in the ſcripture, and by the mouth of the auncient Fathers, concerning myracles done in the body of Ieſus Chriſt aboue nature. Which the Miniſters do repugne, by I know not what vaine and friuolous ſtarting holes. S. Ierome ſpeaketh well to this purpoſe, Haeretici conuinci poſſunt, non perſuaderi. Heretikes may bee conuinced, not perſwaded. And Tertullian writeth: Duritia baeretica vincenda eſt, non ſuadenda. Hereticall obduration is to be vanquiſhed, not perſwaded.

And as touching the iniuries which the Miniſters in this behalfe do multiply againſt the Doctors, in that doo they imitate all the aduerſaries of truth, and giue teſtimony of the diſquiet which ſuch manner of people endure in theyr mindes, when their errors are ſhewed them. Of whom the Doctors haue pittie and compaſſion, & pray God to reſtore thē to their right ſences. For as much as they know, that the conuerſion of an heretike, is one of the matters reſerued to the omnipotencie of God.

In vaine doo the Miniſters labour to produce ſtore of Greeke, to ſhewe that Penetrare Caelos, dooth not ſignifie to paſſe the heauens without opening: becauſe the Verbe [Dierchestai] is found, for paſſing where there is an opening. But the Doctors neuer ſaid, that [Penetrare] or [Diercheſthai] may not be applied to open places: or that one pearceth in opening of them: for well do they know, that it is met with in all Authors.

They haue well ſaid, that the Miniſters would inferre a reall opening of the heauen, by the rigor and proprietie of the verbe Aperire: So might they alſo inferre, that the heauens were ſhut in the aſcention of Ieſus Chriſt, by the verbes Dierchesthai, and Penetrare, which ſtrictly do ſignifie, to pearce or paſſe through, without that of it ſelfe it importeth an opening: albeit a man may vſe the ſame where there is an open paſſage. But by the rigour of theyr ſignification can they not neceſſarily inferre an opening, if the opening bee not ſhewed from ſome other place, by ſome word, or euident condition of the thing pierced: as it is in the texts by the Miniſters alledged. Now in the aſcention theſe words [Diercheſthas], and [Penetrare], are put for to pierce: and no word is there added, which importeth a diviſion of the heauens. The condition of which, nor the ſtate of the glorified body of Ieſus Chriſt, doo not conſtraine that one neceſſarily vnderſtand an opening to haue beene made, to ſuffer the body of Ieſus Chriſt to enter. Therefore did the Doctors wel reaſon of the rigor of [Penetrare:] as the Miniſters did of the rigour of [Aperire:] which more often is found in the ſcripture without ſignification of the reall opening of the heauens, then [Penetrare] is found in the ſcripture to ſignifie a diuiſion and actuall cutting of the heauens. For Aperire Caelos, is often found for imaginary and ſpirituall opening; and hardly is Penetrare Caelos euer found for actuall diuiſion of the heauens. And therefore had the Doctors better reaſon to conclude, by the rigour of the verbe Dierchesthai, or Penetrare, (to pierce without actuall diuiſion of the heauens) then the Miniſters had to inferre the opening of them by the verbe Aperire.

The Miniſters in the laſt article obiect to the Doctors, that they haue paſſed ouer ſome places of ſcripture, by which it appeareth, that faith is the worke of God, whervnto (ſay the Doctors) that in ſome one of their writings they haue expreſly confeſſed, that faith, in as much as it is a gift of God, it is a worke of God: but in as much as he that beleeueth worketh together with God, in beleeuing (for Nemo credit, niſivolēs, no man beleeueth vnleſſe he be willing) it is a humane work. And it is not repugnāt one ſelf-ſame work, for diuers cauſes to be a worke of God, and a worke of man. And where they ſay, that the auncient Fathers haue ſaid (if not in proper, yet in equiualent termes) that God could not cauſe one body to be in diuers places: that is falſe. And the Miniſters neuer haue, nor can ſhewe the ſame: and contradict their laſt writing. For bringing the reaſon, why the Fathers haue not expreſly ſaid it: It was (ſaid they) becauſe they neuer thought that ſuch an abſurditie would euer fall into the braine of man. Which reaſon ought to haue place, for the ſaying in termes equiualent, as in expreſſe termes, ſith one ſelfe-ſame thing is ſignified as well by the one, as by the other.

As touching the reſt, the Miniſters neuer anſwer to the principall point, whereof they haue bene ſo often admoniſhed: and they efſoones admoniſh them, ſhould they a thouſand times call this ſaying a repetition: to wit, that they are required to bring ſcripture, to proue that it repugneth the order eſtabliſhed in the world, the truth, the wiſedome, omnipotencie, and vnchangeable will of God, that one body may be in two places: which thing they cannot do: but they will anſwere, as they are accuſtomed: that is to ſay, nothing. Wherein appeareth, that their doctrine is not founded vpon Gods word, but vpon their owne opinion, or particular inſpiration, which cannot be but of Sathan. For it cannot be of the holy Ghoſt which is againſt the common conſent of the Church vniuerſall. And vpon the ſame are alſo founded, the other articles of their religion: albeit they diſguiſe them, and promiſe Gods word to euery purpoſe.

A ſhort Aduertiſement of the Doctors, vpon the Miniſters Reſolution, touching the omnipotencie of God.

THe Doctors are aſtonied at the faſhiō of the Miniſters, in their words and writings. For they themſelues from the beginning of the Conference, haue neuer had patience to proſecute & conclude one onely point, without mingling other things therewithall, impertinent to the matter in queſtion: as ſhal appeare by the reading of the acts. And before their reſolution made of the omnipotencie of God, they haue heaped vp all the articles which they could remember, and throwne one vpon an other without cauſe or reaſon. Although the Doctors at their requeſt, had propoſed the Articles of the Supper: And after diſpute of the omnipotencie of God (to make preſent the body and bloud of Ieſus Chriſt in the holy Sacrament) to come orderly to ſhewe and proue, that the will of God hath bene ſuch, and that there it is. But the Doctors well vnderſtand the good cuſtome of all them of the pretended reformed religion: which is, to ſpet in the eyes of Chriſtians, all the articles of the Religion, and theyr inuented filthineſſe, all on one threed: to the end, that nought bee determined, that all abide in confuſion, and that the Serpent glide awaye, hauing caſt his venome.

Moreouer, by obſeruation of the Miniſters anſweres, it ſhall bee ſeene and knowne, that they neuer ſtay vpon any certaine and the ſame anſwere, but rather of an act alledged out of the ſcripture: where of euery queſtion, they haue giuen therevnto diuers impertinent, and ſometimes vnſufferable anſweres. Of which the Doctors do admoniſh them that can read theſe Conferences, and pray them to haue regard to the ſame, and thereof referre them to their iudgement.

Furthermore, the Doctors admoniſh the Miniſters, that they may, or ought to knowe, that all Sects of our times doo caſt before the eyes of thoſe whom they will abuſe, the ſame beadroll of Articles, which the Miniſters in theyr Reſolution haue gathered together, to get audience againſt the Church Catholique, and to bring in theyr hereſies and errors, vnder the name of the glorie of GOD. Whereof they boaſte to bee defenders as well as the Miniſters. And therefore are they not ſo acceptable in theyr opinions and concluſions, that the Miniſters can pretend any right, to exalt the power and glorie of God, by ſuch mingling and confounding of all matters together.

Moreouer the Doctors ſhewe, that they may with better reaſon retort againſt the Miniſters, the concluſiō which they pretend to inferre, of the ſubtiltie and craft of Sathan: which is (as they write) that Sathan vnder faire ſhewe of pietie, glideth like a Serpent into the Church of GOD, to put therein diſorder and confuſion: and in the end to aſſaile God himſelfe. The Doctors do pray each one to conſider in himſelfe, whether the Miniſters purpoſe be not ſuch by their deductions, and generally by the principall points of theyr doctrine. For vnder faire pretext to roote out ſome abuſes and errors againſt the word of the Lord, which they falſly ſtudie to perſwade the world to bee in the Church Catholique: And vnder the ſhadow to preach, that they ſeeke the aduancement of the name of the ſame Lord, they goe about to ſpoile God of all his proprieties and perfection, albeit they no more declare it, then Sathan told his meaning to the firſt man.

Furthermore, the Miniſters abaſe the merit and efficacie of the bloud of Ieſus Chriſt, and open a doore by their doctrine to all vices and ſinnes. Be it ſo, the Doctors will not repeate what the Miniſters haue held, concerning the omnipotencie of God: becauſe they ſhall fill their writings therewithall. But ſo it is, that in their goodly reſolution (although they ſuite it with ſeemely words) that God cannot (after them) but ſo much as they pleaſe to receiue of his wiſdome and will: which they diſguiſe after their owne ſence, when it is found declared in the ſcripture. Againſt the goodneſſe of God they hold that he is the author and worker of euill, and of ſinne. Againſt his mercie they teach, that he neuer pardoneth, nor will pardon a man which ſhall maliciouſly oppoſe himſelfe to the knowledge of the truth: or which ſhall reſiſt the ſame. Againſt the merit of the bloud of Ieſus Chriſt, and paſſion of the Croſſe, in proper termes haue they written, that had Ieſus Chriſt onely dyed by the ſorrowes of corporall death, and by the ſheading of his whole bloud, he had nought done, nor profited for our redemption: if beeing on the Croſſe hee had not endured in his ſoule, the paines of the damned before his death: and other horrible blaſphemies contained in the atticle of the diſcent into hell. The Miniſters do alſo inſtruct their adherents, that murther, adultery, robbery, theft, and euery crime whatſoeuer, is but a veniall ſinne to one predeſtinate, who is neuer (ſay they) out of the fauour of God, what thing ſoeuer he commit: and do aſſure their faithfull, and thoſe of theyr Church to beleeue firmly, that they are in grace, and predeſtinate, which is in plaine termes (albeit the Miniſters will otherwiſe excuſe thē) to giue leaue and licenſe to commit all wickedneſſe, and other articles which the Doctors will verifie, where the matter ſhall require the ſame.

If the Miniſters denie theſe points to be in their writings, and publiſhed in their Sect, the places of Caluins bookes which the Doctors noted in the Margin, wil teſtifie the ſame. To be briefe, behold the glory of God, and of his ſonne Ieſus Chriſt, wherevnto tend the Miniſters, by the rooting out of the pretended impieties, mentioned in many articles of their laſt reſolution. For briefe anſwere wherevnto, the Doctors doo ſay, that ſome things by ſlaunder of the Miniſters, are falſly imputed to the Catholique Church: that others are expreſſed in the holy ſcripture: and others drawne from the ſame, and confirmed by the traditions of the Apoſtles, and the vniuerſall conſent of the firſt Chriſtian church: the deceits excepted which the Miniſters adde in euery article. And ſo ſhall it bee ſhewed and proued at the leaſt in time and place, if the Miniſters haue patience to handle in it ranke euery difficultiie: but if to make their doctrine confuſed, they perſiſt to mingle all together, the Doctors do proteſt to mocke therat without anſwere. Moreouer, the Miniſters in generall, doo rightly attribute to the power of God: and ſay well, that the certaine knowledge thereof, is to be taken by the ſcriptures, which hath bene alwaies auouched to them by the Doctors.

Very well ſay they alſo, that it is infinite and incomprehenſible. But when they come to particularities, and to ſhew wherein the omnipotencie lieth and conſiſteth, then forget they holy ſcriptures, and without them do meaſure the ſame, according to the wiſdome and eternall wil of God: & according to the order eſtabliſhed in the world: and as though they remembred no more that ſuch power were infinit, they tie it to the conditiō, proprietie, & natural order of creatures: As though to make ſomething againſt, or aboue the order, condition, & natural proprietie of the creatures, were a thing repugnant to the wiſedome, nature, and wil of God. Behold the ſhort reſolutiō which the Doctors can gather of the Miniſters opinion, touching the omnipotencie of God: which ſhall appeare by their writings and anſweres giuen to the ſaid Doctors. And as touching S. Auguſtine, which they produce for them, he hath bene anſwered heretofore.

The Doctors refer them to their writings, cōcerning that which the Miniſters do falſly tax thē to hold, as a ſufficient argument (to infer ſome matter to be done of God) to ſhewe that he hath power to do it. The reſolutions and obiections of the Doctors do plainly containe the contrarie.

The Doctors are alſo falſly accuſed by the Miniſters, as if they had affirmed the faith wholly contrary to nature. Who haue onely ſaid, that the contradiction ordinarily made to faith, founded vpon the word, commeth from the conſideration of naturall things, againſt the power of God.

Concerning Abrahā, the ſcripture in Geneſis alwaies propoſeth, that he & his wife made ſome difficultie touching the promiſe of God. And cōſidered Corpus ſuū emortuū, & mortuā vuluā Sarae. His owne dead body, & the dead wombe of Sarah: vntil he heard the aſſurance of the omnipotēcie. And S. Paul ſufficiently declareth the ſpeech of Abraham, from his firſt vocation, vntil after ſuch aſſurance, without putting diſtinction in the Hiſtorie, of that which was before, or after ſuch aſſurance: as is that which the Apoſtle ſaith, that he cō ſidered not Corpus ſuū emortuū, his owne dead body, but reſted vpon the aſſurance of the almightineſſe, & of the promiſe made vnto him.

The Doctors ſay: they haue better concluded according to the faith, we ought to haue of the power of God (to make one bodie in diuers places) then the Miniſters haue done: which haue not any word of God to ſettle theyr faith vpō, & to beleeue that God could not do it, or that it repugneth the wiſedome, prouidence, and eternall vertue, or the humanitie of Ieſus Chriſt, yea the nature of a ſimple bodie only. But concerning all that, the Miniſters do truſt in their owne preſumption, and particular reuelation, without one onely paſſage of ſcripture, wherevpon they might ſtay theyr opinion. Contrariwiſe, haue the Doctors founded their faith (not on the power of God onely, to make one body in diuers places, but to beleeue the deed, and that God hath ſo willed) on the holy ſcripture: as in theyr Reſolution is contained: with the paſſages of auncient Fathers, which they to this end haue alledged. Which are ſo plaine, that the Miniſters cannot iuſtly but affirme the ſame. And their ſtarting holes ſhall be cōuinced by the ſimple reading of the bookes.

For all the reſt of the Miniſters reſolution (where are mightie iniuries, Impoſtures, and ſlanders againſt the Doctors) they anſwere nothing: hauing regard to the Miniſters manner of dealing. And the Doctors alſo do well vnderſtand, that it ſhould be loſt labour to teach the Miniſters: who more eſteem their owne particular reuelation, for their whole inſtruction, then all the doctrine and remonſtrance of the Church vniuerſall, and all Chriſtians together. And freely do the Doctors pardon all the iniuries they haue done them, as people voyd of ſound ſence, and without iudgement: which thing they declare, by theyr maner of dealing.

An obiection of the Supper by the Doctors, againſt the anſwere of the Ministers.

WHy the Doctors in the beginning of the conferences haue not touched the Article of the Supper, it ſufficiently appeareth by the firſt dayes Acts. And a deceit it is, which the Miniſters haue done, in taxing them to haue recoyled from entering into that matter. For it ſhall be proued, as well by the offers which the Doctors haue often made, to confer by word for quicker diſpatch of the ſaid matter: and then at more leiſure to put it in writing (which the Miniſters haue refuſed): as alſo by the firſt obiections, which the Doctors propoſed touching the article of Gods omnipotencie: wherby they touched the foundations, vpon which are builded the errors of the pretended reformed religion againſt the reall preſence of the body and bloud of Ieſus Chriſt in the holy Sacrament. And ſhall moreouer be verified, in that the Doctors haue obiected to the Miniſters ſome arguments againſt their Supper, to make them enter into the ſame. Vnto which they haue nothing anſwered: or ſo impertinently (at the leaſt) as one may iudge by the reading of their anſwere, that they fled the Liſts: as yet alſo they do, by their laſt writing: hiding as much as they poſſibly can, what they thinke of the Supper: albeit they haue bene admoniſhed to anſwere therevnto plainely and to purpoſe. Whether the Doctors or the Miniſters retyre, ſhall bee ſeene by effect: For albeit the Miniſters will not anſwer, the Doctors will not leaue to aduiſe them thereof, and to manifeſt to all the world, the intollerable errors which bee in the Supper, and in all the doctrine of the Miniſters: Who beeing demaunded, dare not confeſſe and auouch by writing, what hath beene written by the inuenters of theyr Supper.

Now to begin to ſpeake thereof, the Miniſtrrs do maintaine it to be celebrated according to the ordinances of Ieſus Chriſt, and after the faſhion which the Apoſtles vſed, and all the Primitiue Church whiles it flouriſhed, and abode in it puritie. Wherevpon the Doctors demaund, how long the Miniſters eſteeme the doctrine of the Supper to abide in it puritie? And whether the Church were not then as pure in the doctrine of all the other articles, as of this? Furthermore, whether ſince that time, there is not ſome place in the world, where the true doctrine of the Supper, and of other Articles, haue beene retained and conſerued: and whether ſuch doctrine hath euer continued without interruption? and in what place? and by whom hath it bene preached and ſet forth, and from age to age? The Doctors deſire the Miniſters to make declaration thereof, for that it much importeth. For as much as before Caluin put forth his Catechiſme, there was no memorie, that ſuch doctrine as he taught, had bene held in any Region; and the Supper was not celebrated after the faſhion and maner as it is celebrated in the Church, called Reformed.

The Doctors would willingly cheare vp the Miniſters, who are much diſquieted in their writing, becauſe the Doctors haue ſaid, that their Supper differeth not from a common banquet, except in that it is worſe: as being prophane and polluted.

To meete wherwithall, the Miniſters haue made a great narration of the whole action of their Supper: and by faire ſhewes, which haue a forme of all godlineſſe, they endeuour to make it very commendable, and to couer a new nothing betweene two platters. And contrariwiſe, that they may tread vnder foote and abaſe the thriſe▪precious ſacrifice of the body and bloud of Ieſus Chriſt in the Maſſe, by renting in peeces ſome ſhewe of him: as if they were vſed without reaſon or ſignification, which the Miniſters vnderſtand not, or make ſemblance not to vnderſtand. But things ought not to be priſed and eſteemed by their ſhewes, but according to their value, nature, and truth.

Moreouer, the Miniſters ſhould foreſee, that all the Sects which bee now in the world againſt the Church Catholique, for the act of the holy Sacrament, doo vſe at the leaſt, as faire ſhewe as they. And were they thereof asked, there is not any which would not enforce himſelfe, to proue, that it approacheth nearer to Ieſus Chriſt and his Apoſtles, and the Primitiue Church, then the pretended reformed Religion dooth. Concerning all which, the Doctors referre them to the writings of the Lutherans, Zuinglianiſts, Anabaptiſts, Trinitaries, Maiſter Alaſco, and ſuch like.

For vnreaſonable it is by ſuch faire deceits, to preferre the Supper of the Miniſters, to other Sects: & to iudge it good, holy, vnpolluted, and according to the word of God: but to repute it rather polluted, and defiled with impietie: for as much as it cloaketh a lye in ſtead of truth, and giueth the ſhewe of pietie, to impietie and falſhood.

Alſo the Doctors haue not diſpraiſed the Supper of the Miniſters, for the praiſes therein giuen to God, or for the confeſſion they there make of their ſinnes: or the preaching (if it contained the truth), or for other preparation. But therefore did they ſay it was deteſtable, becauſe, againſt the ordinance of Ieſus Chriſt, it contained not, but common bread and wine: and yet that they attributed vnto it ſome ſpirituall effect, and other faire pretext of godlineſſe. The which is an abhominable thing, and inuentiō of Sathan, who endeuoureth by ſuch maner of Supper, to aboliſh and extinguiſh the true Supper, according to the inſtitution of Ieſus Chriſt, and to depriue the faithfull of the fruite, and veritie of the ſame Supper: in cauſing them to giue common bread onely, inſtead of the body and blood of our ſauiour Ieſus Chriſt. The Doctors could as well recyte the euill ſhewes, as the Miniſters do recyte the good, which be in their Supper: as the ſecrets, the new enterpriſes practiſed vnder colour and ſhadow of aſſemblies made in their ſaid Supper. But to the ende the Miniſters reproach not the Doctors, that Prieſts ſpake of armes, of contributions, &c. they paſſe it ouer with ſilence, and referre them to the thing it ſelf: and wil content themſelues to declare ſome cauſes, whereby they maintaine, that there is no truth in the ſame Supper, according to the inſtitution of Ieſus Chriſt: which are ſuch as follow.

That in the Supper of the Miniſters, and theyr like, no conſecration can be made of the matter of bread & wine which are there propoſed. And that for this cauſe, there is not in the ſame matter any change made, be it before, or in, or after the vſe. And by conſequence that the bread and wine in ſuch a Supper, cannot be but common. That no conſideratiō is made in their Supper: hereby appeareth, firſt, that it belongeth not to all perſons, to conſecrate bread and wine in the Supper: but onely to thoſe that by impoſition of the Paſtors and Biſhops hands, are lawfully ordained according to the ſucceſſion from the Apoſtles time, euen vnto vs. Now certaine it is, that the moſt part of the Miniſters of the Church, called Reformed, be not ordained by the laying on of the Paſtors hands, who haue the power by ſucceſſion frō one to an other ſince the Apoſtles. Whereof we muſt conclude, that ſuch Miniſters vſurping the office which pertaineth not to them, cannot make any conſecration, and giue not by conſequence but common bread and wine. Which article ſhall be ſpoken of, when we ſhall entreat of the ſacrifice and Prieſthood. Secondly, to make conſecration of the bread and wine, it ſufficeth not that the perſon be fit to conſecrate the matter: but alſo it is neceſſary, that the lawfull Miniſter by a certaine meane, do make the conſecration: to wit, by bleſſing, and pronouncing of certaine words ouer the matter propoſed; euen as Ieſus Chriſt hath firſt obſerued it. And becauſe the Miniſters (albeit they were lawfully ordained, and that they had authoritie and power to conſecrate) vſe not the bleſſing and pronuntiation of certaine words ouer the bread and wine, (withſtanding that which Ieſus Chriſt firſt did, and then ordained to his Apoſtles and their ſucceſſors ſo to doo) they cannot take any conſecration of the bread and wine, and that in them any chaunge happeneth. Whereof it followeth, that they differ not from common bread and wine, and that ſuch a feaſt and banquet is but common. And that it is blaſphemy to attribute vnto it, the name of Chriſts Supper. Behold, why partly the Doctors haue ſaid, that the Supper of the Miniſters is a prophane and polluted banquet.

The Doctors admoniſh the Miniſters to anſwere to purpoſe and plainely, to the demaunds by them propoſed, which they haue not done: which is the cauſe that the Doctors, leaſt they ſhould trauell in vaine, haue not yet willed to impugne their anſwere: ſummoning them eftſoones to anſwere what is propoſed to them, without drawing backe from the Conference, which (they ſay) they affect ſo greatly. The firſt demaunde was generall for all the Sacraments: to wit, whether the Miniſters did beleeue, that two things were eſſentiall and neceſſary, to the confection of the Sacrament: namely, the matter, or element, and the word.

The Miniſters anſwere, that the Sacrament in it perfection conſidered, conſiſteth in three things, &c. They ſpeake indeterminately: ſo that one cannot iudge, whether they vnderſtand theyr ſaying of the Sacrament, which they call the Supper onely: or generally of all, as they were demaunded. Although becauſe they alledge Ireneus, one may coniecture, that they meant but of the Sament of the Supper.

Moreouer it behoueth to note, that which they adde (in it perfection conſidered): to haue alwaies a ſtarting hole, when ſpeech ſhall be made of the eſſence of the Sacrament. The Doctors require that the Miniſters anſwere to the queſtion propoſed generally of all the Sacraments. For there is lyke reaſon as touching the eſſence of the Sacraments in generall. And that they openly declare what things be eſſentiall, and neceſſary to a Sacrament, to be made a Sacrament: without ſpeaking for the preſent of the perfection of a Sacrament, containing the eſſence and ſpirituall fruites, which be not of the eſſence of the Sacracrament.

To the ſecond demaund, the Miniſters anſwere no more pertinently then to the firſt. And namely where the Doctors haue demaunded, whether it behooued to vſe certaine words for the confection of a Sacrament: and what word was neceſſary for the Sacrament of the Supper. The Miniſters haue ſayd, that the lowe and ſecret ſpeaking of certaine words, addreſſed to the elements, was not the word neceſſary to the confection of a Sacrament. But they demaunded not, whether it behooued to pronounce that word, with a lowe, or high voyce: but the Interrogatory was, whether there be any words neceſſary to make the Sacrament, that one ought to pronounce ouer the matter, or in adminiſtring the matter: and that they might be ſuch words for the Supper. And it is not ſufficient to ſay, that the word, by which the ordinance of Ieſus Chriſt is declared, is the word of the Sacrament: but it behoueth to anſwere, in what words conſiſteth that word, and when it muſt be pronounced.

As touching the ſixt and principall demaund, the Miniſters anſwere not clearly, and to purpoſe: but make a captious anſwere: by which one may conceiue what is their opinion of the preſence & participatiō of the body of Ieſus Chriſt in the Supper. And ſo temper they their ſaying, that there is no Zuinglian, nor Almaniſts, which confeſſeth not thereof as much, or more then they: To wit, that they are conioyned to our Lord Ieſus Chriſt, & that they poſſeſſe him in the power of their faith, and by the operation of his holy ſpirite, to be made fleſh of his fleſh, and bones of his bones, &c. But this is farre off from the demaund: to wit, whether the faithfull in the Supper receiue into theyr ſoules, beſides all the graces ſpirituall (among which is the communication with our Lord Ieſus Chriſt) his true bodie and blood, really, truly, and ſubſtantially? And whether the Miniſters in the Supper make not diſtinction of the ſubſtance contained and perceiued in the Sacrament, with the fruites thereof proceeding? And for more breuitie, the Doctors demaund, whether the Miniſters do receiue, and approoue, that which Caluin hath written of the Supper, and of that they receiue thereof in his Catechiſme, Institution, and other bookes.

As touching the ſeauenth demaund, the Miniſters haue not vnderſtood what hath beene propoſed to them, touching the Concomitance: For they haue taken it, as if one demaunded, whether it were lawfull to receiue the Sacrament vnder one onely kinde or no. Whiche was not as then put in queſtion. But ſuche a difficultie was propoſed to them: namely, whether in theyr Supper, when one hath receiued the bread, before hee receiue the wine, he do participate of the true body of Ieſus Chriſt, without hee be partaker of his bloud, vntill hee haue taken the wine: or hauing eaten the bread, whether he hath receiued the body and bloud, before he take the Cup? To which demaunds, to auoyd vaine blotting of paper, the Doctors admoniſh the Miniſters to anſwere, without wandering, and to render open confeſſion of their faith. And that the Doctors may knowe, what doctrine they ought to impugne or approue.

As touching the articles of the Maſſe, the Doctors reſerue them to their proper place: which is of the ſacrifice of the body and bloud of Ieſus Chriſt. After it ſhalbe knowne and proued that they be preſent in the Supper and holy Sacrament.

The fourth of Auguſt, the yeare aboue ſaid.

The Miniſters anſwere to the writing of the Doctors, ſent vnto them by my Lord the Duke de Niuernois, the morning, being 7. of Auguſt. 1566.

THe Miniſters leauing aſide whatſoeuer is ſuperfluous, and from the purpoſe in the writing of the Doctors, as be theyr repetitions and rehea • ſalls: diſſembling alſo their iniuries and accuſtomed ſcoffings, (by which they much more proue the hate they beare to the truth, and the Miniſters, then the queſtions by them propounded) will onely ſtay on the points which ſeeme to require ſome anſwere.

The Miniſters firſt ſay, that they taxed not the Doctors to haue reſtrained the Church in a certaine place, but to a certaine company, and to the traditions giuen, followed, and by the ſame approued. And they magnifie God, that the Doctors doo now acknowledge the Catholique Church to ſtretch through the world: and that it is not incloſed in the boundes and limits of the authoritie, and traditions of the Romane Church: which the Miniſters confeſſe to haue beene then much eſteemed of the auncient Fathers, when errours, abuſes, and vices, did not as yet there abounde, as ſince they doo. But now that all things almoſt are there corrupted, as well in manners, as in doctrine: and that nothing is there more odious, then the word, the light, the trueth, and the power of God. The Miniſters do ſay: that as the ſtate of the ſame Church hath beene chaunged, ſo ought to bee alſo the eſteeme and reputation in which it hath beene: adding therevnto, that in whatſoeuer degree of honor ſhe hath bene formerly lifted, ſhe hath not neuertheleſſe beene eſteemed by the Fathers for the vniuerſall Church, nor her Biſhop for vniuerſall Biſhop: As by that which Saint Ierome wrote thereof to Euagrius: and by that which concerning the ſame, was determined in one of the Cone. 3. C. 26.Councells of Carthage, appeareth.

And as touching the reformed Church in France, the Miniſters doo not ſay, that it is the vniuerſall and Catholique Church, but only a member of the ſame: And that it hath it foundation, not vpon the opiniō or authoritie of men: but vpon the doctrine & writings of the Prophets & Apoſtles. Moreouer, as touching the proteſtations of Charitie and zeale, whereby the Doctors feare to bee forced vnto Inuectiues and purſuites which they make againſt the Miniſters, and other the faithfull, by the example (as they ſay) of Saint Augustine, and other Biſhops, which in time paſt ſolicited the Magiſtrates againſt the Donatists: theyr proceedings and faſhion which they haue, and ſtill doo vſe towards the ſayd Miniſters, and faithfull, do euidently declare, that with falſe tokens they ſhrowd themſelues by theſe examples. For as much as the Catholiques, whome they alledge, exhorted the Magiſtrate to vſe all moderation and mildn • ſſe towards the Donatists and other heretiques; and to aſſay all meanes to reduce them, before they came to the rygor of paines and iudgement. And further, they endeuoured to containe and repreſſe the fury of the people, and to hinder theyr open violence vpon them. Whereas they contrariwiſe, doo ſtirre vp againſt the Miniſters, the people and Magiſtrates, by ſlaunder and falſe imputations▪ and by all other faſhions & meanes they can inuent for this purpoſe.

Touching the Omnipotencie of God, and the definition thereof, which the Miniſters haue propoſed, drawne and extracted out of the bookes of Saint Augustine: the Doctors in theyr laſt writing, produce no new thing, to cauſe them leaue the • ame. For that they alledge of the Angels, which can do whatſoeuer they will, and by that meanes ſhould be almightie as well as God (if the aboueſayd definition of his Omnipotencie had place) is an example from the purpoſe, and which cannot prooue that there is in the Angels any ſuch power, as in God. For certaine it is, that theyr will and power dependeth elſewhere, and that God ruleth ouer them, to chaunge, ſuſpend and hinder them as he pleaſeth, and as he can do in all other creatures. Which none can ſay of God, without blaſphemy. Howſoeuer it be, If the Doctors will reproue the definition of Gods Omnipotency propoſed by the Miniſters, they deale not with them, but with S. Augustine: For as much as the ſaid definitiō was word for word copied out of his writings.

The Miniſters do maruell, that after they had ſo amply declared to the Doctors, what they thought of Gods Omnipotencie, and ſhewed, that it ſtretched not indifferently to all things which men in theyr fooliſh phantaſies, may conceiue or imagine: the Doctors will eftſoones harpe on that ſtring, alledging that God can do wiſely, what fooles do fooliſhly imagine. For manifeſt it is, that fooles can imagine many things which are impoſſible to God. As for example, that there is no God. Pſal. 14. and 53. That hee is corporeall, as thought the Anthropomorphites. That the world is eternall: as thought the Peripatetiques. That there was two beginnings: as taught the Manichees. All which thinges, can no way without blaſphemie be attributed to the Omnipotencie of God. But that which more contenteth the Miniſters, is, that our Maiſters, after ſo long and ſharpe combat in this Article, and ſo of • en crying blaſphemie, when the ſayd Miniſters propoſed the truth thereof, are conſtrayned in the end to accord with them, and follow the interpretation and reſtraint which the Miniſters themſelues had giuen touching the Omnipotency of God: as it appeareth by a ſentence of theyr laſt writing, whereof the words are ſuch. The Doctors ſay: That all things imaginable to man, are poſſible to be done with God, without any exception: but of thoſe things which imply contradiction, to be, and not to be. What reaſon then is there, that for the things (whereof the Miniſters and Doctors agree, that they ought to be excepted out of Gods omnipotency) the Miniſters in excepting them, be held for blaſphemers, & not the Doctors, which ſay & confeſſe the ſelfe-ſame thing? Now this propoſition that a naturall body (yea that of Ieſus Chriſt) is in diuers places at one ſelfe-ſame inſtant, is in the ranke of things which imply contradictiō: as it hath bin already ſufficiently proued. Therfore the Miniſters cōclude, that the omnipotency of God cannot be referred & extended thervnto.

The Doctors doo afterwards charge the Miniſters with foure horrible blaſphemies (as they ſay) grounding themſelues vpon that which the Miniſters in defending that one body could not be diuers places at one inſtant) haue ſaid, that it repugned the truth, wiſdome, and omnipotency of God. Which thing, the ſaid Doctors finde ſo ſtraunge, and farre from reaſon, that they would not vouchſafe to ſtaie to refute it: thinking it was vnworthie of anſwere, and that it ſufficed to haue recyted the ſame. Wherevnto the Miniſters anſwere▪ that it is a very eaſie and readie meane, to rid them ſpeedily of all the difficulties wherein they finde themſelues wrapped, to ſay, that it is a blaſphemy, and vnworthie of anſwere.

The Doctors yet make inſtance to the Miniſters, and ſay: that it behooueth them to ſhewe by the word of God, that one bodie cannot be in diuers places at one inſtant. Wherevnto the Miniſters ef • ſoones anſwer; that it is for the Doctors to proue the contrary by one text of ſcripture: to wit, that one body may be in diuers places at one ſelfe-ſame inſtant: ſeeing that they are proponents in this Conference, & the Miniſters reſpondents: and that neuertheleſſe, they haue heretofore ſhewed them by liuely reaſons, drawne from the ſcripture, and the eſſentiall proprieties of God, frō. the nature of bodies, and the authorities of Fathers: that the thing in queſtion was wholly impoſſible.

And touching the argument which they thus make, God can change the order which he hath eſtabliſhed in nature. Therfore can he alſo cauſe that one body at one inſtant be in many places. The Miniſters denie the conſequence, and yeeld reaſon therof: for as much as ſuch a matter ſhould not onely change the order, but ſhould wrap vp alſo a contradiction: the which, by the confeſſiō of the Doctors themſelues, is excepted out the omnipotencie of God. The Doctors in the article following, do but reproach the Miniſters, for they confound and obſcure what had bene clearly propoſed by the Miniſters, in their laſt writing. By means wherof, let them make (if they will) more large an anſwer, and expound themſelues better. Where the Doctors accuſe the Miniſters to haue maliciouſly concealed the word [place] in the matter of circumſcription of a meaſured body: the Miniſters ſay, that it was not needfull to adde that word expreſly there. For as much as there is no man ſo ignorant, who (hauing vnderſtood that a body is circumſcript) but doth preſently inferre, that then it is compriſed in a place certaine.

As touching the Camell, if they be not contented with that alreadie ſaid thereof, then let them reade what Saint Ierome hath thereof written, in his firſt booke againſt the Pelagians: who expounding the words of Ieſus Chriſt, ſaith as followeth. In this hath the Lord not ſaid, that it may be done: but hath compared one impoſſibilitie with an other. For as a Camell cannot enter through the eye of a needle: ſo the rich ſhall not enter into the Kingdome of heauen. Now if thou canſt ſhewe that the rich man there entereth, it will alſo follow, that the Camell may paſſe through the eye of a needle. And alledge not vnto me Abraham, and the others, which we read in the old Teſtament to haue bene rich, and which being ſuch, were entered into the kingdome of heauen, becauſe they (well vſing their riches, and imploying them to good workes) haue by that meane ceaſed to be rich. Behold what S. Ierome writeth. Thē, as it is neceſſary (after the ſaying of S. Ierome) that for the ſaluation of the rich man, there be a mutation and changing in his heart; yea and that hee ceaſe to be rich, to the end hee may enter into the kingdome of heauen: ſo alſo it behoueth, that there be a chaunge in the Camell, and that hee ceaſe to be ſuch: that he may be made to paſſe through the eye of a needle.

As touching the article following, the Miniſters ſay, that by the grace of God, they may diſcerne the light from darkneſſe, and falſhood from truth. Which is the cauſe, that they cannot approue, neither the arguments, nor concluſions of the Doctors, touching the being of one body in many places at one inſtant: being well aſſured by good and certaine teſtimonies of the ſcripture, that all whatſoeuer the Doctors will proue, not elſe-where proceedeth, then from the ſpirit of error and falſhood. Which wil retaine by that meane, the impietie and Idolatrie, which hee hath formerly eſtabliſhed in the world, to the ruine almoſt of all Chriſtendome.

As touching the verbe [Dierchesthai] the Doctors finde themſelues much hindred to ſaue their penetration: which they can no way found vpon the proper ſignification of that word: as hath bene ſhewed them by the paſſages produced vnto them, not vpon any authoritie of the ſcripture.

To that which the Doctors alledge (to proue that faith commeth in part of our ſelues, & not wholy of God) that Nemo credit niſivolēs, (to wit, that none beleeueth but willingly) the Miniſters anſwer: that (vnder our Maiſters correction) it is nought to the purpoſe: for as much as this will and conſent is of God: who worketh in the faithfull, both the will and the deed. Which thing S. Auguſtine in one of his Epiſtles, verie well teacheth, where he ſaith: That when God calleth men to ſaluation, he findeth not in them any good will at all: but that he worketh and createth it in their hearts, if he wil finde it there. And that of S. Paul which the Doctors alledge, that we are coworkers with God, ſerueth nothing for their purpoſe: For the Apoſtle ſpeaketh not there but of the Miniſtery. And meant no other thing, then what hee writeth therof more clearly in the 2. to the Corinths, in theſe words: 2. Cor. 5.We are Embaſſadors for Chriſt: as if God exhorted by vs. And touching that which they adde, that none of all the auncient Doctors euer taught, that one body could not be in diuers places at one ſelfe-ſame time: The Miniſters ſay yea. As they haue ſhewed in their former writings, where the paſſages of S. Auguſtine, Ad Dardanum: and in the 30. tract vpon S. Iohn, and others haue bene alledged.

The Miniſters anſwere not but to two points onely, of all that the Doctors haue touched in theyr aduertiſement. The firſt is, that theyr Sermons, theyr writings, theyr diſcipline obſerued in theyr Churches, the cenſures which they paſſe for ſcandalous offences therein committed, the care which they, and the Superintendents haue, to diſcouer, reprooue and correct them: the paine which they take to reforme whatſoeuer is diſordered, and the publique prayers, which in all places they make to theſe endes: defend them with all good people: and iuſtifie them againſt the ſlanders of the Doctors. The ſecond is, that the Doctors in theyr ſayd aduertiſement are deceiued, in that they haue ſaid, that Abraham doubted of the promiſe. Which is wholy contrary to that which the Apoſtle in the 4. of the Romanes thereof writeth. Where, in theſe proper termes he ſaith: And he nothign doubted of the promiſe of God through vnbeliefe, but was ſtrengthened in the faith, and gaue glorie vnto God.

For anſwere to the Doctors laſt Obiection, made (as they ſay) agaynſt the anſwere giuen by the Miniſters to theyr former Queſtion, vppon the matter of the Supper▪ Although the ſayd Doctors, do faigne not any way to affect delaie in the Conference and Diſpute of the Supper, and of the Maſſe: yet can they not perſwade any perſon of any iudgement, that they haue not hetherto retyred, and doo yet drawe backe from entering thereinto. For notwithſtanding ſome requeſts preſented by Madame de Buillon and the Miniſters, ſome declaration which my Lorde the Duke of Niuernois hath made therevppon, of his will and deſire to bring them therevnto: yet by all the meanes aboue-ſayd, hath it not beene poſſible to obtaine of them, that (all other thinges ſet apart) they would in good earneſt, conferre with the Miniſters of the two points aforeſaid.

Which thing the Miniſters perceiuing, and not deſiring to depart from them, without conference firſt had therof: haue often proteſted to diſpute no more with them, till theſe two Articles were firſt decyded and reſolued. And to this ende propoſed certaine Theſes by order and good methode, as well of the one as of the other: to the ende they ſhould well aduiſe what in the ſayd Theſes, they would gainſay and withſtand.

The Doctors hauing diſſembled the ſame, in ſtead of purſuing of them, doo propoſe other friuolous and vnprofitable queſtions, taken and drawne from theyr Schoole diuinitie.

And although the Miniſters had iuſt occaſion to grieue, that theyr Theſes were omitted by the Doctors: neuertheleſſe, to the ende they ſhould haue no more ſhadowe nor colour of delaie, the Miniſters haue alſo anſwered to their laſt queſtions. But now in ſtead of following theyr Anſweres, and impugning of them, if any way they could: they propoſe againe newe queſtions, no leſſe abſurd and friuolous then the former. Whereby each one may euidently knowe theyr hypocriſie and diſſimulation. And that pretending a willingneſſe to conferre of the two foreſaide pointes, they doo in the meane time, what in them poſſiblie lyeth, to drawe them from the Conference thereof: to the ende, it may breake off, before that this matter be cleared. By meanes whereof, the Miniſters for concluſion, and reſolution of all the Conference, determine by Gods grace, to couch briefly by writing, and in the cleareſt manner they can, all what God hath taught them concerning the ſame; and what they haue learned thereof by his word: as well to ſatisfie the debt and bond which they haue to God, and his honour, to obey my Lord of Neuers, and Madame de Buillon: as laſtly, for the contentment and edification of the whole Church.

The Concluſion and reſolution of the points, as well of the Supper, as of the Maſſe, containing a declaration of that which the Ministers beleeue concerning the ſame: and teache thereof in their Church by the word of God.

THe end and chiefe felicitie of men, is to Pſal. 37. 28.be conioyned with God, and to abide in him: For as much as it is the only meane by which all their deſires can be contented and ſatisfied: and by the which alſo, their mindes and hearts can be plainly freed and deliuered, from the hard and cruel bondage of ſinne, and of all the paſſions, greedie deſires, feares & diſtruſts, which do aſſaile 1. Cor. 13▪ them. Which was the cauſe, why S. Paul placeth perfect beatitude, and entire repoſe of the bleſſed in this: that God 2. Cor. 6.is all in all in them. But for as much as men be naturally corrupt and wicked, and contrariwiſe God in all perfection, is pure and holy: the difficultie is to knowe and chooſe the meane, by which they may approach vnto him. Seeing that there is no ſocietie betweene light and darkneſſe, nor any communion betweene righteouſneſſe and vnrighteouſneſſe. In them cannot this meane bee found: by reaſon, that of themſelues they are wholly vnable, and vncaple to relieue themſelues from the miſerie and curſe, into which they be caſt headlong.

So that, beeing blinde of vnderſtanding, they cannot know their owne good: nor ſeeke it, being rebels and hearthardened: and therefore of neceſſitie muſt they goe out of themſelues, and ſeeke the aboue ſaid meane in Ieſus Chriſt: who was giuen them of the Father, to bee their righteouſneſſe, 1. Cor. 1. Iohn. 14. Epheſ. 3.wiſedome, ſanctification, redemption, way, life, and truth. Then reſteth it now to knowe, how they may bee vnited and conioyned with him. The Apoſtle dooth teach vs, that the ſame is done by faith, by which Ieſus Chriſt dwelleth in our hearts, and abideth in vs: ſo Iohn. 17.that hee and wee are made one, and hee and his Father are one.

Now, there are two principall cauſes of this faith, the one outward, and the other inward. The inward is the holy Ghoſt, who is called the ſpirit of faith: for as much as he is 2. Cor. 4. 13.the Author thereof, and createth and bringeth it forth in the harts of men: mollifying and diſpoſing them to receiue with all obedience, the word and promiſe of God, which is preached vnto them by the faithfull ſtewards, and Miniſters of the ſame.

Rom. 10. Which word, is the outward cauſe of faith. And as the ſame faith groweth, and riſeth by degrees, euen ſo doth the vnion which we haue with Ieſus Chriſt, and by his meanes with God: vntill (as ſaith S. Paul) wee all meete together in Epheſ. 4.the vnitie of faith, and knowledge of the ſonne of God, vnto a perfect man, and vnto the meaſure of the age of the fulneſſe of Chriſt.

The increaſe of faith is wrought by the working and power of the holy ſpirite, who was the firſt beginning and author thereof: and afterwards, by the continuance of the word purely preached and denounced: and finally by the lawfull vſe of the Sacraments, ordained as ſeales for the certaintie and confirmation of faith, and aſſurance wee haue of the foreſaid coniunction with God through Ieſus Chriſt, and of the participation of all the good things, grauntes, gifts, graces, and bleſſings, which by his fauour are purchaſed and gotten for vs. As of the remiſſion of ſinne, of our regeneration, of the mortification of the fleſh, and the luſts thereof. To ſignifie which things, and more amply aſſure vs of the exhibition and enioying of the ſame, Baptiſme was ordained of God: to the end, that in the water which is powred vpon our bodies, and in the promiſe of God which is therevnto added, we may behold (as it were with our eies) the inuiſible grace which God vouchſafeth vs, to waſh and cleanſe vs from our ſpirituall filthineſſe, and to fanctifie vs, and make vs new creatures: As alſo to further aſſure vs alwayes of life eternall, and make vs growe in the hope wee haue thereof, by the participation of the fleſh of Ieſus Chriſt, crucified for our redemption, and of his bloud, ſhead for remiſſion of our ſinnes: the bread and the wine are diſtributed vnto vs in the Supper, by the ordinance of Ieſus Chriſt.

But as the Miniſters acknowledge, that there is a vnion, and ſacramentall coniunction betweene the outward ſigne, and thing thereby ſignified: ſo (ſay they) on the other ſide, that betweene them two, there is ſuch a diſtinction, that the one ought neuer to be confounded with the other: nor the ſpirituall thing in ſuch ſort faſtened to the corporall, (which repreſenteth the ſame) that the one without the other, cannot be receiued: or that the two by neceſſitie bee alwayes inſeperably conioyned together. Whereof it followeth, that they erre, which will haue the bread in the Supper to bee chaunged into the ſubſtance of the bodie of Chriſt Ieſus: And they likewiſe which will haue him to be conioyned, and corporally vnited therevnto. So that whoſoeuer receiueth and taketh the ſignes, (bee hee faithfull, or vnfaithfull) taketh and receiueth forthwith the thing by them ſignified. Which error, with the moſt part of others happening in this matter, proceedeth of not well comprehending nor conceiuing what it is to eate the body, and drinke the bloud of Ieſus Chriſt. Which thing ought not to bee vnderſtood, in ſort as corporall meates are taken and eaten, but after a ſpirituall manner onely: as is declared in the ſixt of Saint Iohn: which in this conſiſteth; that Ieſus Chriſt dwelleth in vs, and we in him: and is done by the faith we haue in him: as teacheth S. Auguſtine in the 25. tract vpon S. Iohn, ſaying: Why preparest thou the belly, and the tooth? beleeue, and thou haſt eaten. And in the third booke and 16. Chapter de Doctrina Christiana: where he ſaith as followeth: When Ieſus Chriſt ſaith: except yee eate the fleſh of the ſonne of man, and drinke his bloud, ye haue no life in you. It ſeemeth that hee commaundeth to commit ſome great offence. It is therefore a figure, wherby we ought to vnderſtand no other thing, but that it behoueth to communicate with the paſſion of the Lord: and to retaine in our memorie, that his fleſh was crucified and wounded for vs.

The eating then of the fleſh and body of Ieſus Chriſt, is no other thing, then a ſtraight coniunction and vnion wee haue with him: which is made by the faith wee adde to his promiſes. Euen as by the mutuall promiſes made and receiued betweene man and woman, the marriage is concluded, and ſetled betweene them. And although being ſo conioyned, they be ſometimes by ſome occaſion ſeperated, and remoued the one from the other, as touching their bodies, yet for all that, do they not leaue to be one fleſh, and one body, by meanes of the ſocietie and matrimoniall familiaritie which is betweene them. In like caſe, albeit that Ieſus Chriſt (with whom wee are conioyned and vnited by the faith and truſt which wee haue in him, and his promiſes) bee as touching his bodie, reſident in heauen, wee yet abiding vppon the earth; and that by meanes thereof, there is great diſtance and ſpace betweene him and vs, as touching his bodie: that neuertheleſſe hindereth vs not, to bee fleſh of his fleſh, and bones of his bones: that hee is not our head, and wee his members: that hee is not our husband, and wee his ſpowſe: that wee bee not of one ſelfe ſame body: that wee bee not engrafted into him, that wee be not cloathed with him: that wee abide not in him, as the boughes and buddes in the Vine. And there is neither diſtance of times, nor places whatſoeuer it be: there is no difference of times, which can hinder ſuch a coniunction, and that the faithfull eate truly his fleſh, and his bloud. For as the auncient Fathers, albeit they were two or three thouſand yeares before Ieſus Chriſt dyed, yet left they not to communicate in his fleſh crucified, and to eate the ſame ſpirituall meate which we eate, and to drinke the ſame ſpirituall drinke which wee drinke. The faithfull alſo which are come twelue or fifteene hundred yeares after, leaue not, what place ſoeuer they be in, to participate (as did the Fathers) in the ſame meate, and in the ſame drinke, which they haue done. And no other difference there is betweene the eating of the Fathers which were before the comming of Ieſus Chriſt, and of them that haue followed him, but the reaſon of more or leſſe: that is to ſay, that there is in the one, more ample and expreſſe declaration of the good will of God towards vs, then in the other. Whence muſt be concluded, that from the beginning of the world vnto the end, there neuer was, nor ſhall be other coniunction betweene our Lord Ieſus Chriſt and his Church, then ſpirituall: that is to fay, wrought by the ſpirit of God. For euen as there is but one faith in the Fathers and in vs, which reſpecteth alwayes on the one part and the other, our Lord Ieſus Chriſt: ſo are we not alſo otherwiſe conioyned with him, then they haue bene. As then it is ſo, that the Fathers haue had no other ſocietie nor communion then ſpirituall: It followeth thereof, that we alſo are not, nor can be otherwiſe, then ſpiritually cōioyned with him. Neuertheleſſe it is not ſaid, that wee and the Fathers are not fleſh of his fleſh, and bones of his bones: and that all together, doo not partake as well in his humanitie, as in his diuinitie. But that which wee ſay is: that all this participation which wee haue in him, is by the operation & vertue of the holy Ghoſt: which thing, Chriſt Ieſus in S. Iohn, ſpeaking of the meane of this coniunction, teacheth clearly, when he ſaith: The Ioh. 6. 1. Cor. 10. things which I ſpeake vnto you, are ſpirit and life. And S. Paul alſo, when hee ſaith: Our fathers did eate the ſame ſpirituall meate, and dranke the ſame ſpirituall drinke. Now when wee ſpeake of this ſpirituall eating, common to vs, and to the Fathers: it muſt not therfore be thought, that we reiect the holy Supper of the Lord, or any way thinke that the ſame vſe of bread and wine is ſuperfluous: no more then the vſe of the water in Baptiſme. For our Lord knowing the blockiſhneſſe of our vnderſtandings, and the infirmitie and weakeneſſe of our hearts, and through the pittie he hath of vs, willing to helpe and remedie the ſame: hath not contented to haue left vs the miniſterie of his word, to aſſure vs of the participation which we haue in his fleſh, & in his bloud, and in all the good things thereon depending: but hath alſo willed to adde therevnto, the ſignes of bread and wine, which he hath as ſeales to his word, to ſeale in our hearts, by the vſe of the ſame, the faith we haue of the foreſaid coniunction by his word. So that it ſufficed him not to haue contracted a couenant with Abraham, by the word and promiſe which he made vnto him: but added moreouer therevnto the ſigne of Circumciſion, as a ſeale, for more ample confirmation and aſſurance of the ſaid couenant.

To the end then, that each one may vnderſtand what is the Supper of the Lord, and what the Miniſters do thereof beleeue and teach: it is meete to conſider and acknowledge in the ſame, three things. Firſt the ordinance of the Lord contained in his word, and declared by his Miniſterie, according to his commaundement: by which this holy cerimony hath bene ordained and eſtabliſhed in the Church, for the edification and entertaining of the members thereof: which thing muſt bee diligently obſerued, to haue it in that honour and reuerence as appertaineth; and not to place it in the ranke of other cerimonies, which haue no foundation nor reaſon to authoriſe them, but the onely will and tradition of men. Neuertheleſſe heed muſt be taken, that by the inſtitution, and ordinance, whereof we make mention, we vnderſtand not, a certaine pronuntiation of words, or any vertue which is hidden in the ſame: as do the Prieſts of the Romane Church: who by ignorance and ſuperſtitious opinion which they haue, thinke to haue conſecrated, and tranſubſtantiated the bread and wine in the Maſſe, by the vertue of fiue words: Hoc est enim Corpus meum. For this is my body, breathed and pronounced ouer the Elements. Wherein they are greatly deceiued and abuſed: for as much as the word which is the formall cauſe of the Sacrament, is not a word ſimply ſaid and vttered, but a declaration of the inſtitution and ordinance of God, made by the Miniſter, according to his commaundement: and a preaching of the death of Ieſus Chriſt, and of the fruite thereof: by which, the hearts of the hearers are lifted vp vnto the contemplation, and meditation of his benefite, and their faith ſtirred vp and inflamed in his loue: and where the ſame ſhall not thus be done, it muſt not be thought, that the Elements be Sacraments. As S. Augustine in the 80. Tract vpon Saint Iohn, in theſe termes teacheth: Whence commeth this vertue to the water, that in touching the body, it waſheth the heart, ſauing that it is done by the word: not becauſe it is pronounced, but becauſe it is beleeued?

This word is the word of the faith which wee preach. Rom. 10. 9.This (ſaith the Apoſtle) to wit: If we confeſſe with our mouth, that Ieſus is the Lord, and beleeue in our heart, that God raiſed him from the dead, wee ſhall be ſaued. And continuing his ſpeech, hee addeth in the end theſe proper words: to wit, This word of faith which wee preach, is that (doubtleſſe) by which baptiſme is conſecrated, to the ende it might waſh vs.

Of this, as before, do the Miniſters inferre two things. The one is, that the word of conſecration is not (as is ſaid) a ſimple pronuntiation, but a publike and manifeſt declaration of the inſtitution and ordinance, and of the whole myſterie of the death of Ieſus Chriſt. The other, that the ſignes and Elements conſecrated, are not chaunged as touching their nature and ſubſtance: but onely as touching the vſe and ſignification: and that onely, during the action wherein they doo ſerue. For to conſecrate the ſignes (as the water in Baptiſme, and the bread and wine in the Supper) is no other thing, then to depute and make them ſerue to an holy and ſacred vſe, by the publike declaration of the ordinance of God, made to this ende: and not to chaunge them as touching theyr nature and ſubſtance. The which (vaniſhing away, and beeing aboliſhed) there ſhould remaine no more of the ſigne, nor (conſequently) of the Sacrament. Euen ſo then, as the water in baptiſme, after conſecration, abideth water, without that the nature or ſubſtance thereof in ought chaungeth or altereth: So alſo the bread and wine in the Supper, remaine as touching theyr ſubſtance, ſuch after conſecration, as they were before: elſe ſhould there not bee Analogie, nor mutuall agreement betweene the ſigne, and the thing ſignified. For what compariſon or conformitie is there betweene the accidents of bread, and the truth of the body of Ieſus Chriſt? Seeing that the accidents of bread, as the whiteneſſe and roundneſſe, deſtitute of theyr ſubſtance, (as the Sophiſters doo falſly imagine) could not nouriſh, nor ſuſtaine the bodie: and by that meane, ſhould not be proper to ſignifie, that the fleſh and bloud of Ieſus Chriſt doo nouriſh and ſuſtaine our ſoules.

This then muſt bee holden for a thing reſolued, that the bread and the wine abide in their ſubſtance: which thing is clearely prooued by that which Ieſus Chriſt (ſpeaking of that hee giuen his Diſciples to drinke in the Supper) calleth it, namely: fruite of the Vine. Which cannot Math. 26.bee applyed to accidents, but ought neceſſarily to bee vnderſtood of wine in it proper ſubſtance. Alſo 1. Cor. 21.by that which Saint Paul ſaith: calling the Elements of the Supper three ſeuerall times bread and wine: yea after they haue beene conſecrated. Alſo by that which hee ſayeth elſe-where: Wee which are many, are one bread 1. Cor. 10. and one body: for as much as wee are all partakers of one ſelfe-ſame bread. For there hee will teach vs by the compariſon of bread and wine, hee propoſeth vnto vs, that as it is compoſed of many graines, ſo paſted and mingled together, that one cannot diſtinguiſh nor ſeperate one from an other: So alſo ought all the faithfull in the Church to be ſo conioyned and vnited together in one ſelfe-ſame body, that it ſeemeth and appeareth, they are members one of an other. Now very fooliſh and from the purpoſe ſhould this compariſon be, if the bread which we eate in the Supper, and vpon which this compariſon is founded, were not true bread. Alſo by that which Gelacius Biſhop of Rome, writing againſt Eutiches ſaith: The Sacraments (ſaith he) which we take, is a thing diuine: and neuertheleſſe doth it not ceaſe to bee ſubſtance and nature of bread and wine. Alſo by that which writeth Theodoret in his firſt Dialogue, and in theſe proper termes: The Lord hath honoured with the name of his body and of his bloud, the viſible ſignes which doo repreſent them: neuertheleſſe without changing the nature of them, but onely adding grace to nature. The ſame Author in the ſecond Dialogue, ſpeaking likewiſe of the bread and wine, which are diſtributed in the Supper, ſaith as followeth: After ſanctification theſe miſticall ſignes depart not from their nature: for they abide in their proper ſubſtance, forme, and figure. By meanes whereof, one ſeeth and handleth them after conſecration, nor more nor leſſe then he did before. Alſo by that which ſaith S. Iohn Chriſostome, writing to the Monke Ceſarius, whoſe words are ſuch. In the Supper we call that which is preſented bread, before it be ſanctified: and after ſanctification thereof, by the diuine grace, and meane of the Miniſter, it hath no more the name bread, but of the body of the Lord: neuertheleſſe, the nature of the bread is there ſtill remaining.

By the paſſages aforeſaid, as well of the holy ſcripture, as of the auntient Doctors, and others, which might be yet alledged for this purpoſe, it appeareth, that the bread and wine in the Supper abide alwayes (as hath bene ſaid) in their proper nature and ſubſtance, as well after conſecration, as before. And it muſt not be doubted, that the faith of the auncient Church hath not euer bene ſuch: and that tranſubſtantiation was not ſetled nor holden in the Romane Church for an Article of faith, vntill the time of Innocent the third.

To gaineſay and reiect whatſoeuer hath bene ſaid touching the nature and ſubſtance of ſignes, which remaine after conſecration, the aduerſaries of this doctrine do ordinarily alledge, that which Ieſus Chriſt ſaith, ſpeaking of the bread in the inſtitution of the Supper: Take eate, this is my body: And reſting vpon the naturall, and proper ſignification of the words, they obſtinately defend, that the ſubſtance of bread vaniſheth in the conſecratiō: and that there remaineth no other ſubſtance, but that of the body of Ieſus Chriſt. The reaſon thereof is, becauſe they obſerue not the figures and maner of ſpeaking; which be ordinarie and vſuall in the holy ſcripture, alwayes, and as often as the matter of the Saments is queſtionable. For then the name of the things ſignified, is ordinarily attributed to the ſignes, which do ſignifie and repreſent them: as the name of a couenant is attributed Gen. 17. Exod. 12.to Circumciſion: becauſe it was deputed to ſignifie and confirme the ſame.

Tit. 3. The Lambe, for like reaſon, is called the Paſſeouer: and Baptiſme, the waſhing of regeneration: not becauſe they bee like and ſemblable things, as the ſignes and myſteries ſignified by them: but for the conformitie that is betweene them, the ſignes (as ſaith Saint Augustine) take oftentimes Epist. 23.the name of the things which they repreſent. The error then commeth, becauſe they take and vnderſtand the faſhions and maners of figuratiue ſpeeches, as if they were proper and naturall.

Now that this kinde of ſpeaking: Take yee, and eate yee, This is my body, is figuratiue, it appeareth by that which our Lord Ieſus Chriſt addeth after the Cup, ſaying: This Cup is the new Testament in my bloud, which is ſhead for you. Where he calleth the Cup, Testament, and new Couenant in his bloud. Wherein it behoueth neceſſarily to confeſſe, that there is a figure, and that without the ſame, they cannot well vnderſtand, nor fitly interpret the ſaid paſſages: For it is a thing manifeſt, that a couenant (which is a contract and bargaine betweene parties, made and conceiued vnder a certaine promiſe and word) is not wine. And neuertheleſſe it is ſo called by figure: for as much as the wine which is diſtributed in the Supper, and as the ſeale, by which the ſaid couenant is ſealed, and the faith thereof confirmed. By ſuch, and like manner, this ſentence [This is my body] which is as much to ſay, as this is the new Teſtament in my body, which is giuen for you, muſt bevnderſtood and expounded. For as by the effuſion of his bloud, the new Teſtament was confirmed: ſo was it alſo by the death of his body. And a better Interpreter of the words of Ieſus Chriſt, then Ieſus Chriſt himſelfe, muſt not bee ſought for. For certaine it is, that what he hath ſaid of the Cup, is as it were a glaſſe, & cleare and familiar expoſition of that he had more briefly and obſcurely ſaid of the bread. This alſo is proued by that which S. 1. Cor. 10. Paul ſaith: The bread which we breake, is it not the Communion of the body of Chriſt? which is a manner of figuratiue ſpeech. For as much as (to ſpeake and vnderſtand properly) the bread, which is a corporeall and materiall thing, is not the Communion which we haue in the body of Ieſus Chriſt, which is a ſpirituall and inuiſible thing. And neuertheleſſe it is ſo called, becauſe it is the ſigne thereof, to repreſent it vnto vs, and to aſſure vs of the ſame. As commonly we cal the ſigned and ſealed Letter, which containeth the declaration of the laſt will of a man, his Teſtament: although it be not his Teſtament, but is properly the declaration, which he hath verbally made of his ſaid will. But it is ſo called, becauſe it is the inſtrument and teſtimonie thereof.

Now, as the ſcripture and auncient Fathers, as well to recommend and aduance the dignitie of the ſignes, and to hinder therby the contempt of them: as for the agreement and likeneſſe which is betweene the ſignes, & the thing ſignified, haue ſometimes attributed the name of the ſame things ſignified, to the ſignes which repreſent them: and ſpeaking of ſignes, haue vſed figuratiue ſpeeches. At ſome other times alſo haue they ſpoken of them properly, to take away all occaſion of abuſe thereof, and to hinder that in taking the ſignes without any diſtinction, for the things by them ſignified, men ſhould attribute to them the effects, which appertaine not but to the things onely which they ſignifie. Of theſe two diuers reaſons, & maners of ſpeaking, examples there are, as well in the ſcriptures, as in the auncient Fathers. Of the firſt, we haue an example in Circumciſion, when it is called by figure a Couenant. Gen. 17. 13. And of the ſecōd, is there likewiſe an example in the 11. verſe of the ſame Chapter: where Circumciſion is properly called a ſigne of the Couenant. Another example there is, of the firſt maner of ſpeaking which is figuratiue, in Exodus 12. 11. where the Lambe is called the Paſſeo-uer of the Lord. And of th • ſecond maner of ſpeaking which is proper, the example i • in the ſame Chapter & 3. verſe, where the blood of the lambe is named a ſigne. In like manner and ſort, when in the ſcripture mention is made of the Supper, ſometimes is it there ſpoken of bread by figure. As when it is called the bodie of Ieſus Chriſt: or the Communion of the bodie, as before hath bene ſayd: and ſometimes is it alſo taken properly, as 1. Cor. 11.when it ſayd: Whoſoeuer ſhall eate of this bread. Alſo, Let euery man then prooue himſelfe, and ſo eate of this bread. The like diuerſitie in two manners of ſpeaking, is oftentimes founde among the auncient Fathers, in the matter of the Supper: For ſometimes they ſpeake of bread by figure, calling it the bodie of Ieſus Chriſt. As Saint Ciprian, when

Sermon: de Caen • dom.

Epiſt. ad Rustic. Hom. 6. ad pop. Antioch.

Hom. 45. in Iohn. Hom. 27. in 1. Cor. Hom. de Encaenijs. 5 Hom. 26.

hee ſaith: that the bodie of the Lorde is taken with filthie hands, and his blood drunke with a prophane and polluted mouth. And when hee ſaith elſewhere that we ſucke his blood, and faſten our tongues in the woundes of our Redeemer. And S. Ierome, when he ſaith: that Euxuperius Biſhop of Tholoze, bare the bodie of our Lord in a little Oziar Pannyer, and his blood in a Glaſſe. Saint Chriſostome alſo, when he writeth: that Ieſus Chriſt doth not only ſuffer himſelfe to be ſeene, but alſo to be touched and eaten: and that the toothe be faſtened in his fleſhe, and touched with the tongue. And Saint Augustine: With what care take we heede, when the body of Ieſus Chriſt is adminiſtred vnto vs, that nothing thereof fall from our hands to the earth.

All which, with theyr ſemblable Sentences, are figuratiue: and there is no doubt, but to well and fitly interpret them, they that read them ought to bee taught, that in the ſame, the name of the thing ſignified, is applyed to the ſignes which doo ſignifie the ſame: which thing may eaſily bee gathered out of other ſentences, and paſſages of the ſaid Auncients: where ſpeaking properly of the bread and wine, diſtributed in the Supper: they call them ſignes Lib. 4. Cont. Marcion. Lib. 2. Epiſt. 3. and figures. As Tertullian: Ieſus Chriſt (ſaith hee) tooke bread, gaue it to his Diſciples▪ and made his body: when hee ſaith: This is my body: that is to ſay, a figure of my body. And Ciprian: by the wine, is ſhewed the bloud of Chriſt. Alſo in the Sermon which hee made of the Supper of the Lord: As often as we do this, wee whet not the teeth to byte, but wee breake and distribute the holy bread in true faith: By the which wee diſtinguiſh the diuine and humane matter. Alſo in the Sermon hee made de Chriſmate; The Lord hath giuen with his owne hands bread and wine vpon the table, on which hee made his laſt meale with his Diſciples: but vpon the Croſſe, hee gaue vnto the ſouldiers, his body to be wounded, to the ende hee might ſo much the more deepely imprint the truth in his Diſciples: and that they ſhould expound to the people, how the bread and wine were his body and bloud: and how the Sacrament agreeeth with the thing, for the which it was inſtituted. And alſo how a Sacrament is made of two things, and therefore is named with two names, and one ſelfe-ſame name is giuen to that which ſignifieth, and to that which is ſignified. In liturg ſu • Pſa. 3. & cont Adamant. ca. 20. And Saint Baſile: Wee propoſe the figures and patternes of the ſacred body and bloud of Ieſus Chriſt. And Saint Augustine: The Lord feared not to ſay: This is my body: when hee gaue the ſigne of his body. Alſo the Lord receiued Iudas to his Supper, wherein hee commended and gaue to his Diſciples the figure of his bodie. And Chap. 26. in Math.Saint Ierome: After hee had eaten the Paſcall Lambe with his Diſciples, he tooke bread, which ſtrengtheneth the heart of man, and paſſed to the true Sacrament of the Paſſeouer.

To the ende that as Melchiſedecke had done before in his figure, he ſhould alſo repreſent there his true body. S. Ambroſe: Lib. 4. de ſacram. Chap. 5. in Pſa. 22. This Sacrament is a figure of the true body and bloud of our Lord Ieſus Chriſt. Chriſostome: He hath prepared this table, to the ende he might ſhewe vs daily the bread and wine in myſterie and ſimilitude of the bodie and bloud of Chriſt. And ſometimes it happeneth, that one Doctor in this matter expoundeth an other. As one may perceiue it in the conference of two paſſages: the one of S. Auguſtine alreadie alledged: and the other of Tertullian, in the booke De Corona militis: where hee ſaith: Wee very hardly ſuffer any thing of our bread and wine to fall vpon the ground. And in ſtead of that which S. Auguſtine ſaith to the ſame purpoſe, he ſaith: (as hath before bene recyted) we carefully regard, that nothing of the body of our Lord, fall vpon the ground.

Now as in diuers paſſages the auncient Fathers (as hath bin declared) haue vſed the two foreſaid maners, ſpeaking of the Supper, now by figure, now ſimply and properly: ſo it is ſometimes found, that in one ſelfe-ſame place theſe two manners of ſpeaking haue beene vſurped in their writings. As in a Canon of the Councell of Niece, where it is ſaid: It was thus concluded of the table of the Lord, and of the mysterie which is therevpon: that is to ſay, of the worthy body and bloud of Ieſus Christ. At the table of the Lord, we ought not to abide tyed here below to the bread and wine, which bee there propoſed: but to lift vp our hearts on high by faith, and meditate, that on this holy table, is propoſed vnto vs, the Lambe of God, which taketh vpon him the ſinnes of the world; which is ſacrificed of the Prieſts, and not ſlaine. And in communicating truly with his precious body and bloud, we ought to beleeue that theſe things be ſignes of our reſurrection. Whence we may ſee, how the Fathers in one ſelfe-ſame place, haue ſpoken properly, calling bread and wine, the ſignes and Elements, which be preſented in the Supper: and alſo by figure, naming the ſame ſignes, the Lambe of God, which taketh vppon him the ſinnes of the world.

By that which is ſaid, touching the ſaid two manners of ſpeaking, they which read the ſcripture, and auncient Authors, ought to be admoniſhed, carefully to regard, that for default of well diſtinguiſhing the places, where the ſaid ſpeeches are vſurped, they do not confound them: taking that which ought to be vnderſtood by figure, as if it were ſpoken properly: and that which is ſaid properly, as if it were vnderſtood by figure. And it behoueth them alwayes to remember in the reading, as well of the ſcripture, as of the auncient Fathers, what S. Auguſtine hath written in his booke De doctrina Christiana. We muſt beware (ſaith hee) that we take not a figuratiue ſpeech, according to the letter: For herevnto muſt that bee referred which the Apoſtle ſaieth: The letter killeth: and the ſpirit giueth life. So that to vnderſtand that which is ſpoken by figure, as if it were ſpoken properly, is fleſhly wiſedome. And in the end of the Chapter he hath one memorable ſentence: namely, that it is a miſerable bondage of the ſoule, to take the ſignes, for the things ſignified: and not to be able to lift vp the eye of the ſpirit aboue the corporall creature, to draw eternall life.

To come to the third part of the Supper, which is the ſpirituall and heauenly thing, repreſented & propoſed there vnto vs, as well in the Elements, as in the whole action: the Miniſters ſay, that it is Ieſus Chriſt crucified, and offered on the Croſſe to God his Father, for the whole and perfect expiation, and ſatisfaction of all the ſinnes of the world. And that to make vs enioy the fruite of this ſacrifice, and to apply vnto our ſelues the righteouſneſſe, forgiueneſſe of ſinnes, life, the grace of God, and all other fauours and bleſſings, which by the ſame ſacrifice, haue bene purchaſed and obtained for vs: the word and Sacraments haue bene left and ordained for vs, chiefly that of the Supper: wherein, as in a picture, we behold Ieſus Chriſt ſuffering for vs, the paines and ſorrowes of death, paying our debts, cancelling and adnulling the hand-writing which was contrarie to vs: bearing vpon him our malediction, to free vs from the ſame: and by his obedience reconciling vs to God his Father, and appeaſing his wrath towards vs. All which things are repreſented and aſſured vnto vs in the Supper: when with a true faith we preſent our ſelues there, to celebrate the ſame.

The Supper then was not ordained to be a propitiatorie ſacrifice (as the Doctors do teach, and as they falſly beleeue in the Romane Church) but to be a Sacrament, to the ende to renue and alwayes conſerue the memorie which wee ought conſtantly to retaine of the death and ſacrifice of Ieſus Chriſte. Now, betweene a ſacrifice, and a Sacrament, there is great difference. For as much as in a ſacrifice, we preſent our oblations vnto God: and in a Sacrament, God contrariwiſe offereth and communicateth vnto vs, his graces and gifts. Alſo in a ſacrifice for ſinne, there is the death and effuſion of the bloud of the Hoſt and ſacrifice, and not in a Sacrament: but the onely perception and applycation of the fruite and effects of the ſacrifice. In the Supper then, Ieſus Chriſte is not againe ſacrificed: but the fruites of his obedience, and merite of his ſacrifice are there diſtributed and receiued by the faithfull.

Of the reaſons aforeſaid, do the Miniſters conclude, that it is blaſphemy and ſacriledge, to call the bread of the Maſſe, of a Romiſh Prieſt, a wholſome hoſt. And if for proofe therof, they wold alledge the Fathers, in whoſe writings is found, that they call ſometimes the Supper an oblation and ſacrifice: The Miniſters anſwere, that firſt it nought appertaineth to the Maſſe of the Prieſts: between which & the Supper, there is no agreement. And afterwards, that what the Fathers haue ſaid, they neuer vnderſtood it of the propitiatory ſacrifice: by which remiſſion of ſinnes is gotten and obtained. And they haue neuer beleeued nor thought, that there was any other ſacrifice to appeaſe the wrath of God, and obtaine reconciliation and agreement betweene him and men, then the onely ſacrifice of Ieſus Chriſt, made by him alone, one onely time vpon the Croſſe. Three things then in briefe, doo the Miniſters ſay: firſt, that there neither is, nor can be other ſacrificer of the new Teſtament, then Chriſt Ieſus.

The reaſons are, becauſe there is none but he, of whom it hath bene ſaid: Thou art a Prieſt for euer, after the order of Melchiſedeck. Alſo there is none but he, to whom may agree, and be fitly applyed the conditions and eſſentiall qualities of a ſacrificer, and the ſacrifice: Which are, that the Prieſt be holy, innocent, without ſpot, ſeperated from ſinners, and made higher then the heauens: which needed not to offer daily ſacrifices, firſt for his owne ſinnes, and then for the ſinnes of the people. Alſo there is none but he, which is, nor could bee Mediator betweene God and men: which could ſatisfie the diuine iuſtice: which is capable to beare and ſuſtaine the wrath of God: which could tame and conquer death: which by his death, and proper bloud, could worke the confirmation of the new Teſtament: and which (to bee briefe) could in fauour and contemplation of his merits and dignitie, obtaine of God remiſſion of ſinnes, and the other graces needfull for them which truſt in him, and inſtantly deſire him.

Secondly the Miniſters ſay, that there is no other ſacrifice for ſinne, but that of Ieſus Chriſt: That he is the onely Lambe which beareth the ſinnes of the world: that there is nothing but his bloud, whereby our filthineſſe is waſhed: To bee ſhort, that God taketh pleaſure in no other ſacrifice nor oblation: and that hee requireth no other burnt ſacrifice nor offering for ſinne. And that therefore Ieſus Chriſte (as it is written of him in the rolle of the lawe) is come, to doo and accompliſh the will of God his Father.

Thirdly, they ſay of the ſacrifice of Ieſus Chriſt, that it was one onely, and once offered by himſelfe: without that it was euer needfull afterwardes to repeate and reiterate the ſame, conſidering the perfection and vertue thereof, by which ſinne is aboliſhed, and abſolute and eternall ſanctification obtained to all the elect: as it appeareth in the 9. and 10. of the Hebrewes. By meanes whereof, no leſſe blaſphemy it is, nor a thing leſſe contrarie to the doctrine and meaning of the Apoſtle, to approue the repetition and reiteration of the ſacrifice of Ieſus Chriſt, then the pluralitie of ſacrifices for ſinne. And if the Doctors would (as they wontedly haue) to diſguiſe and colour ſuch an abuſe, ſhewe forth their diſtinction betweene the propitiatory and applicatory ſacrifice, ſaying▪ that the Prieſts pretend not in their Maſſes to ſacrifice Ieſus Chriſt for other end, then to apply the merite of his death to thoſe, for whom they celebrate the ſame. The Miniſters anſwere, that in ſo dooing, they ſhould attribute vnto Ieſus Chriſt, more then they do: becauſe all the fruite of his ſacrifice commeth vnto vs, by the application thereof. As healing commeth not ſo much by the confection and preparation of the medicine, as by the application of the ſame.

Furthermore, the Miniſters would willingly demaund of our Maiſters, by what meane the benefite of the death of Ieſus Chriſt, was applied to the Fathers before his comming, ſeeing that as then they did ſing no Maſſes? Well ſeeth euerie man of any ſpirite or iudgement, that ſuch diſtinctions are friuolous, and onely inuented to obſcure the truth, and dazell the eyes of the ſimple and ignorant. For Ieſus Chriſt who hath offered the ſacrifice, is hee himſelfe, which applyeth the ſame vnto vs, by his ſpirite, his word, and his Sacraments.

To returne then to their former ſpeech, and declare why the Fathers haue called the Supper, and all the action thereof a ſacrifice. It behoueth to note, that there are many ſorts of ſacrifices in the Supper: As the ſacrifice of a contrite Pſ. 51.heart, offered by publike confeſſion of ſinnes which there is made. After the ſacrifice of our body, there offered Rom. 12.by publike prayer, which followeth the ſaid confeſſion. Thirdly, the ſacrifice of praiſe there offered, when they ſing Pſalmes after the confeſſion and prayer. After commeth the preaching of the Goſpell, (which is called a ſacrifice, Rom. 15.): then the confeſſion and prayers ended, the Miniſter preſenteth himſelfe to the people, to preach vnto them the word of God. The Almes (which Phil. 4. Heb. 13.is an other kinde of ſacrifice) was heretofore brought forth in the Supper by the faithfull: which would therby teſtifie, not only their remembrance of the graces & benefites of God: but alſo their loue & deſire they had to relieue the neceſſities of their poore neighbors. Beſides all theſe Sacrifices, there are yet in the Supper two particular ſacrifices, wherof mention is made in the writings of the Fathers. The bread and the wine which were choſen and taken of the Almes, brought thither for the poore, and were conſecrated: that is to ſay, deputed and appointed to the holy and ſacred vſe of the Supper. The other is the memorie of the death and ſacrifice of Ieſus Chriſt, celebrated and repeated in all the action of the Supper. The which, for this reaſon is called a Chap. 10.Sacrifice by S. Iohn Chriſostome, vpon the Epiſtle to the Hebrewes, when he ſaith: We make not euery day other Sacrifice, then that of Ieſus Christ. But rather (ſaith he correcting himſelfe) we make the memorie of that Sacrifice. S. Ambroſe calleth it the memorie of our redemption: To the end, that we remembring our Redeemer, may obtaine of him increaſe of his graces in vs. S. Augustine yet propoſeth it more clearly, vnder a compariſon which he bringeth of the dayes of the paſſion, and reſurrection of Ieſus Chriſt: which he thus Epiſt 23.applieth: when the Feaſt of Eaſter approacheth, we vſe oft times this maner of ſpeech: To morrow, or within two daies, we haue the paſſion or reſurrection of Ieſus Chriſt. That cannot properly be vnderſtood of the day wherein Ieſus Chriſt ſuffered death (which is long ſince paſſed): but onely of the memorie of his death, which is ſolempnized and celebrated, as this day, euery yeare. A little after, to appropriate his compariſon, he addeth: Ieſus Chriſt, hath not he bene one only time offered in himſelfe? And neuertheleſſe in the Sacrament of the Supper, not only on Eaſter day, but euery day alſo, is hee offered to the people. Alſo elſewhere: Contra Fauſt lib. 20. cap. 21. The fleſh and blood of this Sacrifice, were before the comming of Ieſus Chriſt, promiſed by the figures of Sacrifices. In the paſſion of Ieſus Chriſt, they were giuen and offered in trueth: And after the Aſcention of Ieſus Chriſt into Heauen, they are celebrated by the Sacrament of remembrance. Of theſe and many other like paſſages, one may deduct, that the Fathers haue often called the Supper a Sacrifice: by reaſon that in the ſame, the memory of the Sacrifice of Ieſus Chriſt is renued and celebrated.

The name of Sacrifice, is by the Auncients often alſo applied to the Almes, which the faithfull brought forth in the Supper. As by Iustin Martyr in the ſecond Apologie: by S. Augustin in the 20. chap. of the 20. book Cotra Fauſt: by S. Ciprian in the booke de Elimoſina: by S. Iohn Chryſoſtome, Hom. 46. vpon S. Mathew. Which thing may alſo be verified by the Canō of the Maſſe it ſelfe, where it is ſaid: We offer to thy maieſtie part of thy gifts & benefits: which ought to be referred to the Almes of the faithfull, which the Miniſter in the name of the whole Church offered to God. They haue ſometimes alſo called the praiers there made, Sacrifices. As S. Ciprian vpon the Lords Prayer. And Euſebius in the 7. of the Eccleſiaſticall Hiſtory. Tertullian in the 3. booke againſt Marcion: where, alledging that written in Malachy, [of the cleane offering], which ought to be made vnto God, from the ryſing of the Sunne, to the going downe of the ſame, ſaith: that ought to be vnderſtood of the Hymnes and praiſes of God. Which S. Ierome (expounding the paſſage aforeſaid) doth alſo confirme.

For concluſion of this matter, the Miniſters ſay: that all the paſſages of the bookes of the Fathers: wherin mention is made of Sacrifice, in the ſpeech of the Supper, ought to be referred to one of theſe kinds aforeſaid. And that it ſhal neuer be found, that they haue ſaid or written, or yet euer haue thought, that there was any other ſacrifice

Ieſus Chriſt the onely ſacrifice propiciatory of the new Teſtament.

The Sacramēt improperly termed a Sacrifice; • y reaſon of the cō currence of theſe 5. Chriſtiā Sacrifices therin: namely: Contrit • ō, Mortification, Praiſes, Almes & celebration of the memory of Chriſt. Euery member of Chriſts Church a Prieſt.

propiciatory, then that alone, which Ieſus Chriſt in his owne body once offered vpō the Croſſe for our redemptiō. And that by means therof, it is certain, that in the Chriſtiā church, he ought to be acknowledged, the prieſt of the new Teſtament. And as touching the other ſacrifices, namely: of a Contrite heart: of the Mortification of the fleſhe: of Praiſes and Almes: and of the ſhewing forth, and memorie of the death of Ieſus Chriſt: they ſay, that it generally belongeth to all the Church to offer them: And that there is no faithfull, nor any member in the whole bodie of the Church, which in this reſpect, is not a Prieſt. As ſaith S. Peter in the 2. Chapter of his firſt Epiſtle. And S. Iohn in the firſt Chapter of the Apocalips. And that we ought for this cauſe, to offer in the Supper ſuch Sacrifices vnto God: As appeareth by the ſame Cannon of theyr Maſſe, by them euilly vnderſtood, and applied to the Sacrifice, which they pretend to make of the body & blood of Ieſus Chriſt; where it is ſaid: For the which, we offer vnto thee: or who offer vnto thee, &c.

Our ſaying of the Sacrifice, that it is common to all the Church, to offer vnto God, Sacrifice of praiſe: ought not to be ſlaunderouſly interpreted: as if we would confound the Eccleſiaſticall Miniſtery, with the ſayd Prieſthood; and by that meanes, ouerthrow and diſturbe the order of the Church: attributing to each one, authoritie and power to gouerne the ſame. For we know well, that the callings be different among the people of God: And that it is needfull, there be in the Church, Paſtors, and Doctors, and other Miniſters (as Deacons and Elders) to well guide and edifie the ſame: as well by the daily preaching of the word, as by the carefull and diligent execution of other things which concerne their charges. But it behooueth notwithſtanding, to diſtinguiſh ſuch callings which be particular, from the Prieſthood aforeſaid: which ought to be generall, and common (as is ſaid) to the whole Church.

It ſhall now be eaſie for all them, which will diligently obſerue the things here before diſcouered, and ſhewed The Maſſe is a corruption and ruine of Chriſts inſtitution in his Supper.forth by the word of God, to vnderſtand and iudge, that the Maſſe, ſuch as is now celebrated in the Romane Church, is a whole corruption and ouerthrowing of the inſtitution of the Supper, which Ieſus Chriſt made, and left in his Church. So that it ſhould be now impoſſible to acknowledge therein, one onely trace or marke of it firſt ordinance. For of a Sacrament which Ieſus Chriſt left in his The ende of Chriſts inſtitution in the Sacrament, aboliſhed by the Maſſe.Church, to edifie and entertaine the ſame in a preſent memorie of his death, haue they made a ſacrifice; whereby the remembrance of that of Ieſus Chriſt, hath bin wholly buried and interred. And herein is there a maruellous thing, and worthy to be well marked. That is to ſay, that that which appertaineth not but to the ſonne of God The Prieſt in the Maſſe moſt impiouſly vſurpeth the proper offices of Chriſt himſelfe.onely, and was impoſſible for any other but him to do: as to ſacrifice for ſin, to reconcile men vnto God, to appeaſe his wrath towards them, and to make interceſſion, to obtaine for them his fauour and aide; the Prieſts do attribute to themſelues. And that which to them was lawfull, and commaunded, and alſo poſſible and eaſie to do: that is to ſay, to ſolemnize the memorie of Ieſus Chriſt, & in taking and breaking, diſtributing and eating of the bread, and drinking the wine, to ſhewe forth his death: they haue wholly caſt aſide. So that one may ſay, that the Prieſts do What Chriſt in celebration of his Supper hath cōmanded, that the Popiſh Prieſts in their Maſſe neglect: and what Chriſt hath not commaunded, and is impoſſible for any but himſelf to do, dare they attempt to do.nothing of all that which Ieſus Chriſt did, and commaunded to be done in the Supper. And that which he did vpon the Croſſe, and that he neuer commaunded man to do, the Prieſts dare enterpriſe, and will do the ſame.

The errors and abuſe, as well of Tranſubſtantiation, as of the Prieſthood, and expiatorie ſacrifice, and of the repetition, of the ſame, which be the principall parts, and as it were the foundations of the Maſſe, haue bene heretofore confuted, and ſufficiently conuinced by the word of God: and by the reaſons which haue bene alledged in the declaration of the parts of the Supper. And nothing more remaineth to caſt downe this Idoll, but to ſhewe, that that which is in the Maſſe, (beſides the abuſes aforeſaid) is not better, nor better founded vpon the word of God. For the adoration which there is made of the bread and wine, is an Idolatrie, condemned and accurſed of God. And it is not like, that Ieſus Chriſt (inſtituting the Supper) would not haue ordained it, that S. Paul (recyting this inſtitution, as he had receiued it of the Lord) would not haue taught it: and that the auncient Church would haue omitted the ſame, had it bene a thing wherein God had bene any way honoured.

Afterward, the ſeperation of the Prieſt from the people, is directly contrary to the Article of the faith, of the Communion of the Church: and to the ende, for which the Supper was ordained, which is to confirme and entertaine due ſocietie among the faithfull, and to binde them alwayes more ſtraightly one to an other. And none can ſay, but that it is an intollerable preſumption, and a manifeſt contempt and diſdaine of the reſidue of Gods people. And a plaine mockery is that which the Doctos alledge to excuſe and couer ſuch a ſacriledge: to wit, that the Maſſe of the Prieſts ceaſeth not to bee good, when thoſe that are there preſent will not comunicate. For firſt it is forbidden them to eate alone in the Supper. And a Supper it is not, where there is not a Communion: as Saint Paul teacheth, reproouing the Corinthians, becauſe they departed one from an other in 1. Cor. 11. 20. 21.the celebration of their Supper. When (ſayth he) yee come together therefore into one place, this is not to eate the Supper of the Lord: For euery man, when they ſhould eate, taketh his owne ſupper afore. And teaching in the ende of the Chapter, the forme which they ought to hold, hee ſayth vnto them: Wherefore my bretheren, when yee come together to eate, tarry one for another. Furthermore, oft times it happeneth, that there are not in their Maſſe, but the Prieſt and the little Clarke, which anſwereth him: whom they will not receiue to communicate with them. Alſo, how can they excuſe the Maſſes which are ſung in Monaſteries: where the people are forbidden to communicate with the Monkes, which celebrate the ſame▪ Moreouer, it is ordinarily ſeene in great Pariſhes of this Cittie of Paris, and elſe-where, euen vppon the dayes that the people Communicate; that they are ſeperated from the Prieſts, who do their buſineſſe apart, and wil not vouchſafe to feed & communicate with them vpon one table. Alſo, what communion is there betweene the Prieſts and the people, ſeeing that in ſtead of breaking in the aſſembly, one ſelfe-ſame bread, (to the end that all the partakers thereof, ſhould bee by that meane conioyned and more ſtraightly cloſed in one body) each one hath his owne particular: the Prieſt, one more great, and the people, one leſſe? Seeing alſo that the Cup is not any way diſtributed to them? Furthermore, what dutie do the Prieſts, to inuite and exhort the people, to communicate with them? yea the Biſhops themſelues? who would at this day repute it great ſhame to communicate with crafts-men, and other inferior people.

To conclude, had the Doctors well noted the cuſtome of the Fathers, which cauſed the Cathecumenians, & others there (not prepared to communicate) to depart the place where the Communion was celebrated: and that likewiſe which S. Iohn Chriſostome ſaith thereof: they would ſhame to defend ſuch an abuſe & impietie, as is that of their Maſſe. And that the people may not bee ignorant of that, which theſe In Epiſt. ad Epheſ. Serm. 3. holy Doctors therof ſaith, we will tranſlate the ſame, word for word. It is in vaine that the daily ſacrifice is made: It is in vaine that we abide at the Aultar; there is no perſon which there communicateth. I ſay not this to the end that yee communicate in any ſort ſoeuer; but that ye yeeld your ſelues worthy thereof: Art thou not worthy to communicate? ſo art thou not worthy to pray. Alſo a litle after: If ſome one were called to a banquet, ſhould waſh his hands, and ſitting at the table, ſhould not eate, nor taste ought of the meates which ſhould there be ſerued: ſhould he not diſhonour and wrong him that inuited him? had it not bin better he had not come there? Euen ſo it is with thee. Thou art come, thou haſt ſung the Pſalme with the reſt of the people: thou hast confeſſed that thou wast of the number of the worthy, in not departing with them which are vnworthy. How then abidest thou, and dooſt not perticipate of the table of the Lord? Thou ſayeſt I am vnworthy. I anſwere thee, that thou art ſo: whereby alſo vnworthy of the Communion of prayers.

Thirdly the gobbets and offalls of Goſpels and Epiſtles, the Symbole, praier, & other peeces of the ſcripture, brought all confuſed, and not hanging together, ſaid and propoſed to the people in an vnknowne language (againſt the expreſſe commaundement of God, and without any edification of the congregation) is no other thing, then a vaine vſurpation of the name of God, againſt the expreſſe prohibition which he hath made thereof. And ſuch robes are too ſtraight and ſhort, to couer the ſhame and filthineſſe of the Maſſe.

Fourthly, what an execrable abuſe is it to ſay, that the Maſſe ſerueth to obtaine remiſſion of ſinnes; not onely for the quicke, but alſo for the dead? And that the Prieſts (paſſing yet further, not to forget, or leaue any blaſphemy behind) do diuide their hoſte into three parts: faigning one part to be for them in heauen: an other for them which are on earth: and the third for them in Purgatorie. For the Sacrament which is not ordained but for confirmation of the faith of the word: extendeth not further then the Miniſterie, nor the Miniſterie further then this life. As then it is ſo, that they which are in heauen, and they likewiſe whom they faine to be in Purgatorie, are dead and departed from An excellent note to proue the Maſſe a ſhifting forgerythis world: we muſt neceſſarily conclude, that as the word cannot be preached to them, ſo alſo the Sacraments cannot be adminiſtred to them. And if they be not adminiſtred to them, that they can profit them nothing.

The end of the Reſolution.

Anſweres to the laſt obiections propoſed by the Doctors, touching the Supper.

THe Miniſters ſay, that many things there are in the ſaid obiections, impertinent to the matter in queſtion: as that they demaund, how long the doctrine abode in it puritie, touching the Supper, and the other articles of Religion. Wherevnto they anſwere, that from the time of the Apoſtles themſemſelues, there were heretikes and Antichriſts: as Ebion, Cerinthus, Simon Magus, the Samaritanes, and others: who by their errors▪ and hereſies, went then about to peruert the Apoſto lique Churches, and corrupt the pure doctrine which was therein. Wherevntothe Apoſtles, by all poſſible wayes, did manfully oppoſe themſelues: reuoking and euer reducing all things to their firſt inſtitution, and foundation of the pure word of God: as we ſee, did S. Paul towards the C • rinthians, and Galathians: whoſe Churches, although he had well planted and watered, were neuertheleſſe corrupred in his life time, as well in manners, as in doctrine. And to that which the Doctors demaund, how long after the deceaſe of the Apoſtles, continued the puritie of the doctrine and Religion in the Church of God, as well in the Article of the Supper, as in others: the Miniſters anſwere, that ſo long time it there continued, as the word of God was followed and preached.

To that which the Doctors ſay afterwards, (traducing the Supper celebrated in the reformed Church) that the Miniſters abuſe thoſe that are there preſent, nought elſe giuing them, but nothing betweene two diſhes: the Miniſters anſwere: that this blaſon much better fitteth the Doctors, then them, becauſe they preſent not to them whom they haue ſummoned to their Maſſes, but accidēts of indiuiſible waues, and the ſight onely of the formes of bread and wine to feed them withall.

A litle after do they call their ſacrifice of the Maſſe moſt precious: whervpon the Miniſters grant that they haue reaſon ſo to exault it: & to attribute thervnto, ſo precious and magnificall a tytle, for the great reuenewes and riches, which this precious ſacrifice hath brought vnto them: wherof may well be ſaid, that it hath bene vnto them a fleece, and golden Myne, more abundant then euer was that of Iaſon; or all the Mynes of the Eaſt. In as much as they haue made the world beleeue (and chiefly the founders of Abbayes, Priories, and other benifices) that their ſacrifices, were vaileable to them for the redemption, remedie, and health of theyr ſoules. Afterwards, without all ſhame do the Doctors call the Supper of the Lord deteſtable, becauſe there is nought therein offred (ſay they) but common bread & wine. Whervnto the Miniſters anſwere, that in their Supper is truly preſented bread and wine to the people; which after conſecration, abide in their ſubſtance, as before: but they denie that therfore the ſaid bread and wine be common: by reaſon (as heretofore hath bene amply declared to the Doctors) that by the preaching of the Goſpell, and recytall of the ordinance of God, both the one and the other is changed (as is ſaid) touching the vſe, but not touching the nature.

To that wherein the Doctors do charge the Miniſters, to make inſurrections, conuenticles, coniurations, conſpiracies, and ſecret practiſes againſt the ſtate of their Prince, vnder colour & pretext of their Supper; the Miniſters anſwer, that the ſame was not to impugne their doctrine, but rather ſhameleſly to deſpight and ſlaunder them. And that the fidelitie of thoſe of the reformed religion, hath bene knowne and proued, to the expenſe of their bloud, and loſſe of their liues. So that the King and his Councell, by his Edict, hath declared them to haue bene very faithfull and well affected ſubiects to his Maieſtie. And wee muſt not maruell if the Doctors thus ſlaunder the reformed Churches; for as much as the Chriſtians in all times haue bin accuſed of like crimes, by the enemies of the truth. As it appeareth by the Apologie of Tertullian, & the booke of S. Auguſtine, de Ci • itate Dei: by the Tract of Saint Ciprian againſt Demetrius: and by the booke of Arnobius, which he wrote againſt the Gentiles.

But the Miniſters much maruell, how the Doctors are ſo ill aduiſed, to alledge the ſuppers celebrated in the reformed Churches, to verifie their accuſations; ſeeing that the ſame at this day, being throughout publikely done, in the eyes and preſence of them that will behold them: there is nothing therein hidden, and whereof each one (if he will) may not eaſily be informed. But this is the zeale and great charitie of my Lords our maiſters (whereof they haue heretofore proteſted, & that by inuocatiō of Gods name) which ſo tranſporteth them to ſlaunder, without ſhame or ſhewe, thoſe whoſe iuſtice in that matter, ſhall anſwere for them before God and men.

Touching that which the Doctors •• erwards ſay, that in the Supper of the Miniſters, no conſecration is made, of the matter of bread & wine, which be there propoſed. The Miniſters do confeſſe, that the bread and wine which be truly in their Supper, are not conſecrated in ſort as the Doctors pretend to conſecrate them in their Maſſe: For ſo they approue not ſuch a conſecration. But yet do they maintaine, that there is in their Supper, conſecration of the matters aforeſaid, in ſort, as they in their articles, and reſolution haue heretofore very largely declared.

The Doctors for proofe and confirmation of that aforeſaid, do adde, that it belongeth not to all perſons indifferently to conſecrate the matter of the Sacraments; but to them onely, which are ordained by the laying on of hands of the Romane Biſhops: wherevnto the Miniſters for anſwer, ſay, that the firſt point, they confeſſe: and alſo (as elſe-where they haue ſaid) that calling is neceſſarie to ſuch a purpoſe. But they denie vnto the Doctors notwithſtanding, that this calling is the impoſition which they pretend: and the Miniſters aſſure themſelues, that their calling is more lawful, and better founded, then is that of the Doctors.

Whereas the Doctors propoſe in the article following▪ that the Miniſters haue not anſwered them clearly enough to their liking, touching the parts of the Sacrament, and of the word required for the conſecration of the matter, which therein is. The Miniſters anſwere, that there is no doubtfulneſſe, obſcuritie, nor any inuolution in their writings, ſauing that which the Doctors will finde therein: the iudgement whereof, the Miniſters referre to the vpright readers. And yet they hold it not more ſtraunge that the Doctors finde their writings obſcure, then did Saint Paul, that his Goſpell was hidden and couert, to them which periſhed. And in whome the God of this world had blinded the mindes.

To that of the preſence of the body of Ieſus Chriſt in the Supper, for which the Doctors require of the Miniſters, a more large declaration, then that they haue giuen in theyr former anſwere.

The Miniſters ſay, that they haue the • evnto clearly anſwered, albeit the Doctor • bee not ſatisfied with their 〈◊〉 whereat they nothing wonder, knowing well it is not theyr cuſtome to be contented if one yeeld not to them what they demaund, and deſire. Which the Miniſters haue not determined to do, much leſſe to exceed in their anſwer the limits and bounds of the ſcripture▪ be it in this article of the Supper, or in others: but rather to follow, as neare as poſſibly they can, the phraſe and maner of ſpeaking of the ſame. By means whereof, for full anſwere, the Miniſters acknowledge no other eating of the fleſh and bloud of Ieſus Chriſt, bee it in the Supper, or out of the Supper, ſauing that which Ieſus Chriſt himſelfe declareth in the ſixt Chapter of Saint Iohn. Whoſoeuer eateth my fleſh, and drinketh my bloud, hath eternall life. Alſo, He that eateth my fleſh, and drinketh my bloud, dwe • leth in me, and I in him. Alſo: As the liuing Father hath ſent me ſo liue I by the Father▪ And he that eateth me, euen he ſhall liue by me.

To the laſt Article, which is of Concomitance, the Miniſters anſwere, that the demaund of the Doctors was not ſo hard but that they had well conceiued it. But they diſſembled the ſame, becauſe they would not looſe time to ſpeake and write of ſuch dreames. And they well thought that the Doctors were ſubtill inough, to vnderſtand that in their denying Tranſubſtantiation, it was not to pro • e their Concomitance. Now for their ſatisfaction, they adde, that they will know no more then that which Ieſus Chriſt himſelfe hath taught in his word. That is to ſay, that in the Supper to participate in his fleſh crucified, and bloud ſhead for the remiſſion of ſinnes, it behoueth to take and eate the bread, & drinke the wine which be adminiſtred, without any way diuiding or ſeperating the ſame. Which thing is alſo forbidden by the Canons, De Conſecr. Diſt. 2. C. Cū omne Crimen.

Finiſhed on Wedneſday the 14. of Auguſt, in the yeare aforeſaid.

This writing being ſent, the Miniſters went ſhortly after towards my Lord of Neuers, to ſhew vnto him, that they for theyr part, had largely treated of this matter: but they well perceiued, that the Doctors by theyr friuolous and impertinent queſtions, hitherto ſought not, but to paſſe away the time, without ought doing in the decyding of the Supper, and of the Maſſe. And albeit they fayned▪ that ſuch demaunds did ſerue for a preparatiue to this diſpute: yet was it to no other end, but not to enter thereinto at all: and to hold things in ſuſpence, vntill length of time ſhould begin to be troubleſome: and by that meane, all ſhould break off. That his lyking might be to make the Doctors vnderſtand, that without turning this or that way, they ſhould come to end the difference: refuting that which the Miniſters had maintained of the Supper, and ſupporting that which they had condemned in theyr Maſſe. Which thing he promiſed them to do. Of which promiſe, began the Miniſters to hope thence forward for ſome profitable matter, and ſeruing to the edification of the Readers, and rooting out of the greateſt abuſe and error that is in the Romane Church. Neuertheleſſe, ſhortly after was it bruted through the Citie, that Doctor Ʋigor was fallen into a very daungerous diſeaſe, and wherof was no hope he ſhould haſt • ly recouer: which made the Miniſters feare, that they were fruſtrate of theyr hope. And yet more did they feare, when they vnderſtood, that the Doctor de Sainctes, was the ſame time departed from Paris, and gone towards Monſieur the Cardinal of Lorraine. For they could not otherwiſe preſume, but that they ſhuld make a long and vnprofitable aboad at Paris: not hauing wherewithall to imploy theyr time. Conſidering▪ they were not there but by accident: to wit, that de Spina was come thither, to paſſe further, and make a voyage into Aniou and the other, who was Miniſter of the Church of Orleance, was lately come forth of priſon, where he had beene brought, in the Moneth of Iune next precedent, vpon a falſe accuſation, ſuborned againſt him by the enemies of Gods Church, which charged him to be author of a pernicious and wicked booke, written againſt the obedience, due to Kings and Princes. Therefore was it very hurtfull for him to ſo • ourn • ſo long a time, in a Citie, whither hee came againſt his lyking.

For theſe cauſes, they purpoſed to returne towards my Lord of Neuers, to ſhew vnto him, the things aforeſaid: and tell him, that De Sainctes (who might haue ſtayed and ioyned ſome other with him in the ſtead of Vigor) was departed thence, without making it knowne when his returne would be: that it was not reaſon, they ſhould ſtay there, being incertaine of that which they had to doo: and conſidering that their Churches had need of them, to execute therin their charges: and that they deſired the ſame. Notwithſtanding, in the end they found it better to ſuffer an inconuenience, and to abide there, vntill my Lord of Neuers departed from Paris: as in the end of the Moneth of Auguſt he ſhould goe to his owne land called Co • lomiers. For ſeeing the Doctors were then abſent, (the Lord of Neuers being departed) the Miniſters could doo nothing: not hauing whom to write vnto, nor with whom to conferre.

Theſe remonſtances being liked by the ſaid Lord, hee gaue them leaue to depart by writing, ſigned, Lodouico de Gonzague: and below, Varin: Secretarie. Dated 26. of Auguſt: wherein were declared the occaſions, here before touched, and remōſtrance of the Miniſters▪ with promiſe made by the ſaid Lord, to cauſe the anſweres which the Doctors would make, to be brought vnto them. And that by the meane of Monſieur de Buci, S. George, who was charged with this buſineſſe. Alſo, the Miniſters promiſed to be readie, were it to returne to Paris: or elſe to anſwere from the place where they ſhould be, as often as the Doctors ſhould write.

Theſe things thus done and paſſed, the Miniſters returned preſently after; ſuppoſing to haue ſome ſpeedie newes from the Doctors. But they haue attended, and yet do attend, without that there hath bene any appearance thereof. And they vnderſtood nothing of that matter, ſauing that many ſeuerall writings were afterwardes cryed and ſolde through the Citie of Paris. In the tytles whereof, ſome found meane to enterlace the word [Conference], to make ſhewe vnto the world, that it was ſomething, touching the former diſputations. And ſuch a ſubtiltie indeed was not without great profit to the Printers. So great deſire had men to know the truth of the thing. For contentation of whom, we haue thought meet, to bring to light what was done concerning the ſame: reſeruing to another time, to publiſh what the Doctors (when they ſhall do it) ſhall write againſt it: and what the Miniſters alſo will there vnto anſwere, if they can recouer the ſame.

In the meane time ſhall each one be admoniſhed to make profit of that which is here contained. And to pray the Father of lights, to ſhead more & more the brightneſſe of his ſpirit vpon his Church, to the true vnderſtanding of his holy word: for the reſtauration, and aduancement of the ſpirituall kingdome of Ieſus Chriſt his ſonne, our Lord. So be it, the 8. of Nouember, 1566.

FINIS.